In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act but held that any subdivision or state can elect a “bailout” from its provisions. Although the Court did not, as many conservatives hoped, strike down Section 5, all the justices found “serious constitutional concerns” — or in the case of Justice Thomas, actual ones — which could, in future litigation, invalidate the entire pre-clearance regime. All justices rejected the notion that discriminatory conditions at the time of the Act’s original passage in 1965 are sufficient to insulate it from challenge. Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog had this take:
In the next few years, either a local government that tries but fails to get out from under Section 5’s controls, or a state government covered by the law but convinced it should not be any more, would have quite a good chance of renewing the constitutional controversy that the Court did not decide. The main opinion, in fact, provides what could easily be read as a roadmap for such a future constitutional complaint.
Perhaps one of the main ways to read the Court’s ruling, then, is that it it a warning to Congress that it needs to reconsider Section 5, and shore it up, if it can, with a new formula for coverage, and provide some assurance that it will no longer single out some states to bear Section 5’s obligations in ways that the Court suggested were now unequal.
Todd Gaziano, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Heritage, writes:
All justices also agreed that its prior decisions upholding the pre-clearance provision are no longer valid today and that the renewal of this provision, which constitutes a unique intrusion on the states, must be justified by current needs and conditions. Eight justices also agreed that the differentiation between covered and non-covered jurisdictions “may no longer be justified.” Justice Thomas, the only justice who did not join Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, would go further. He wrote that the Act not only was unconstitutional but that the Court should have so held.
It would have been a very big deal indeed to invalidate the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts, who chose to write the majority opinion himself, wanted to avoid a controversial 5-4 decision in favor of a more united roadmap that would give direction to both Congress and future litigants. In any event, it will be up to future Supreme Courts and new justices to determine whether the federal government can still micromanage a select group of states and jurisdictions more than forty years after passage of the Voting Right Act, and after the country has elected its first African American president.
Obama has put in place policies and laws to abrogate contracts, seize private property, individually target individual journalists who criticize him, subvert the census and reapportionment, increase class resentments, and send groups of supporters door to door to press citizens–in their homes–to support his policies. He has done all this in his first months in office.
In his hard left liberalism and his support for an intrusive, unrestrained government, Obama is a much broader and more insidious threat to our civil liberties than any of George Bush’s wildest proposals. Obama is less a socialist than he is a soft fascist.
Whether you view Obama as a “soft fascist” probably depends on whether his supporters were standing outside your polling place with billy clubs on election day as they were in Philadelphia.
Neocons talking about lawbreaking. Snort. Only slightly less comical than neocons talking about fiscal responsibility.
Dave at # 3 has a version of the new teleprompter-generated troll reply to Conservatives who dare mock the loony Liberals who had robotically screamed for eight years that Bush was “shredding our (i.e., their, like it was reserved for the anointed) Constitution”, when we now point out to them that, by parity of logic, or illogic if you want, Obama now is shredding the, repeat the, Constitution.
This troll reply probably works for the inattentive, i.e., most of the public, alas.
Way to go Dave!
I’d be really interested to hear Obama supporters defend Obama’s recent moves, rather than the usual snarkish “snort” which seems to be the extent of their cirtical thinking.
No matter who you voted for last year it’s got to be hard to explain Obama’s moves these days, then to appear on Jay Leno’s.
Brain don’t function well because of too much snorting.
those AIG bonuses have become … one example of Carteresque “micromanagement”
Somebody had to say it
We could stipulate to Dave’s snorting invective – leaving us only with the sense that Barack Obama is at best an equal opportunity Constitution-shredder: The evil Booosh and the fiendish neocon cabal shredded the big C, we are to believe. Now, the liberals are busily shredding the shreds. The point is, now everyone believes that the Constitution is easily shreddable.
Next stop, when things get really rotten, is either collapse or dictatorship.
I don’t think this Obama character is a dictator we can believe in, however. He strike me more as a teleprompter crying in the wilderness.
CK:
I will note and remember that last line. Classic!
…I should probably have used “would be”‘s rather than “is”‘s in my prior post. Before anyone accuses me of being an alarmist or favoring dictatorship, I’m kidding around at least halfway: The precedents being made are bad, and each new one may further undermine the foundations of our republic, but I think the odds still greatly favor normal elections and political business, continued susceptibility to reform and restoration of credibility, going forward. However, since we’ve had a doomsday clock with hands nearing nuclear midnight for a couple of generations, and since it’s lately been somewhat fashionable for prognosticators to attach precentages to the likelihood of a new depression, I don’t think there’s much wrong with opening up a new index on likelihood of political emergency or breakdown. I’m not sure what form it should take, as I don’t expect there’d be a whole of trading on a “Coup in US” Intrade contract…
Incompetent or not, they came for my rochefort cheese, who knows what they’ll take away next. . .
#8, CK: “I don’t think this Obama character is a dictator we can believe in.”
I hope you’re right.
However, they said similar things about Hitler, that nonentity,
that little wannabe Mussolini (teleprompters were not
in use then, but there were other methods to enhance oratorical
success. Some are discussed in Mein Kampf. )
The man’s personal qualities may not be the decisive factor here.
What gives me cause for optimism is not his character,
but the basic character of this country, which is likely to reassert
itself…
I’m so solidly in basic agreement with you folks, but I can’t share your pessimism. This has happened so may times before, and just when you think the forces of (I won’t say “evil” but can’t think of better word right now) will inevitably triumph, the worm turns, and the power, and the ball, is suddenly in our court.
Historically, when this happens, our guys do only marginally better than their guys did. But a margin is a margin, and worth it.
2010 is now looking very good for us. If we win, precisely what will we do to make the voters glad they gave us that victory? We will just be a little but better than the the hyperbolic incompetents of the Obama administration? Would that be something to be proud of?
Contra – to say the least, it’s quite speculative. In my unwritten dystopian novel, an Obama-like figure would come along, and his abysmal failures, likely accompanied and deepened by national humiliation and the undeniable inefficacy and corruption of the larger political class, would set the stage for dictatorship. Like you, I don’t see willing submission as being in our character, but I do see it as a potential in the human character, not to mention something for which there are different kinds of precedents in our history. Under certain circumstances, dictatorship would be a reasonable response to a crisis – something we may have recognized when building monuments to the presidents who assumed quasi-dictatorial power in their time. They were flawed men, as are all men, but there wasn’t a Hitler or Mussolini among them, and I’d like to think the reason wasn’t only that we were lucky.
#13 – I’m not counting any chickens. If the elections were being held next month, I think Republicans would pick up seats, but I’m not yet convinced that we won’t experience enough of an economic recovery, however superficial, to limit Republican gains to marginal ones at best in 2010. That assumes, of course, that no great shocks or setbacks skew the narrative.
None of which is to say that I think it’s a waste of time to think about what conservatives should be seeking and offering, and even to explore in specific terms how we’d approach the range of likely scenarios. Even if all Hell doesn’t break loose somewhere, in the case of economic recovery it’s not hard to imagine gas prices creeping back up to last Summer’s range, for instance. That one played rather well for conservatives – it seemed to be getting us back in the game bigtime when the economic squall hit.
Ever since that brief moment when McCain-Palin was leading in the polls, the dynamic reform duo, I’ve thought that it was as close as I’ve seen in years to a winning and unifying, post-Rove message from the right. Recent events seem to point to the need for a weightier fiscal/economic component. Absent an unpopular war or other major initiative to oppose, foreign policy is unlikely to dominate in a mid-term. What would help, as ever, would be a simple, cuts like a knife proposal or set of proposals, but those don’t come around just by wishing.
CK-
I’ll repeat a mantra I’ve posted before, and probably will again. In America, elections are not won, they are lost. And the Obama folks are well on the way to the loss. Given their incompetent performance, and barring divine intervention that rescues the economy for them, they are toast. It is time to think about what comes after the Republican revival of 2010. A failure to do so will out us back into 2004.
…to be continued.
J-Rub kvetching about SIGNING statements? That’s farcical – and, aside from the fatc that they’re perfectly leagl, it wasn’t Bush’s USE of signing staements – it was his ABUSE of signing statements.
And you don’t like that new 90% tax on AIG bonuses? What J-Rub calls POPULIST rule, others might call DEMOCRACY – you know, when the representitives of the nation pass a law and the president signs it – sorry J-Rub – THAT IS RULE OF LAW – just imagine this is Iraq, and just imagine that our congress is running around with Purple thumbs – and THEN you’ll get it…
“So the minority party is largely alone in complaining about these sorts of things.”
Pretty funny, J-rub…Rising star Eric Cantor and more than half of the HOUSE republicans voted for it…
“I don’t think this Obama character is a dictator we can believe in, however. He strike me more as a teleprompter crying in the wilderness…”
Would it make you feel better if he kept note cards in his pocket?
Oh, right, that’s a MAJOR difference…
Today’s Republican party – they HATE teleprompters…
#14, CK: “In my unwritten dystopian novel”
Now might be the time for it.
Sales of “Atlas Shrugged” Soar
#18
——————
“What J-Rub calls POPULIST rule, others might call DEMOCRACY – you know, when the representitives of the nation pass a law and the president signs it – sorry J-Rub – THAT IS RULE OF LAW -”
——————
Gee, everything I’ve ever seen indicates the above to be an example of REPUBLICAN process, rather than democracy, but maybe that’s a little too nuanced for #18.