About This Blog
As expected, the Activist 5 Supremes, in another 5-4 decision, gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in a ruling handed down yesterday.
Passed in 1965, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required specific southern states and other districts scattered throughout the country to submit to the Justice Department any planned changes to voting laws for DOJ pre-approval. The reason specific states and districts were originally targeted in 1965 for pre-clearance of any new voting law changes is because those districts and states had an ugly and long history of discriminating against blacks attempting to vote. After all, U.S. Marshals were sent to southern states back then to guarantee Civil Rights laws there were being implemented.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act simply required specific southern states as well as some districts, like the Bronx, to submit changes to voting laws to the DOJ before implementation. To the five Activists on the Roberts Court, that was just too much of a burden on those states and districts. Even though those states have a long, and current, history of discriminating against minorities seeking to vote.....in his ruling, Chief Justice John Activist Roberts waxed sympathetic towards the poor picked upon states who continue to work the system to deny minorities the right to vote.
While Activist Chief Justice Roberts ruling rightfully claimed that the DOJ still has the power to pursue voter discrimination cases.....he and his four Activist buddies made sure that states with histories of voter discrimination can first discriminate, possibly helping conservatives win elections, ....and then face DOJ charges AFTER elections have already been gamed through discrimination.
Roberts, and his conservative majority sided with those states and districts who have a long history of gaming the election-law system for the sole purpose of denying minorities the right to vote.
"our country has changed", Roberts said in his ruling. "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to the current conditions," he said.
"Current conditions". Even though just 7 years ago, which might qualify as part of "current conditions", the Senate voted 98-0 to extend Section 5 for 25 more years.....five unelected Justices instead declared the nation's historic challenge from voting rights discrimination......over.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Ginsburg pointed out the obvious in yesterday's Roberts Activist Court ruling....
She said in her bench statement that in renewing Section 5 in 2006, Congress "found that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the 15th Amendment."
That 2006 vote in the Senate to renew Section 5 of the Voting Rights act for another 25 years was 98-0. No matter. Five unelected conservative Activists on the Roberts Court flipped the bird to elected members of Congress and the people who elected those members.....and declared that they knew better.
Here are some of the "current conditions" when it comes to voting and Section 5 states.....
Between 1982 and 2006, about 55% of all successful reported cases brought under the nationwide nondiscrimination provisions of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were brought in covered jurisdictions, and covered jurisdictions accounted for over 80% of all reported-plus-unreported successful Section 2 cases.
Opponents of the act say it's no longer necessary because there is less racial discrimination in voting laws than there once was. This is undoubtedly true. But there is still an astonishing level of racial discrimination in voting laws. Since 1982, the feds told the justices in their Shelby County brief, "... approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes had been blocked by more than 750 Section 5 objections, approximately 400 of which involved cases with specific evidence of intentional discrimination." Without Section 5, the feds argue, minority voters would have had to sue individually, at great cost of time and money, in some cases after having lost their right to vote. Like it was before the passage of the statute.
So, 8 out of 10 voting discrimination cases from 1982 to 2006 came from those states and districts who were determined way back in 1965 to be serial voting discrimination offenders. John Roberts considers those numbers and declares voting discrimination in those historically prone-to-discriminate states.....a thing of the past.
I realize that whites....and especially southern whites.....don't like to be labeled voting rights discriminators. Hurts their fee-fees and whatnot. But voting discriminators in southern states can now take heart thanks to Activist John and his See No Evil Quartet.....not only are those poor put upon southern states now free to openly discriminate when it comes to voting, but those southern states also won't have to deal with guilty consciences when they work to keep minority voting to a minimum.
Apparently, still-majority whites are taking back their country.