27th June 2013, 11:57 AM
From the League of Justices. (More actually, but two getting the big news.)
The first is one of Clinton's big mistakes regarding gay rights, the repeal of DOMA. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that one.
The second one is a lot more contentious. The repeal of a very specific part of the voting rights act which targets specific states for oversight on any changes to voting regulations. Those states had a history of passing regulations that discriminated against black people, so it was certainly necessary.
The judgment rendered says that first targetting specific states is unequel by nature, and second that such a stipulation isn't really needed any more because things have changed.
Well, they changed because of the voting rights act.
My opinion on this? A little complex, but namely I think the reasoning behind the decision is just plain wrong in regards to a threat of discrimination. However, I will at least say this. That particular part of the law needed to be UPDATED, not simply removed entirely. Texas has already, the very next day, went ahead with something that very oversight prevented mere months ago. This proves the necessity of the oversight.
However, the oversight needed to be updated, that's for sure, because regulation changes were being snuck in and passed in states that this specific part of the act DID NOT target.
My suggestion? Update the voting rights act with a new replacement stating the scope now applies to ALL states, that ALL state regulations regarding voting NEED to have judicial oversight to prevent discriminatory practices.
If that is done, then it should pass constitutional muster with the supreme court as it no longer specifically targets a state and should provide even wider protection. Things have changed, but in some ways for the worse, as now racists have spread a little deeper into states that previously did not have discriminatory voting regulations.
Bad decision in terms of one of the arguments used, but it COULD lead to an improved voting rights act, but ONLY if congress actually passed what I suggest. If they don't, then the voting rights act as it stands now is gutted and powerless.
The first is one of Clinton's big mistakes regarding gay rights, the repeal of DOMA. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that one.
The second one is a lot more contentious. The repeal of a very specific part of the voting rights act which targets specific states for oversight on any changes to voting regulations. Those states had a history of passing regulations that discriminated against black people, so it was certainly necessary.
The judgment rendered says that first targetting specific states is unequel by nature, and second that such a stipulation isn't really needed any more because things have changed.
Well, they changed because of the voting rights act.
My opinion on this? A little complex, but namely I think the reasoning behind the decision is just plain wrong in regards to a threat of discrimination. However, I will at least say this. That particular part of the law needed to be UPDATED, not simply removed entirely. Texas has already, the very next day, went ahead with something that very oversight prevented mere months ago. This proves the necessity of the oversight.
However, the oversight needed to be updated, that's for sure, because regulation changes were being snuck in and passed in states that this specific part of the act DID NOT target.
My suggestion? Update the voting rights act with a new replacement stating the scope now applies to ALL states, that ALL state regulations regarding voting NEED to have judicial oversight to prevent discriminatory practices.
If that is done, then it should pass constitutional muster with the supreme court as it no longer specifically targets a state and should provide even wider protection. Things have changed, but in some ways for the worse, as now racists have spread a little deeper into states that previously did not have discriminatory voting regulations.
Bad decision in terms of one of the arguments used, but it COULD lead to an improved voting rights act, but ONLY if congress actually passed what I suggest. If they don't, then the voting rights act as it stands now is gutted and powerless.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)