ext_39051 ([identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] politicartoons2013-02-28 10:15 am

(no subject)




Several news reports described a collective gasp in the court when Justice Scalia made his statement. Rachel Maddow's coverage (she was in the court for the oral arguments) and shows a clip from President Johnson's speech proposing the Voting Rights Act. In that speech, Johnson cited specific examples of voter repression, some of which should sound familiar since they're STILL occurring.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2013-02-28 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
The Voting Rights Act does specifically offer minority-majority districts solely to facilitate a desired outcome. By definition, that's a racial entitlement, regardless of who it's for. That shouldn't pass constitutional muster.

[identity profile] catlin.livejournal.com 2013-02-28 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually no. The Voting Rights Act specifically punished a group of states who had known and proven cases of attempt to prevent minorities from voting, for racial reasons. Many of these same states want this removed so they can in turn go out and make unrestricted changes that will again keep minorities away from the polls.