#2 | Posted by snoofy
As I've suggested before, the appropriate safeguard here is to extend preclearance across the entire nation.

What in the Constitution permits that?

#11 | Posted by skizziks
...his viewpoint either boils down to ignorance or racism ......

Ignorance? Racism? Educate yourself about Section 5. It requires decisions based on race.

The partisans focus on four words uttered by one Justice during an hour and seventeen minutes of oral argument. Typical.

Great minds...

#30 | Posted by danni
www.slate.com

Stick to politics. SC jurisprudence is over your head.

To prevail on his failure-to-train claim, Thompson bore the burden of proving that (1) District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr., as the policymaker for the DA's office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train his prosecutors on Brady; and (2) the lack of training actually caused the Brady violation in Thompson's case. The Court began by emphasizing the rigorousness of the "deliberate indifference" standard, which requires proof that the municipal actor disregarded a "known or obvious consequence" of his action; the contours of this deliberate indifference standard were the central issue in Thompson. In Canton v. Ohio, the Court held that deliberate indifference is ordinarily proven by showing a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees that is subsequently ignored by policymakers. However, the Court also hypothesized in Canton that there might be a situation in which the need for training was so obvious that failure-to-train liability could be premised on a single violation "" for example, if a city were to arm its police and send them out into the community to capture fleeing felons without training them on citizens' constitutional rights. Although the Court has never recognized such a situation in practice, Thompson argued that his case fit squarely within the Canton hypothetical: the violation was such an obvious consequence of failure to train on Brady that it substituted for the ordinarily requisite pattern of violations.

#35 | Posted by danni
...the court should only decide on the Constitutionality of the law.

What do you think this case is about? The VRA was initially upheld in Katzenbach in 1966. The act was on shakey ground then but upheld because it was basically an emergency matter with a limitation of several years before expiration. It has since been extended a couple of times on an almost pro forma basis. The SC cautioned Congress a few years ago in Northwest Austin of its concerns about the continued validity of the Act. Congress ignored the Court. Here we are.

#36 | Posted by snoofy
What forbids it?

Doesn't work that way. You want it extended to the whole country, what is the authority to do so. Think federalism and limited Congressional power.

#39 | Posted by snoofy
The same authority used in 1965? Does that authority no longer exist?

Support your own argument. Don't ask me to do it for you. I've given you a starting place.

#40 | Posted by danni
By larger majorities each time.

Learn what pro forma means. How many are going to vote against the "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006."

...find the clause in the Constitution which gives the SC the right to strike them down.

Article III Section 2 Clause 1. Why quote Jefferson's criticism of judicial review, a minority view that did not prevail at the Constitutional Convention or since the Marbury decision in 1803. Because the preceding points in that article justify the power of judicial review? In any event, judicial review is here. It ain't going anywhere.

#47 | Posted by snoofy
O RLY.

Yep. See, "benchmark" plans, minority-majority districts and retrogressive effect. Examples of race based decision making required by Section 5.

#48 | Posted by danni
...if you could site the Constitutional article that makes that constitutional.

What, first time not good enough?

Article III Section 2 Clause 1.
#43 | Posted by et_al

Before you start, you don't need to tell me it doesn't say "judicial review" or "strike down" as unconstitutional. Like a lot of things, the Constitution, an outline, doesn't go into great detail. See, e.g. "right of privacy" which I don't doubt is there and I suspect you don't doubt either.

I'm not your damn research assistant. The terms I used are in the the DOJ redistricting guidelines. Chase down the recent Texas Section 5 redistricting case for examples of such districts, among others that employ race based decisions required by law, e.g. "minority opportunity" districts.

#55 | Posted by danni
Except that the primary authors of that Constitution also said they never intended to give the SC such power.

You quoted Jefferson, one critic. From your cited Wiki:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]

Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]

The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:

Don't assign my positions. I accept it because it is the law. But, putting that aside, who would you have decide whether a law violates the Constitution? The legislature that enacted it? The executive granted power to enforce it? E.g., President Bush deciding detainee rights under the Patriot Act. Someone else? Who? I'll go with the 50 legally trained founders who undoubtedly knew what courts do and didn't say courts couldn't; although, those founders knew how to draft limitations. How about you?

Scalia's...ridiculous, laughable and obviously an attempt to impose his opinion, not a legal opinion but a personal one...

Learn about oral arguments because that demonstrates you have no clue. A beginning point is Socratic method.

#67 | Posted by danni
Congress has the right to safeguard the right to vote...

Congress has a limited role to legislate regarding federal elections. The states are sovereign regarding their elections and redistricting, subject, of course, to Constitutional imperatives.

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
Voter rights are under attack...

Assuming that is true, federal election authority is limited. Section 5 is grounded in the Fifteenth Amendment, basically race. Section 5 was enacted when black electoral participation was in single digits. That participation now parallels white participation and in some covered jurisdictions exceeds. It is thus argued that a federal "trusteeship" over state sovereignty is no longer justified. Section 2 will remain to deal with any problems.

#84 | Posted by danni
Constitutionality has already been established.

Read Katzenbach, it was upheld against state sovereignty claims because of an emergency type situation, the extensive Congressional record and its limited duration. It has since been extended several times. The last was almost pro forma without real analysis of the current need. See also, Kanrei's #78. The Court signaled Congress in Northwest Austin of its concerns and in the intervening years Congress has done nothing. What should the Court do in light of another challenge on state sovereignty grounds when Congress does nothing? Ignore the obvious Constitutional issue?

This segues to your judicial review concerns. Who makes the decision? Your position, as I understand it, is no one. The covered jurisdictions should just suck it up and continue to go "hat in hand" to Uncle Sam when they want to move the polling place from Baptist church to the Methodist church.

#88 | Posted by Zed

Were that true Congress would have evidence of that as they did in the 60's. Since you are carrying their water, what is the evidence? Is that happening in only the covered jurisdictions singled out for a federal "trusteeship?" Has it moved to non-covered jurisdictions? How has it affected vote participation by race?

#92, 94, and 95 | Posted by Zed

Good for you, you know how deflect from voting rights to general racism to avoid the questions. Now, how about addressing Section 5 justifications. The question are in the post you noted.

Yes, I am aware of the Section 5 pre-clearance litigation involving Texas. Where the state's burden of proof is to prove a negative, that the redistricting does not discriminate. How many times have you read on this site that you can't prove a negative? Especially difficult when you start with a presumption of discrimination because of the Section 5 covered jurisdiction stigma. BTW that case is pending cert. in the USSC. The petition probably won't be determined until after the decision in Shelby County.

#99, 100 & 101 | Posted by Zed

Not only do you deflect but you are also obtuse.

The case, the thread, the Fifteenth Amendment, the VRA and Section 5 all deal with racial discrimination in voting. General analogies are irrelevant, deal with the specifics at issue.

Got anything to justify Section 5? See, the questions above.