Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act forced states that had poor minority turnout numbers fifty years ago to get Justice Department approval for all election-law decisions.
Not only was this section of the law outdated, it had become particularly onerous for Southern states in recent years because they were at the mercy of Eric Holder’s partisan and hyper-politicized DOJ.
The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro called today’s ruling “a victory for federalism.”
In striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court restored a measure of constitutional order to America. Based on 40-year-old data showing racial disparities in voting that no longer exist, this provision subjected a now-random assortment of states and localities to onerous burdens and unusual federal oversight. Recognizing that the nation has changed, the Court aptly ended the extraordinary intrusion in state sovereignty that can no longer be justified by the facts on the ground.
But that makes too much sense for the race hustlers and poverty pimps in the Democrat party who see racial disparities and dog whistles around every corner.
Liberals registered their displeasure on Twitter and elsewhere today, with many pundits and pols beclowning themselves in epic fashion. Here are some best reactions culled from blogger extraordinaire, Weasel Zippers:
What they have just done is really revoked a lot of what Dr. King’s dream was all about. We build a monument to Dr. King, and part of, at least half, of what Dr. King’s dream was about was voter rights ’65. They’ve just revoked that. They just canceled the dream. And the children of the dream are not going to sit by and allow that to happen.”
I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.
“As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.”
DNC vice chairwoman Donna Brazille asks people to submit their contact information to join the fight.
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court striking down parts of this important law is more than a disappointment, it’s an injustice, Brazille writes. But we can’t let it discourage us or force us out of this fight.
The present Congress will see nothing but obstruction, delay and the introduction of voter suppression laws. This decision is far from reality, lacking in empathy and has taken the civil rights of populations that depended on federal law and shredded it!
Of course, by “voter suppression”, she means asking someone to show an I.D. before they vote, a requirement most Americans support.
This next one features a lily-white Congressman from Minnesota spouting racial slurs on Twitter who thinks he knows more about racial discrimination than Justice Thomas who actually grew up in the Jim Crow (Democrat) South:
— William J. Miller (@WilliamJMiller) June 25, 2013
It’s times like this that Twitchy really shines:
Minnesota state Rep. Ryan Winkler is about to learn a hard lesson: Twitchy is forever.
Upon hearing that the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, the Democrat took to Twitter to attack Justice Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom. “#SCOTUS VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas. Marriage decision may blur Court’s backsliding,” he tweeted. He quickly deleted the tweet, but it was archived by Topsy.
See Twitchy for more attacks on Thomas from the “tolerance brigades”.
Civil rights pioneer Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) (R-GA) spoke out against the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision on MSNBC Tuesday afternoon. Lewis predicted that the Court’s ruling will spur protests from “thousands of people” of all races and insisted that protections for minority voters are even “more relevant today than back in 1963.”
“That law, today’s decision, upset a well-established practice. the voting rights act has been repeatedly enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities of Congress,” Biden said at the outset of a White House event on raising the minimum wage.
“If I’m not mistaken, the last time, Strom Thurmond voted to reauthorize it as well — no, I’m serious.” Thurmond was one of the strongest opponents of desegregation in the 50s and 60s.
And via Twitchy, some MSNBC meltdowns, first from the host who looks like Rachel Maddow’s prettier twin:
I am slightly surprised by how physically enraged I find myself.
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 25, 2013
And the Meltdown of the day: Melissa Harris-Perry laments loss of citizenship after SCOTUS’ VRA decision:
Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.
— Melissa Harris-Perry (@MHarrisPerry) June 25, 2013
And it’s Mark Eric Dyson for the win!:
MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Clarence Thomas’s actions here today, though consistent, though tragic to me, are even more so in light of the bulk of decisions he’s rendered in the name of a judicial vote on the Supreme Court. A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people.
Because states will be allowed to administer voter I.D. laws….
Some might argue that Michael Eric Dyson lost some credibility there because he so breath-takingly ran afoul of Godwin’s Law, but let’s face it, he didn’t have any credibility to begin with.