Sickening-supreme court set to strike down Voting rights act

[Politics_Guy25]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_voting_rights

Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and scalia are a grave threat to all we hold dear.

[AllentownJake]

1. We are making some gains in the south

Virginia and North Carolina in particular. These fuckers don't want that to spread.

[elleng]

2. Your headline is VERY misleading.

Only a 'portion of the voting rights law () is under challenge.'

'The law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get approval in advance of making changes in the way elections are conducted. The idea behind it is to prevent discriminatory measures from being put in place.

The court is being asked by a small Texas utility district to strike down the extension as an unconstitutional intrusion into the domain of state and local governments that have made substantial progress since the era of Jim Crow and government-sponsored discrimination.'

[annabanana]

5. "have made substantial progress"

How confident are you that these advances won't be reversed? How confident is the African American community in the States where these provisions are in force??

[elleng]

7. The matters you mention are inferential;

my point is factual. The entire Act is NOT at issue in this case; that is my point.

I have NO confidence about the future; neither does Mrs. Justice Ginsburg.

[Better Believe It]

8. Right. Only the heart of the Act is threatened. Small potatoes.

Sarcasm

[BlooInBloo]

9. Don't let it get you down. It's just shit people who like to whine about "reverse racism" say.

[bluestateguy]

3. If that is how the Court rules, I predict Eric Holder will ignore them

At the end of the day, the Court is powerless to enforce their rulings.

[DatManFromNawlins]

10. And Holder is powerless...

... to ignore the court. If the Supreme Court strikes down part of the voting rights act, then Holder has no right to enforce it.

[bluestateguy]

13. Watch him

Mr. 39 posts.

[rurallib]

4. You sure on Kennedy?

Certainly it is 4 - 4 plus Kennedy.
And now we see why the 2004 election was so important.

[ruggerson]

6. Doesn't the voting rights act just promote "identity politics"?

(sarcasm)

[Political Heretic]

11. This is pretty misleading. Only a section of the voting rights act is in question.

Which requires certain states or areas that have been designated as having negative racial history to clear any election changes it makes with the federal government prior to making them.

Honestly, I could go either way on that prevision.

[jillan]

12. They only heard the case the other day and won't make a decision until the end of June...

so let's not jump to any conclusions, okay?