Some things are just so outrageous, they demand a reaction.
Based on the questions and statements of the Justices during oral arguments, it is highly likely that the Supremes are going to strike down the heart of the Voting Rights Act.
Scalia virtually cast his vote during the arguments when he called the act another example of "racial entitlement," as if protection of voting rights is some sort of favoritism.
Roberts cherry picked data which was both out of date and based on a small sample with a large margin of error, and that PolitFact.org has rated "half true," to argue that Massachusetts has (he used present tense despite old data) a lower black to white voter ratio than Mississippi, as if that were even germane.
Other comments were made by Justices during the arguments to suggest that the bad old days are over. The south has changed. And, no doubt, it has. But we are not yet living in a post-racial world, and I wish the Justices understood what a famous son of the south, William Faulkner, meant when he said "the past isn't dead. It isn't even the past."
3 comments:
Ok, I have been falling down on my "duties" to be disturbed by your quoting of people with opinions.
While we are at it, let's request that the UN send observers to our elections. How can it be that 57 precincts in Philadelphia and 39 precincts in Chicago cast 100% of their votes for Obama and zero for Romney? Voter fraud is an old trick of the Democrats, remember that Kennedy should not have been elected, Johnson was first elected by fraudulent means, etc.
I was surprised when we registered to vote in Virginia. No ID required. Hell, you have to provide a photo ID to do just about anything in this country...except to vote. We could have, I suppose, voted several times and in several states.
You are correct that this is not a post-racial country in a post-racial world, but this may not be the central issue...in fact, it is not. You have been a proponent of judicial activism when it agrees with you.
On the other hand, although I think this issue (and why was Alaska included? I thought all worthwhile racial issues had to do with the south and blacks?) needed to be dealt with and changed, it is unfortunate that the only place it could happen is in the Supreme Court. There is no Democrat in the country that could look at this without eyes the size of dinner plates exclaiming, "No matter how just, I will lose votes." So the correct course of action, legislation, was barred, and unfortunately is also unavailable for other similar matters.
The point about "judicial activism" is that it is one more right wing hypocrisy.
Also, my espousal of activism is usually related to issues on which there is no clear-cut constitutional statement, e.g. same-sex marriage. The constitutional power to ensure voting rights is not vague. It clearly is in the hands of congress. And now you're, what? upset that congress is made up of politicians?
I have called our constitution imbecilic, and I still think so, but it is clear on this point.
Far from being barred, the correct course of action was followed by Congress. Something like 80% of representatives from districts affected by Section 5 of the VRA voted for its extension. You are the one who likes to say that people at the local level have the best understanding of what is needed in their districts.
Based on the disenfranchisement created by gerrymandering in states not affected by the VRA, which is why the Republicans still have control of the House despite losing the popular vote, it is clear we need more voting rights protection, not less.
And another thing. The fact that we are not living in a post-racial world is very much to the point, if not the whole point.
One of the Fab Five Justices actually suggested in a question from the bench that the racial situation in the affected districts "is better now, right?" To which the answer should be "yes, so what? Is it going to be still better in ten years if we invalidate the VRA today?"
Post a Comment