Shelby County V. Holder
I previously blogged about this decision here.
Again the famous four US
Supreme Court justices dissented in this decision about provisions in the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), i.e. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Their dissent comprises more than half of the pages of the entire Opinion.
I have previously analyzed the
Four Judges contorted reasoning in my blog post about the Obamacare decision,
see here.
Justice Ginsburg’s Permanent Conflict Of
Interest
Justice Ginsburg will be
forever infamous for her incredible remarks
in Egypt that she would not recommend the US Constitution anymore as a
model. I think, these remarks by a Justice of the US Supreme Court in a foreign
land are bordering on impeachable or treasonous. Her views represent a
permanent conflict of interest, which would require any decent judge to resign
immediately or recuse herself from any future case.
Why Did Justice Ginsburg And The Three
Other Liberals Dissent?
Once more these Four Liberals
come up with not much more than mediocre reasoning as if ideological bias is
clouding their judgment.
Quotes from their dissent
opinion and comments (Emphasis added):
1.
“With overwhelming support in both Houses,
Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 [of the Voting Rights Act of
1965] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far
made; and second, continuance would guard
against backsliding.”
[If there was or will be any remotely possible backsliding, Congress is free to
enact a new law when the time comes.]
2.
Then these Four summarize their credo ““[V]oting
discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.””
[I do doubt it.]
3.
“Early attempts to cope with this vile infection
resembled battling the Hydra [between 1865 – 1965]. Whenever one form of voting
discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.
This Court repeatedly encountered the remarkable “variety and persistence” of
laws disenfranchising minority citizens.”
[Yes, without the VRA, the Justices would have been busy for another few
decades. Instead the big, central government became busy to supervise a few
states in contravention to the US Constitution. There is a huge difference
between a high court carrying out justice and a big government mandating and
coercing its subjects.]
4.
“Answering that need, the Voting Rights Act
became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified
exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.”
[No exaggeration her or?]
5.
““The Justice Department estimated that in the
five years after[the VRA’s] passage, almost as many blacks registered [to vote]
in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina
as in the entire century before 1965. … On that matter of cause and effects
there can be no genuine doubt.”
[Would not something similar even have happened anyway without the VRA thanks
to civil unrest and activism? These Four Judges feel so cocksure.]
6.
“…auguring that barriers to minority voting would quickly resurface were the
preclearance remedy eliminated.”
[This is laughable!]
7.
“Congress reauthorized the VRA for five years in
1970, for seven years in 1975, and for 25 years in 1982.”
[Looks like Congress was much smarter and more responsible in the early years
to reauthorize than in 1982 and 2006.]
8.
“In mid-July [2006], the House considered and rejected four amendments, then passed the
reauthorization [of the VRA] by a vote of 390
yeas to 33 nays. … The bill was read and debated in the Senate, where it passed by a vote of 98 to 0.”
[Seriously, there were only 33 no votes in the House and 98 yes votes in the
Senate! Incredible and irresponsible by our elected representatives. And
President Bush signed this into law?]
9.
“In the long course of the legislative process, Congress” amassed a sizable record.” … (describing
the “extensive record” supporting Congress’ determination that “serious and widespread intentional discrimination
persisted in covered jurisdictions”). The House and Senate Judiciary
Committees held 21 hearings, heard from scores of witnesses,
received a number of investigative
reports and other written documentation
of continuing discrimination in covered jurisdictions. In all, the legislative
record Congress compiled filled more
than 15,000 pages. … The compilation presents
countless “examples of flagrant racial discrimination” since the last
reauthorization … Congress also brought
to light systematic evidence that “intentional racial discrimination in voting
remains so serious and widespread in covered jurisdictions that section 5
preclearance is still needed”
[Unfortunately, I do not have the time to verify the substance of this claim,
but I have my serious doubts about the merit. We all know, that so called
witnesses before hearings in Congress are sometimes like a Sandra Fluke.
Investigative reports are often not much more than biased misrepresentations.]
10.
“For three reasons, legislation reauthorizing an
existing statute is especially likely to
satisfy the minimal requirements of the rational-basis test.”
[What kind of test is actually the so called rational-basis
review, whose modern version dates back to 1938 New Deal area? I don’t
think this phony test has any basis in the US Constitution. So anything enacted
by Congress that sounds rational and is supposedly supported by 21 hearings and
15,000 pages is constitutional as long as it can somehow be based on the US
Constitution? You got to be kidding! The judiciary has a more important role to
play in the Checks and Balances. I don’t think these Four Justices understand
the full scope and weight of Checks and Balances.]
11.
“I [Justice Ginsburg] begin with the evidence on
which Congress based its decision to continue the preclearance remedy. … In
fact, Congress found there were more DOJ
objections between 1982 and 2004 (626) than there were between 1965 and the
1982 reauthorization (490). … All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting
changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory. … Congress
found that the majority of DOJ
objections included findings of discriminatory intent … On top of that,
over the same time period the DOJ and
private plaintiffs succeeded in more than 100 actions to enforce the §5
preclearance requirements.”
[These Four Justices are incredible how they selectively filter statistical
data to suit their own narrow minded preconceived notions. The Voting Section of
the DOJ receives around 14,000 to 22,000 voting changes per year. “The
Department of Justice reported that roughly between 4,000 and 6,000 submissions
have been received annually from jurisdictions covered by the VRA” (Source:
Same as the Four Justices, i.e. H. R. Rep. No. 109–478) Thus a few hundred
objections over 20 years is a big joke! I don’t know how many jurisdictions are
exactly covered under the VRA, but it may very well be hundreds if not
thousands.]
12.
“The number of discriminatory changes blocked or
deterred by the preclearance requirement suggests
that the state of voting rights in the covered jurisdictions would have been
significantly different absent this remedy.”
[This is idle conjecture by these Four Justices!]
13.
“In addition to blocking proposed voting changes
through preclearance, DOJ may request
more information from a jurisdiction proposing a change. In turn, the jurisdiction
may modify or withdraw the proposed change. The number of such modifications or withdrawals provides an indication of
how many discriminatory proposals are deterred without need for formal
objection. Congress received evidence
that more than 800 proposed changes were altered or withdrawn since the
last reauthorization in 1982. … This number includes only changes actually
proposed. Congress also received
evidence that many covered jurisdictions engaged in an “informal consultation
process” with DOJ before formally submitting proposal, so that the deterrent effect of preclearance was far broader than the formal submissions alone
suggest.”
[Now Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor this is a heroic
assumption to make! To think that when a bully like the DOJ makes a request
from a jurisdiction then the underlying modification must have been
discriminatory is highly presumptuous. It reveals an ideological bias
unbecoming of a good judge.]
14.
“Congress also received evidence that preclearance lessened the litigation burden
on covered jurisdictions themselves, because the preclearance process is far less costly than defending against a §2
claim, and clearance by DOJ substantially reduces the likelihood that a §2
claim will be mounted.”
[I think such cost considerations are almost completely inappropriate in this
case.]
15.
On pages 15 and 16, the Four Justices list a
number of specific, localized VRA violations. I suspect, at closer examination
some or the majority of these cited cases will not really hold up.
16.
“Following the 2000 census, the City of Albany,Georgia, proposed a
redistricting plan that DOJ found to be “designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black
voting strength in the city as a whole.” Id., at 37 (internal quotation
marks omitted).”
[Here is what House of Representatives had to say: “Testimony from other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) revealed
the impact that discriminatory tactics, such as the discriminatory
redistricting plan administered in the City of Albany, Georgia, have had on
minority voters and the necessity of Section 5 to prevent enforcement: Following
the 2000 census, the City of Albany, Georgia, adopted a new redistricting plan
for its mayor and commission to replace an existing malapportioned plan, but it
was rejected by the Department of Justice under Section 5. The department noted that while the Black population had steadily
increased in Ward 4 over the past two decades, subsequent redistricting had
decreased the Black population `in order to forestall the creation of a
majority black district.' The letter of objection concluded it was `implicit'
that `the proposed plan was designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress
the increased black voting strength in Ward 4, as well as in the city as a
whole.'”. So let me quickly interprete this the DOJ wants to gerrymander to
create majority black districts? What kind of a perversion is this? NGO
testimonials for whatever they are worth!]
17.
“A recent FBI
investigation [in 2010] provides a further window into the persistence of racial discrimination in state
politics. See United States v. McGregor, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1344–1348 (MD
Ala. 2011). Recording devices worn by
state legislators cooperating with the FBI’s investigation captured
conversations between members of the state legislature and their political
allies. The recorded conversations are shocking. Members of the state Senate derisively refer to African-Americans as
“Aborigines” and talk openly of their aim to quash a particular gambling-related
referendum because the referendum, if placed on the ballot, might increase
African-American voter turnout.”
[I did not know that the FBI would attach recording devices to state
legislators to eavesdrop on other legislators. This is truly shocking. I
thought, J. Edgar Hoover is long dead. These Four Justices do not condemn this
kind of action? This is absolutely shocking! Were these legislators who
cooperated with the FBI not indicted or impeached? This is a serious threat to
federalism or democracy if private conversations of legislators are
eavesdropped like this!]
Congress Reauthorization Of The Voting
Rights Act In 2006
The report by the House of Representatives regarding “FANNIE
LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION
AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006” is a contradiction in terms.
Under “Findings” the report
states “(1) Significant progress has been made in eliminating first generation
barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of
registered minority voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation
in Congress, State legislatures, and local elected offices. This progress is
the direct result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”. How nice how our elected
representatives pat themselves on their shoulders, i.e. “This progress is a
direct result”.
However, then the elected
representatives justify their reauthorization for another quarter of a century
that there are still existing “vestiges of discrimination”. When you look up
the word “vestige” means: 1) 1.trace of something gone: a trace or sign of
something that is no longer present; 2) the smallest quantity or trace. Whether
any discrimination of humans by other humans will ever be completely eradicated
is an ideal. Thus, to reauthorize this extraordinary law for another 25 years
was again an overreach/excess by the US Congress in violation of the US
Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence.
No. (6) of the Findings reads
(Emphasis added): “The effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been significantly weakened by the United States
Supreme Court decisions in Reno v. Bossier Parish II and Georgia v.
Ashcroft, which have misconstrued
Congress' original intent in enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed the protections afforded by
section 5 of such Act.”. Thus, one has to suspect some members of Congress
were just too eager to get even with the US Supreme Court?
No (8) of the Findings reads
(Emphasis added): “Present day discrimination experienced by racial and language minority voters is
contained in evidence, including the
objections interposed by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions;
the section 2 litigation filed to prevent dilutive
techniques from adversely affecting minority voters; the enforcement
actions filed to protect language
minorities; and the tens of
thousands of Federal observers dispatched to monitor polls in jurisdictions
covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”. Our opportunistic busybodies in
Congress are ever looking for new clientele. Thus, they stress here now
language minority voters. Why does Congress not pass a new law to protect
language minorities, which would be the proper thing to do? Perhaps they tried
to avoid that the general public finds out about this.
Tens of thousands of Federal
observers were dispatched to monitor polls? This is incredible! Is the US
Congress treating a number of states like Banana republics? This is simply
preposterous! The Founders would certainly be confounded.
“Despite these successes, the
Committee finds that the temporary provisions of the VRA are still needed. Discrimination today is more subtle
than the visible methods used in 1965. However, the effect and results are the
same, namely a diminishing of the
minority community's ability to fully participate in the electoral process
and to elect their preferred candidates of choice.”. Again here the elected
representatives use an expansive interpretation of the VRA. What minority
communities? What are subtle discriminations? Only those discernible by
activists and congressional busybodies?
It is also interesting to
observe that the first two reauthorizations of the VRA happened to be
reasonable 5 year periods each, then Congress lengthened to 10 years, then 25
years in 1992, and in 2006 for another 25 years.
Under the heading “COMMITTEE
FINDINGS--PROGRESS” we read how successful the VRA was. Just look at the dozen
or more charts provided in this report regarding “Voter Registration Rates”. In
some states these registration rates for “Blacks” have been higher than those
for “Whites” for some time.
The Report notes: “Increased Number of African-American
Elected Officials The Committee finds that … significant increases in the
number of African-Americans serving in elected offices. As of 2000, more than
9,000 African-Americans have been elected to office, an increase from the 1,469
officials who held office in 1970. As of 2004, 43 African-Americans currently
serve in the United States Congress, with 42 individuals serving in the United
States House of Representatives, and one serving in the United States Senate.
At the State level, more than 482 African-Americans serve in State
legislatures, with thousands more African-Americans serving in county,
township, and other locally elected positions.”
In “COMMITTEE FINDINGS--SUBSTANTIAL DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES TO
EXIST IN 2006” we finally learn what Congress is really up to. Our elected
representatives bemoan the low voter registration rates among Hispanics, a group not really covered
by the VRA of 1965. Is this why President Bush did not veto this
reauthorization?
The elected representatives
tend the issue of “Racially Polarized Voting”. Is it not true that perhaps as
many as 95% or so of African-American voters voted for President Obama? So is
this reverse discrimination? However you define “Racially Polarized Voting” it
is stupid anyway and I am not sure what our elected representatives can do
about it by enacting laws against it.
The Reauthorization for
another 25 years in the name of Ms. Parks and others is just another glaring example
of too many of our elected representatives acting as mindless opportunistic do
gooders without a spine to do right.
For sake of time, I have to
stop here going further into this Report. But I suspect I will find more
disturbing rationalizations etc.
Four Justices Voting Like A Soviet Bloc
These four mediocre Justices vote Soviet style and they
are obstinate. It is astounding and disappointing.
The Future Is Promising
As an eternal optimist I hope
that either Justice Kagan or Justice Sotomayor in the course of their probably
long career at the US Supreme Court will change their mind.
One day either one or both
will hopefully better understand the true meaning of the US Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence and will give these documents and their framers
more respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment