Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement

[dmek25]

then help a brother out. what exactly did he say?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Because places that are subject to section for have displayed numerous changes in practices and redistricting efforts to suppress the growing minority vote. Now our horribly inefficient congress is asked to reformulate it? Not going to happen if we struggle to even pass the farm bill, let alone immigration reform.

The Senate approved the the vra recently 98 to 2, I believe. Isn't that the legislature, which represents the people, speaking? Like I mentioned before, scalia is a hypocrite by opposing doma based on concerns of judicial activism and just 24 hours before he struck down section 4.

Seems like folks will bend their argument any way to placate their beliefs.

The first I remember learning about redistricting was back in the 70's (I Think) so more blacks could get elected. I have seen both parties use it to their advantage. VA's distric don't look like this because soemone was shaking when drawing the lines.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

then help a brother out. what exactly did he say?

You want me to pour over everything in his dissent, deduce which part your are misinterpreting, and then interpret it properly for you? Yeah OK. Why don't you find the part where he says what you say he said and we can all have a nice discussion on it. That seems quite a bit more practical.

[FRPLG]

The furor over the Voting Rights is exactly what is wrong in this country when it comes to politics. Misinformation, overreaction, and exploitation. The SCOTUS did not invalidate the law...it simply said you can't come up with a law (or part of a law) to treat states disproportionately in-perpetuity. That seems like a pretty non-controversial finding. Now I certainly could buy the argument that it is a passed law by our Congress that has been extended and that SCOTUS shouldn't be interfering especially when Scalia rails against such interference. But it didn't "gut" the law. If it is worth having then Congress should do its job and reenact provisions to modernize the calculations. The fact that our Congress is entirely dysfunctional isn't a reason to keep a part of a law that may or may not be appropriate. What they basically said was "The law shouldn't have been allowed in this form without provisions for periodic recalculation".

[JoeRedskin]

It’s simple. The Court held Congress to the hard task of making sure that their legislative enactments addressed current needs in a Constitutional manner. As FRPLG said, Congress "can't come up with a law (or part of a law) to treat states disproportionately in-perpetuity".

In the decision, Roberts held the Congress to the strict limits of the Constitution and simply fulfilled the articulated role of the Court – determine whether Congressional enactments pass judicial muster. To me, that is not “judicial activism”. Judicial activism is creating rights not enumerated in the Constitution and using them to justify or strike down legislation which otherwise constitutionally compliant (the most famous example is the right of privacy found to exist by the Warren Court but not articulated anywhere in the Constitution).

Roberts did what the Court is supposed to do, hold Congress feet to the fire by making them craft legislation compliant with the federalism enumerated in the Constitution. The opinion simply requires Congress to balance and consider all parties rights – in light of current conditions – and craft solutions reflective of those solutions through means the least intrusive on all Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA does not, and did not when reenacted, reflect the changed conditions which justified its extraordinary intrusion on Constitutional guarantees in 1965. It was therefore appropriately deemed unconstitutional.

[JoeRedskin]

Quotes from Roberts opinion as to why §4 as enacted was unconstitutional:

When upholding the constitutionality of the coverage formula in 1966, we concluded that it was “rational in both practice and theory.” Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 330. The formula looked to cause (discriminatory tests) and effect (low voter registration and turnout), and tailored the remedy (preclearance) to those jurisdictions exhibiting both.

By 2009, however, we concluded that the “coverage formula raise[d] serious constitutional questions.” Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 204. As we explained, a statute’s “current burdens” must be justified by “current needs,” and any “disparate geographic coverage” must be “sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.” Id., at 203. The coverage formula met that test in 1965, but no longer does so.

Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned nationwide for over 40 years. §6, 84 Stat. 315; §102, 89 Stat. 400. And voter registration and turnout numbers in the covered States have risen dramatically in the years since. H. R. Rep. No. 109–478, at 12. Racial disparity in those numbers was compelling evidence justifying the preclearance remedy and the coverage formula.See, e.g., Katzenbach, supra, at 313, 329–330. There is no longer such a disparity.

…
The Government falls back to the argument that because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States Congress identified back then—regardless of how that discrimination compares to discrimination in States unburdened by coverage. Brief for Federal Respondent 49–50. This argument does not look to “current political conditions,” Northwest Austin, supra, at 203, but instead relies on a comparison between the States in 1965. That comparison reflected the different histories of the North and South. It was in the South that slavery was upheld bylaw until uprooted by the Civil War, that the reign of Jim Crow denied African-Americans the most basic freedoms, and that state and local governments worked tirelessly to disenfranchise citizens on the basis of race. The Court invoked that history—rightly so—in sustaining the dis¬parate coverage of the Voting Rights Act in 1966. See Katzenbach, supra, at 308 (“The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects.”).

But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the “current need[]” for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.

The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 512 (2000) (“Consistent with the design of the Constitution, the [Fifteenth] Amendment is cast in fundamental terms, terms transcending the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment.”). To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past. We made that clear in Northwest Austin, and we make it clear again today.
…
Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. It instead reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.…

Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.” Presley, 502 U. S., at 500–501. Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf (bold = my emphasis)

Quite frankly, by invalidating the formula of §4, Roberts permits the VRA to apply to more than the original nine states. Congress could craft a new formula which is applicable to any State, regardless of their pre-1965 history. In other words, legislation that would treat all states, and all the citizens therein, equally.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Quotes from Roberts opinion as to why §4 as enacted was unconstitutional:



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf (bold = my emphasis)

Quite frankly, by invalidating the formula of §4, Roberts permits the VRA to apply to more than the original nine states. Congress could craft a new formula which is applicable to any State, regardless of their pre-1965 history. In other words, legislation that would treat all states, and all the citizens therein, equally.

Don't we have laws that address equals rights and the right to vote? Why do we even need any new laws?

[JoeRedskin]

The majority opinion in the DOMA case, on the other hand, is judicial activism in the classic sense. Unlike the VRA case, the majority opinion articulates no recognized Constitutional basis for finding DOMA unconstitutional and invalidating a legislative enactment that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. While referencing equal protection, due process and federalism, Kennedy's opinion does not rely on the constitutional boundaries or established precedent of these constitutional principles. Rather, the majority nullify properly enacted legislation by saying it is mean and the enacting Congress was trying to do bad things.

Under the recognized constitutional law, homosexuality is not a "protected class" recognized under the 5th or 14th Amendments for special protection (such as race or gender) and, as such, only a "rational basis" is necessary to uphold it. Rational basis is the broadest of constitutional tests. All congress need say is something along the lines of "in order to preserve uniformity in the application of federal benefits and penalties flowing from the legal state of marriage, Congress defines marriage to be ...." Ta Daaa. Rational basis.

The majority opinion ignores the rational basis test and instead concludes "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Without articulating the 5th Amendment standards set forth in Constitutional law or demonstrating how it violates those standards, the majority simply does not like it and says, therefore, it's unconstitutional. Thus, creating sloppy, popular law that will encourage further litigation and legislation.

The real solution was to have Congress invalidate DOMA.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

[over the mountain]

man im glad i do car accidents.

very good breakdown and recap joe.

[JoeRedskin]

VRA Ruling = Good law but with unconstitutional provisions so Court properly said "Achieve your good goal through constitutionally appropriate legislation."

DOMA Ruling = Bad law but (IMHO) not unconstitutional (i.e. - Congress absolutely had authority to pass the legislation as enacted). Court stupidly said "Don't worry Congress, we'll do your job for you." Again, IMHO, the Court should have said "Congress, you passed this bad law, it's up to you to get rid of it".

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You want me to pour over everything in his dissent, deduce which part your are misinterpreting, and then interpret it properly for you? Yeah OK. Why don't you find the part where he says what you say he said and we can all have a nice discussion on it. That seems quite a bit more practical.

i wasn't talking about the ruling by the SC, or Roberts decision. i was quoting justice scalia

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The majority opinion in the DOMA case, on the other hand, is judicial activism in the classic sense. Unlike the VRA case, the majority opinion articulates no recognized Constitutional basis for finding DOMA unconstitutional and invalidating a legislative enactment that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. While referencing equal protection, due process and federalism, Kennedy's opinion does not rely on the constitutional boundaries or established precedent of these constitutional principles. Rather, the majority nullify properly enacted legislation by saying it is mean and the enacting Congress was trying to do bad things.

Under the recognized constitutional law, homosexuality is not a "protected class" recognized under the 5th or 14th Amendments for special protection (such as race or gender) and, as such, only a "rational basis" is necessary to uphold it. Rational basis is the broadest of constitutional tests. All congress need say is something along the lines of "in order to preserve uniformity in the application of federal benefits and penalties flowing from the legal state of marriage, Congress defines marriage to be ...." Ta Daaa. Rational basis.

The majority opinion ignores the rational basis test and instead concludes "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Without articulating the 5th Amendment standards set forth in Constitutional law or demonstrating how it violates those standards, the majority simply does not like it and says, therefore, it's unconstitutional. Thus, creating sloppy, popular law that will encourage further litigation and legislation.

The real solution was to have Congress invalidate DOMA.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

I was just going to make that same point.

[over the mountain]

strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied .. very surprised gay and lesbian isnt a protected class in 2013.
wow

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i wasn't talking about the ruling by the SC, or Roberts decision. i was quoting justice scalia

You quoted nothing...you ASSERTED something. Back it up or it didn't happen (as the kids say nowadays).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied .. very surprised gay and lesbian isnt a protected class in 2013.
wow

It would have to be enacted as such. More legislation.