Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Government

Why Are Some Liberals Freaking Out Over What Happened at the Supreme Court on Wednesday? We Explain

Feb. 28, 2013 8:31am Mytheos Holt

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a question not touched for nearly 50 years – namely, the question of whether parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 still stand the test of constitutionality, and specifically a section that has long plagued states’ rights advocates.

Unfortunately for liberals, who view the VRA as one of their landmark legislative achievements, the answer to that question may well be “no,” as many court analysts seem to have viewed the oral arguments in the case as either an unadulterated disaster for the government, or at least as a strong sign that a majority of the court is willing to consider striking down at least part of the act.

And to add to the Left’s consternation, Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his strongly worded opinions, attacked the motives behind reauthorizing the supposed touchstone of racial equality for being motivated by Congressional cynicism about race in an impromptu speech. Here’s Scalia’s statement from the transcript of the oral argument (emphasis added):

Well, maybe it was making that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that’s — that’s a problem that I have. This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress. The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?

This statement touched off a furious reaction from the liberal corner of the blogosphere and commentariat, and understandably so, given that Scalia more or less took a cleaver to one of their most treasured sacred cows. Apparently there were gasps even within the Court chamber when Scalia made his comment about “racial entitlement,” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor furiously challenged Bert Rein, the attorney arguing for striking down the act (and by extension, Scalia) afterwards:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?

MR. REIN: No. The Fifteenth Amendment protects the right of all to vote and -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I asked a different question. Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?

MR. REIN: Well, Congress -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think there was no basis to find that -

MR. REIN: — was reacting — may I say Congress was reacting in 1964 to a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent in certain jurisdictions. So to that extent, as the intervenor said, yes, it was intended to protect those who had been discriminated against. If I might say, I think that Justice Breyer -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere?

Readers might understandably wonder what prompted this outburst, and also, just what on earth the case was about in the first place. As such, we’ve put together the following handy explanation for the fireworks.

What Is at Stake

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to allow the Federal government to stop nine states (almost entirely Southern states) from practicing voter suppression against racial minorities in the South. Moreover, when Congress originally passed the law, they acknowledged that banning only particular suppression tactics would be ineffective, given that these same states would just come up with new, more subtle ways of suppressing votes once the more explicit ones were banned. So as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they included a controversial provision in Section 5 called “preclearance.” From section 5:

Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

In other words, any time one of the states (or any of the counties within those states) covered wanted to implement a new set of voting laws, they would have to get the Federal government to sign off on those laws before they could be implemented. Needless to say, this provision has prompted outrage from states’ rights advocates, and has been the subject of constitutional controversy for some time.

Which brings us to this particular case, in which Shelby County, Alabama, sued to have Section 5 overturned, claiming that its method for deciding which states would be subject to preclearance was badly out of date (as it still relied on a calculus used at the time of the law’s original passage), and that the law itself exceeded Congress’s authority, given the absence of the same extraordinary conditions that existed in 1965. A vote by the Supreme Court to strike down Section 5 would thus make preclearance either unconstitutional entirely, or force Congress to pass a new form of it, which would be much harder and more messy in the present climate.

So What’s Alll the Fuss About?

Essentially, striking down preclearance would allow states a much freer hand in terms of cracking down on certain forms of voter fraud, or to redraw their Congressional districts such that districts that formerly were designed to be “safe” and keep specific minority members of Congress in power could suddenly become competitive. This would threaten many “safe” Democratic seats, and would also act as a symbol that the Court believes the racial tensions of the 60′s are a thing of the past. In other words, it would be a nightmare for the portion of the Left that focuses on identity politics.

In this context, the frenzied reaction to Justice Scalia’s remarks makes even more sense, given that Scalia declined to even accept the idea that those voting for the VRA in the present day had noble motives. Rather, he attacked supporters of the VRA for cynicism and also used the phrase “racial entitlement,” which makes those who see racism as an enduring fact of American society see red because it suggest their concerns are not valid.

More to the point, Sotomayor’s valiant rearguard action notwithstanding, the liberal Justices mostly spent their time trying to get the argument against the VRA dismissed not by defending the VRA, but rather by arguing that Shelby County had no standing to sue, which some may see as an implicit concession that the VRA’s preclearance measures are not worth defending.

Adding to this problem, in the process of making their argument, those same Justices said things that are likely to offend conservative residents of the South, and especially of Alabama:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I ask you a question? Assuming I accept your premise, and there’s some question about that, that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t.

MR. REIN: Well, I -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: In — in the period we’re talking about, it has many more discriminating -240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by Section 5 objections. There were numerous remedied by Section 2 litigation. You may be the wrong party bringing this.

MR. REIN: Well, this is an on-face challenge, and might I say, Justice Sotomayor -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But that’s the standard. And why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?[...]

JUSTICE KAGAN: But think about this State that you’re representing, it’s about a quarter black, but Alabama has no black statewide elected officials. [...] If you use the number of Section 5 enforcement actions, Alabama would again be the number two State on the list. I mean, you’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama.

No doubt, many residents of Alabama would object to the idea that their state is the second most racist in the country and still unavoidably has to be policed by the Federal government. And indeed, the argument from both sides during the case played on ideas that at least some people in the country would find offensive. These were eschewed by the court’s swing vote, Justice Kennedy, who sent mild signals that he was favoring overturning preclearance.

Still, both liberals assuming the worst and conservatives feeling optimistic should be wary of over-confidence about their predictions. Oral arguments are an infamously poor predictor of what will happen in a case when the Court rules. For instance, in HHS v. Florida (also known as the Obamacare case), oral arguments went terribly for the government, yet they ended up winning the case.

The Voting Rights Act is not dead yet.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (244)

ocrick
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:38pm
Seeing all the vote rigging by GOP lackeys in Several states, Section 5 should be EXPANDED!!!

And Yes, there is Plenty of Racism in America.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:32pm
The 1965 Voter’s Right was enacted to protect South Blacks from the discrimination they were facing in not being able to vote in the South. “Jim Crow” laws were a fact. But now, what do we have? WE have the reverse where STATES cannot even amend their own voting rolls to get illegal aliens and dead people off the voting rolls! Unreal! The Democrats and their “minorities” will not let anyone touch the Voting Rights ACt and cry “racism, racism” when anyone tries to LEGITIMATELY create a LEGAL LIST of voters in any one state. So, what the Democrats and their “white racist” constituents want is for this SACRED COW of a Voting Act to now be allowed to be a PROFANE COW and an ILLEGAL COW so that they can keep the dam Democrats in power and keep SUCKING OFF their GOVERNMENT COW’s TEAT! They are in fact OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE by using the ACLU and the courts to prevent each state from getting ILLEGAL VOTERS off the rolls. HONEST AMERICANS are absolutely “dead” to the word “racist” and we don’t give a dam about anything but having LEGAL VOTERS on state voting rolls and no matters how much all you jerks cry “racism” WE are going to change the 1965 Voting Rights ACT to get all ILLEGAL VOTERS OUT! Cry “racism” all you want! You can’t hide behind this word any more with US! WE are going to fight you tooth and nail!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ocrick
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:40pm
  You are one twisted Phony Christian GOPinhead loser.
  
  Report this comment
NUTN2SAY
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:31pm
Folks! We The People!

Please start understanding that We The People’s tax paid government employees are delirious with mental insanity! These sick people are nuts! ALL OF THEM!!!

It’s not a very hard job to do. We The People’s Constitution really has not that many work rules. After more than two hundred years all the really hard tasks should be done by now and those issues that need adjustments from time to time should be considered regular maintenance. All this childish nonsense of “social engineering” in of itself is unConstitutional because of the toll it takes on the American Society. The Constitution of the United States of America only requires that We The People’s tax paid government employees to perform certain basic tasks after that they are to get the heck out of We The People’s lives! But this isn’t happening!

We The People’s tax paid government employees work for us…We The People! We The People hire these tax paid government employees to be our government “servants”, they are not to think of We The People as their source of money for their personal experiments for which they behold no accountability at all! This is childish nonsense and We The People deserve to have much higher quality and work performance from our tax paid government employees than this crap We The People are getting today!

We The People…Our tax paid government employees are endangering We The People’s Posterity…We Need To Talk!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Chrison
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:27pm
Before anyone gets too excited about how the SCOTUS will rule on this case, I remember a certain SCOTUS case regarding a certain new health care law where the Government lawyers blew their oral arguments and everyone predicted that the SCOTUS would overturn the law. Much to everyone’s surprise, the SCOTUS upheld the law by stretching their interpretation of the law in ways that even the Government’s lawyers had said wasn’t true. The Court’s theme when they ruled on that case was that the people had elected their representatives and so if they didn’t like the laws their representatitves were passing they could vote them out of office at the next election!

Remember THAT people?!?!

So, I for one am NOT going to hold my breath that the SCOTUS is going to do ANYTHING to protect Americans from their totally out-of-control Government!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
edcoil
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:19pm
Can someone at the Blaze stop the auto-start and audio of this link and this guy.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Owt_Raged
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:02pm
This is in play because liberals do not want states to require valid proof of citizenship to be able to vote. If ID is required to cash a check, drive a car, get a job or purchase alcohol, then logic would tell you that something as important as steering the direction of our country, should also require proof that you have the right to vote.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlackCrow
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:01pm
The voting rights act quit being about race and became pure Democrat/Republican politics when the old south went from blue to red. It took a long time to convince people that voting Democrat because of Reconstruction was contrary to their own best interests.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
darkstorm1087
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:01pm
What legitimate news organizations have “freaking out” in a headline? Cmon, blaze!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LukeAppling
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:45am
Every act and law passed by progressives has been to diminish the rights of the majority not increase the rights of the minority. I have seen blacks scurry to the front of lines at the workplace, at the poll stations under the guise of past discrimination and we now have a country of victims too lazy to register, too dumb to think for themselves and too enabled to stop feeding the pigs at the trough.
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
goldmankc
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:39am
the supreme court has suffered an internal coup de grace. they no longer matter. when a court clerk withholds case files from half of the justices, and the half that gets the case files doesnt say anything to the other half, they are no longer legitimate. anyone see the movie “Runaway” with denzel washington? that movie is a metaphor for washington dc right now, except there are no saviors in the alotted amount of time we have.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:30am
There is more voter intimidation in South Philadelphia than you would ever see in South Carolina.
If you are Black,you even get to vote 4 or 5 times!
Just your usual Progressives stealing elections.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TiocFaidhArLa
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:26am
too long didn’t read

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Big Mick
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:16am
“Reconstruction” will never be over, will it?
Which suggests some things about the REAL motives behind the North’s enslavement of the South.
VA did recently pass Voter Photo ID.
The Resistance came from the “have the effect” clause.

For reasons never clearly stated (like dey scared sheiteless the PoPos gonna find dair reefer?)
it was argued that requiring a Voter to prove he or she was who she or he claimed to be–a Registered Legal Voter, entitled to cast One, but ONLY ONE, Vote—would have the “EFFECT” of “suppressing” Minority Vote.

Thus ANY attempts to make VOTE FRAUD the tiniest bit more difficult for the Dumbolcrap Commiequeers and their Housenigahs in da GangstaHood (or GangstaBarrio) is resisted on VRA “effect” grounds.

One does note the inherent acceptance by the CommieHoms of the LINKAGE between Cheating and “LYING LIKE A “N!&&#R!”, in their premise that any attempt to address Vote FRAUD impacts da Hood disproportionately.

It’s as if My Building Super refuses to lock the cage with the Residents Storage bins and issue keys on the grounds that the Black Granny in 3b got locked out 50 YEARS ago!
I say “but it makes it EASY to steal MY stuff”. He says “I will not let her get locked out again.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NigelTufnel
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:02am
This is one of the better SC discussions to come along in quite some time. The question at the heart of this? Has racism ended? The final answer would be no! We will never see every American heart and disposition shrieved from interenal judgement based on race. But racism compared to 65′ has been severely diminished. But we have 39 states that can change their voter laws freely. Most recently the voter id request which actually protects the black vote. The left is seeing everything they’ve bi tched about for 50 years come true. Defense spending being slashed, welfare spending exploding, racism diminished, a black president. The problem is the nation isn’t doing so good. Ole Whitey is on the run and as MSNBC proclaimed, “old white conservatives do not matter anymore”. Your in charge now librats. Oh….snap. Things like budgets are actually important.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MainMan
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:00am
I’m in Alabama . Proud of this issue being brought up. Dems, progs, want the illegals to vote, want as many dem. voters to vote as much in one day as the line will allow. They would rather destroy the country than lose power. Don’t worry, us country folk will handle business when it comes too it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nothinghere
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:50am
looks as if the liberals are going to get many good years out of this wise,(but somewhat bigoted/racist), latino,just as was advertised.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sbenard
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:31am
What this is really all about is that the Democrats and progressives use the
Act to engage in broad-based voter fraud in order to get their people elected. If that power to used enforced voter fraud is endangered. then they feel threatened. A fair election in which ALL votes not only count, but count EQUALLY, is something they simply can not stomach. And what does that say about their character and their agenda? It says that they are dishonest, and that tyranny is their objective!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AbrahamsSheepdog
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:31am
I wish white was a race. They are the sin of the earth like Israel to here everyone these days.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:53am
  Abe
  
  White is a race. On most government forms that require race identification, white is listed as Caucasion.
  
  Report this comment
RaydocX
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:19am
Check social media ANDthe blogs, the way the Left are twisting the argument ain’t this is amazing.

YS, your claim about the minutemen and voting is thin, the only bit readily available a mediamatters report claiming t was ‘overlooked’ by fox, without noting the absence of others MSM or offering proof… On the other hand, I was witness to the intentional intimidation by black panthers…

Reverse racism is still racism… It is so.

Any rational consideration of a party arguing against ID proof to vote must include that party believes it benefits from voter fraud.

Any argument that citizens cannot afford ID is ignoring both the reality of Ife in America (driver’s licenses, social security cards, school ID, credit and banking requirements) AND the existence of Federal handouts (600 billin bailout, Obama hones, WIC, food stamps, welfare…). The fipunds and infrastructure to get all citizens ID exist already.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
siguy62
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:05am
This is one of those areas where I would like to see a national standard.

Everyone who needs a photo id, HAS a photo id. If you need help from the government, you have photo id. Our Federal government requires our doctors to have a copy of your photo id in order to see you, AND everyone is required to have health insurance. AS A NATION, it is now required that you have photo id.

PHOTO ID LAWS ARE NOT DISENFRANCHISING ANYONE.

If you want to show up and vote, you produce your state issued photo id. If it’s good enough to get the sales card at a supermarket, it should be good enough to vote.

If you want to vote by mail, you produce a copy with your application, which must be verified for the application to be valid. When you send in your ballot, you include another copy of that same photo id. Again it must be verified.

This makes it a lot harder for people to cheat, and we know that there’s a whole lot of cheating going on.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Lloyd Drako
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:05am
The states and jurisdictions in question seem to feel that VRA makes an invidious distinction between them and areas with less history of racial discriminaton. Their hurt feelings could easily be assuaged by requiring preclearance whenever ANY state, county or municipality–not just Mississippi, South Carolina or the odd county in Michigan or California–makes a change in voter qualifications or procedures.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
banjarmon
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:01am
Libs want ID for everything but for voting and to be president!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
YourArgumentIsInvalid
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:58am
If you want to see proof for why this law is still relevant and necessary you need go no further than the comments section of the blaze. Thank you blaze readers for once again proving that your argument is invalid.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jima9426
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:54am
Not to worry. Roberts will declare it a tax and side with the liberal wing of the Court.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
toomuchgovt
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:54am
Don’t worry your liberal little heads – This disaster of a law will stand and you will be able to keep blacks in poverty by convincing them they are voting themselves into prosperity. Now the illegals and whites are joining in the little voting game. yeah…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.