Supreme Court Voter’s Rights Decision, Eric Holder whines over loss of power

One cheer for State’s rights. What is an enjoyable moment is to hear Eric Holder wallow in sorrow at the smidgen of his loss of power in a few Southern states. Holder just cannot grasp the fact that there are three branches of government. We shall see what Executive Order Obama comes up with to reclaim his heartfelt right to his throne of power.

Here is from Legal Insurrection: Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision

They cling bitterly to racial politics even though the decision was based on the Constitution and the change in society since 1965.

They certainly don’t understand the decision itself, and that discrimination as to voting rights still is illegal.  All the decision did was do away with a remedial anachronism based on outdated facts as to the South.

Here’s a key portion of the decision:

Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.

Here’s the ignorant and confused reaction:

Business Insider        ✔          @businessinsider

Published on Jun 25, 2013

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Sound starts at about 15 seconds in the tape:

Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

From the Chief Justice’s majority opinion:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate… Continues

Filed under: Supreme Court Tagged: Civil rights, Eric Holder, voting rights, voting rights act