In today's decision, the conservative majority argued that in its time the law has done a lot of good. Indeed, they aren't calling into question the whole law but just Section 4-the trouble being that by knocking out Section 4 they reduce Section 5 which calls for preclearance to toothlessness.
The majority insisted that they acknowledged that even Section 4 at one time served a noble purpose and that it had a major hand in bringing us to the allegedly voter golden age of today-at least they seem to think that the problems of voter disenfranchisement are mostly about the past.
It's interesting to realize, however, that Chief Justice has been opposed to VRA for 30 years-yet he claimed today that it once worked very well, so well, in fact that the problem is mostly solved. He himself now says this:
“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," he wrote. "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html
Yet in the Reagan Administration he was opposed to VRA, nibbling at the edges to see where he could weaken it.
"When he was in his late 20s, John Roberts was a foot soldier in the Reagan administration's crusade against the Voting Rights Act. Now, as chief justice of the Supreme Court, he will help determine whether a key part of the law survives a constitutional challenge."
The majority insisted that they acknowledged that even Section 4 at one time served a noble purpose and that it had a major hand in bringing us to the allegedly voter golden age of today-at least they seem to think that the problems of voter disenfranchisement are mostly about the past.
It's interesting to realize, however, that Chief Justice has been opposed to VRA for 30 years-yet he claimed today that it once worked very well, so well, in fact that the problem is mostly solved. He himself now says this:
“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," he wrote. "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html
Yet in the Reagan Administration he was opposed to VRA, nibbling at the edges to see where he could weaken it.
"When he was in his late 20s, John Roberts was a foot soldier in the Reagan administration's crusade against the Voting Rights Act. Now, as chief justice of the Supreme Court, he will help determine whether a key part of the law survives a constitutional challenge."
"Memos that Roberts wrote as a lawyer in President Reagan's Justice Department during the 1980s show that he was deeply involved in efforts to curtail the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, the hard-won landmark 1965 law that is intended to ensure all Americans can vote. Roberts' anti-VRA efforts during the 1980s ultimately failed. But on Wednesday, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, he'll get another chance to gut the law. Roberts' history suggests a crucial part of the VRA may not survive the rematch."
Mother Jones wrote this back in late February at the start of the case. A crucial part of VRA indeed did not survive the rematch. What you see is that Roberts-and his friends in the Reagan Administration-never tried to defeat VRA whole cloth. When Strom Thurmond tried to kill it outright, Reagan wouldn't follow him there:
"When the chief justice was a young lawyer, in 1981, Southern legislators hoped an ascendant conservative movement could pressure Reagan into opposing an extension of the VRA. In June of that year, Reagan wrote a letter to Attorney General William French Smith requesting an "assessment" of the law. "I am sensitive to the controversy which has attached itself to some of the Act's provisions, in particular those provisions which impose burdens unequally upon different parts of the nation," Reagan wrote. "But I am sensitive also to the fact that the spirit of the Act marks this nation's commitment to full equality for all Americans, regardless of race, color, or national origin." Reagan didn't go as far as former segregationist and then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) by opposing the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, but his administration fought efforts to strengthen the law."
Here we are here 30 years later and Roberts achieved what Reagan dreamed of. Now we're already in a bull market in voter id laws as Mississippi has already joined Texas and North Carolina to bring back their voter id laws with Roberts' carte blanche.
I want so badly to finish on an up note-generally I'm an upbeat guy- so how about this. Anthony Weiner is leading the mayoral race in New York City.
Wow, if we can do this, NYC! Ok, tehcnically I don't live in NYC but Long Island, but, hey, close enough.
I for one am not late to the party either: I've been a Weiner man-yeah, all kinds of puns with that one-from the start. Literally the start of Diary of a Republican Hater. In my first post ever I mounted a defense of him.
I would love nothing more than to beat all the moral scolds and the finger waggers-a group that unfortunately seems to include most NY Democrats, even the Governor and Charlie Rangel. Charlie Rangel is throwing stones! He who is without sin, Governor.
No comments:
Post a Comment