Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Much has been written about the coded racism in Justice Antonin Scalia's line of questioning ("racial entitlement") regarding the Voting Rights Act, and his novel theory of judicial activism: "Congress is incapable of legislating so the Court will."

But Chief Justice John Roberts could barely hide his disdain for the Voting Rights Act as well. If you listen to the audio of the oral arguments, you can tell that Chief Justice Roberts just thought he was oh so clever (with a satisfied smirk). Too bad he was full of crap.

But Steve Benen writes in Massachusetts 1, John Roberts 0:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has long opposed
the Voting Rights Act, so it didn't surprise anyone when he was
outwardly hostile towards the law during oral arguments this week.
Indeed, the jurist seemed well prepared with talking points he delivered
with great authority.

"Do you know which state has the worst
ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts
asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. When Verrilli said he did not
know, Roberts answered the question for him: "Massachusetts." Moments
later, the chief justice did it again, asking, "Which state has the
greatest disparity in registration between white and
African American?" Again the solicitor general did not know, and again Roberts said, "Massachusetts."

James Carter took a closer look
at the latest information on voting and registration from the U.S.
Census Bureau and found that Roberts appeared to be completely wrong.
What's more, the Boston Globe talked to
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who's eager to explain
just how mistaken the conservative justice is. "I'm calling him out,"
Galvin said.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The Obama administration will file a brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry to overturn California's Prop. 8 before the deadline later today. Pete Williams at NBC News reports, Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court: Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow … Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times editorial opinion today on the Voting Rights Act gets it exactly right. Congress’s Power to Protect the Vote:

The voter ID laws and other tactics that sprang up in several states last year to prevent minorities from casting their ballots offer incontestable proof of the need for strict voting rights laws.

Yet at the argument on Wednesday in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices left the ominous impression that they were willing to deny this reality and repudiate Congress’s power to enforce the right to vote by striking down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires nine states (seven of them in the South) and parts of seven others with records of extreme discrimination against minority voters to get approval from the Justice Department or a special court in Washington before they can make any changes in how they hold elections. Without this provision, there would be no way to prevent new and devious efforts by local officials to block blacks and Hispanics from voting or to reduce their electoral power. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the statute. It found that these places should remain “covered” by this “preclearance” requirement because voting discrimination remained both tangible and more concentrated and persistent in them than in other parts of the country. House members from those places strongly supported the renewal: of 110 members from covered jurisdictions, 90 voted for reauthorization. 

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In other U.S. Supreme Court news on Tuesday, 75 Republicans signed on to an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to make same-sex marriage constitutionally protected in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage:

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter:
Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one
of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court,
brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does,
that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of
gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances
conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual
freedom.”