Letters to the Editor: Did the Supreme Court save itself with its Voting Rights Act decision? (via latimesopinion )
Is this another “switch in time that saved nine”? Perhaps it is a stretch to compare last week’s surprise ruling on the Voting Rights Act to a decision from 1937, but I see a comparison.
On June 8, the court upheld the broad reach of the Voting Rights Act in Alabama, which could well result in the election of a Black Democrat to Congress. It could also result in the Democrats regaining control of the House. Some Democrats have been urging President Biden to expand the court as a way to undo the control that conservative justices have been given recently. This decision, however, might take pressure off Biden to do so.As for the “switch” mentioned earlier, in a 1937 case on the minimum wage, conservative Justice Owen Roberts changed sides in a narrow 5-4 ruling. It took the pressure off President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the court with liberal justices more amenable to his New Deal.
From our founding, the power to redistrict has created much mischief, whether partisan or racial. Now, the Voting Rights Act is being used to ensure not that all eligible citizens can vote, but to insist on a particular result.The lesson here is that the justices of the Supreme Court will try to find and apply the law as disclosed in the text of legislation and relevant precedent — so long as the individual justices have no personal financial or ideological interest in the outcome.
Here it seems that a majority of the justices had no such interest, allowing them to protect the voting rights of all Americans under the text of the legislation and relevant precedent.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court Voting Rights Decision an Important, If Qualified, WinWhile Allen v. Milligan should be celebrated as a victory for fair representation, it cannot be an excuse for congressional inaction.
Read more »
The Supreme Court’s voting rights decision was a missed opportunityThe Supreme Court handed down its decision in Allen v. Milligan on Thursday. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion found that Alabama’s latest congressional redistricting plan likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It did so because the map created only one majority black district…
Read more »
Why Supreme Court voting rights decision shocked legal, political worldsLast Thursday’s Supreme Court decision was a big departure from the justices’ recent record on voting rights. Here are the other key cases.
Read more »
Ayala: The U.S. Supreme Court’s surprise ruling on voting rights could impact TexasThe Supreme Court’s surprise 5-4 ruling protecting voting rights will impact other gerrymandered states. But is this a less ideological, more ethical court? Probably not.
Read more »
There Are Still Two Major Legal Threats to the Voting Rights ActWinning the battle is not the same as winning the war, and the war isn’t over.
Read more »
The Voting Rights Act Dodged a Bullet — for NowChief Justice Roberts, who previously sought to weaken the Voting Rights Act, upheld its key provisions in a 5-4 decision. The ruling is a major victory for civil rights groups and could have implications for redistricting plans in other states.
Read more »