SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act
Articles Blog

SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

October 10, 2019


this this decision is but you know for lack of a better word
insane if there was ever our case the demonstrated the need to roll back marburg verses
bargain section you know foreigners with us the uh… the supreme court reporter
with the talk radio news service talk radio news dot com and also uh… our produce yet americana radio
program time urban program uh… one of our producers shane welcome
thank you you were in the supreme court i wasn’t supreme court today and it was interesting because justice ginsburg heading very uh… interesting to said she was echoing what day you and your talking
about tours of this is really not what congress should
be doing healing not what this progression of supreme court should be
doing uh… this is more for congress and when
we first spoke about this case together when i was argued we talked about how what shelby brought
this lawsuit just because they didn’t like the law berminat there wasn’t actually well that’s right could you they what
they should not even gotten steny right there wasn’t uh… some situation is that we want to
change our voting was today s anyone for approval and they were declined dust giving it but what you want to call
a case in controversy that can then be appealed they just said discord we don’t like this and then it
was appealed and that’s how it got to the supreme court was called the facial
challenge that usually and and justice ginsburg
point this out the supreme court doesn’t take these cases and certainly doesn’t
overrule congress on infuse she s the question from the bench
he said uh… or use the right time what happens to the court’s usual restraint she said this is not this congressman
through and they had lots of hearings tons of documents the fifteen th amendment says this is what congress should be doing and they did it the enacted the law and now the court is
just substituting its its own reasoning for that of congress’
interested should be doing it in three other justices reuter five-four
and i want to know the justice thomas went further uh… hero concurring opinion it said
not only what i strict on section four i was tricked out section five saying that we just close it doesn’t
justice clarence thomas who got into laws to school as a consequence of
affirmative action always job at some points out that
should not in any way diminishes accomplishment graduated now not only
gives you there are no from his action exams right uh… in law school ignoring or bar
exams or in any of that so yet it speaks this is this is the one
of those cases where what ul talk about so much mar reverses
medicine is still blaming the apparent that this
is the court is gone too far yeah this is the i’d and and and doubts no in who don’t know what shane and i are
talking about in eighteen oh three the united states supreme court decided that they had the power to strike down a
law in this case it was the judiciary act of
seventeen what eighty seven’s and he said i need ninety in hand was eighty-nine except seventeen and they started down and motivate jefferson your party
jefferson just went nuts and said you know if this is this decision stands in
the constitution has become a thing a wax in the hands of the of the judiciary and i think that that was the beginning
i mean the only other time they did it before the civil war was in dred scott which is another dreadful
decision sky the mirror images of his of citizens
united dred scott they decided to people were property citizen at the decided
property is people uh… this is in in my mind just a clear example of
why the power to strike down why should be stripped from the supreme court the supreme court should not have that
authority and uh… whole chain you would say good luck on that because i uh… it’s contents it did is is more is it is is
the foundation of a flaw and while school’s one started soon we are all in back on it with it when we go through law school
who will not change anytime soon although would be enough for these
decisions maybe it will i gotta tell ya i sat down about a year
ago with the chief legal aid to a very progressive center and uh… you know we were talking about
a piece of legislation that they were drafting and i was just kinda lobbying
for it and and uh… are on top of camelot but i said you know i don’t think the supreme court
has the right to review law in and he was like he looked at me like i just said you
know there’s a flying saucer of the front line welded you know the thing is is that this case is clearly too far mar reverses mass and i still scrap to
because that’s the situation in which you had a constitution constitu provision and then congress an
act of the law the completely contract contradicted that constitutional
provision and they said one has to win they said the constitution dot in this case in this case it isn’t like there was a
constitutional provision there’s nothing in the constitution that was
contradicted by the boating treasury because it because the constitution sets
are o legs acquiesce ways divert your the constitution doesn’t say congress
she shouldn’t be doing this but this is quite the end antithesis so they went further than something like
marv rivers medicine where robbery was here’s a constitutional provision
congress want contrary to it discusses revision in congress went directly in line with a in they still
overruled experts essential version being the fifteen th a man right now they say to the tenth amendment
saying this is this is the province for the
state fusions treats these different leniency to be able to govern themselves
when it comes to vote so that was the rationale for the u_s_
it was it was it was that that’s really the
temperature is it was a temper case but they said in the past we could we could look gold pass the
tenth amendment simply because the discrimination was so extreme there was it was so ingrained that was
only by using extraordinary remedy could be fix-it but now that things have
changed while yeah now we say i wouldn’t now that the
it’s not so bad anymore mediated knowledge the description still exists
and that no one should doubt that by citibank joseph brilliantly when he
said you know jim crow man out there anymore but james quota squares that’s
without a doubt without a doubt but but with what you’re saying is because
it that the problem isn’t as bad we don’t need this extra reema intake at the moment solution press but the other side amazing okay shayla thank you for you are
welcome

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I'm with you both!!! Roll back Marbury vs. Madison!!! That would overturn Roe V Wade and send the issue back to the states where it belongs, it would put prayer back in schools, it would stop hostility to all things religious in this country, it would leave ALL issues of gay marriage to the states and take them out of the courts, it would GUARANTEE that NO government agency could EVER write a "rule", and EVERY rule would have to be a LAW passed by Congress. I would LOVE it. Liberal bilge. Cars.

  2. You're right and Thom fully acknowledges all of this. Overturning Marbury/Madison would overturn lots of legal precedence. That's not the point though. The point is: the way the courts are working is wholly unconstitutional.

  3. The 15th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the federal &state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It also exempts States from Federalism(shared governance) .By gutting the VOTING RIGHTS ACT the 5 ROGUE JUDGES appointed by REPUBLICAN administrations to the SUPREME COURT IGNORED the15th AMENDMENT. REPUBLICONS have now given AMERICANS 1 more reason to HATE them. Welcome to our BANANA REPUBLIC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *