I have a boatload of liberals decrying the unmitigated gall of SCOTUS overriding an act of Congress and the will of the people - The Voter Rights Act.

Yet have no problem with their overriding an act of Congress and the will of the people (of California) with the DOMA and Prop 8 rulings.

I applaud both,  How bout you?

I think the Conservatives on the SCOTUS are trying to play Americans as fools ...

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

I agree with both rulings.

As usual, gregin has it bass ackwards and is trying to flip reality on it's head. Another example of his peculiar projection tick.

The neo-con faction of SCotUS, themselves, are the ones being contradictory.

In the DOMA ruling Scalia wrote a rambling screed, one point of which was that SCotUS should not be at the "apex" of judging the "will of the people", even if that "will" is contradictory to the Constitution.

In the VRA ruling, that same cabal had no problem overruling the "will" of the duly elected representatives of the people, who voted near unanimously to reaffirm Sec 4 of the VRA. In that case, the SCotUS neo-cons appointed themselves the "apex" judgement while removing a protection inherent in the Constitution.

"In the DOMA ruling Scalia wrote a rambling screed, one point of which was that SCotUS should not be at the "apex" of judging the "will of the people", even if that "will" is contradictory to the Constitution. "

Liberals relying on "state's rights" to overturn a big bad federal government law overriding the state's laws; a tyrannical mandate found in Bill Clinton's DOMA.

And liberals have insisted for decades the very term "state's rights" was a 'silent dog whistle for evil white Republican racism'...very confusing, isnt it?

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

But other than that, you are correct that Clinton did sign the law.

So, did the VRA ruling overrule an act of duly elected representatives in congress and thus the will of the people?

Did the DOMA ruling overrule an act of duly elected representatives in congress and thus the will of the people?

In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

No, the ruling held that the VRA is, in fact, Constitutional and that Congress can selectively and seperately monitor voting issues across the states. The ruling only said that the criteria used for the selection process must be updated, not that the VRA itself was un-Constitutional.

So what was your point?

And where are these "boatloads of liberals" of which you speak?

Like comparing cherries and chainsaws....

The irony being that the Court feels that the states are mostly competent enough to license marriages but not necessarily conduct elections.

Oh, and Alito is a total d**k.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

I am okay with both decisions. Sure..there is still racism to some degree..and in some places more than other..but we have progressed to the point where it is not ingrained and institutionalized for the most part.

Section 4 is based on data that is very outdated. Instead of rubberstamping the VRA and extending it as is over and over again..lawmakers should have updated it to make it relevent to the data of today.

" Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Right. And in teh unlikely event that electoral abuse against minorities re-appears Congress can reinstitute the laws that were struck down.

--

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

The decisions seem fine.

The only real worry is the aftermath: If there is still a reason for the VRA to target some states, this congress is never going to get around to addressing it.

So, did the VRA ruling overrule an act of duly elected representatives in congress and thus the will of the people?

Did the DOMA ruling overrule an act of duly elected representatives in congress and thus the will of the people?

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

On this we can agree though most legal types would have used different language to express that thought. 

And yes, for the poster who inquired anout the boatload of liberals, we know I am one of those liberals you had to be referring to. Maybe a peek at the relevant thread would shed some light on the back and forth with you and others and the boatful of liberals/progressives/posters who disagree with the VRA decision.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Baldwin is an actor/celebrity. Whatever your opinion of him what he does and does not do hardly compares to a high court justice.

To say apples and oranges would be the understatement of the century...even in our pop culture society. Baldwin belongs back on the Deen thread. Celecrities behaving badly.

the boatful of liberals/progressives/posters who disagree with the VRA decision.

-----------------------------

How many are from the 9 discriminated states?  4?

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

I already weighed in on this with you. No, I am not from one of the SINGLED out states. The states singled out because of bad behavior to put it mildly.

To call them discriminated states is to negate what they were doing in 1965 that the other states were not doing.

If I was a resident of one of the singled out states, I already posted given who I am I would have welcomed the 1965 VRA as an aid to get my state in line with the other states.

Do you really believe that in 1965 these states were not in need of outside intervention given your understanding of history?