Scalia's objection that public perception might make congresspeople wary of voting against something has nothing to do with whether that thing is neccesary or constitutional.
Correct, and he's clear on that - the typical deference to Congress to fix the problem won't work in this instance because of the societal pressure. The VRA is pretty clearly unconstitutional, and Congress has failed to rectify it.
1. The law's neccesity was established by the studies, testimony and evidence reviewed by Congress in 2006.
Well, some people believe this to be the case.
2. The law's Constitutionality was established in 1966 in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, among other cases.
And racial segregation's Constitutionality was established in 1896 under Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling wasn't correct, either.
The SCOTUS has not jurisdiction over such things, and it's inappropriate for it to meddle in the legislative sphere. It's not their job to strike down laws just because they think they might be too popular to strike down legislatively, without any other constitutional basis for the objection.
Except the argument being made is not necessarily that the law is too popular to strike down, thus they might do it. It's that the law is unconstitutional, and that the traditional deference to the legislature isn't working. In an issue where the law clearly acts in a discriminatory fashion, where the law codifies race-based outcomes, of course it's illegal. Scalia's explaining the legislative problems that repeal/lapsing of the law is facing.
no subject
Correct, and he's clear on that - the typical deference to Congress to fix the problem won't work in this instance because of the societal pressure. The VRA is pretty clearly unconstitutional, and Congress has failed to rectify it.
1. The law's neccesity was established by the studies, testimony and evidence reviewed by Congress in 2006.
Well, some people believe this to be the case.
2. The law's Constitutionality was established in 1966 in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, among other cases.
And racial segregation's Constitutionality was established in 1896 under Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling wasn't correct, either.
The SCOTUS has not jurisdiction over such things, and it's inappropriate for it to meddle in the legislative sphere. It's not their job to strike down laws just because they think they might be too popular to strike down legislatively, without any other constitutional basis for the objection.
Except the argument being made is not necessarily that the law is too popular to strike down, thus they might do it. It's that the law is unconstitutional, and that the traditional deference to the legislature isn't working. In an issue where the law clearly acts in a discriminatory fashion, where the law codifies race-based outcomes, of course it's illegal. Scalia's explaining the legislative problems that repeal/lapsing of the law is facing.