America's Future Is NOT in Its PAST!

.

America’s Future Is NOT in its Past!

.

That is true, America’s future does not lie in its past. Today the Untied States Supreme Court has made the worst decision since I’ve been alive. They have gutted the will of the American people to favor a party ready to die. Don’t be fooled by the numbers, of the SCOTUS decision. Because the ONLY woman (Justice Sotomayor recued herself due her ruling on a similar case) wrote the Dissenting Opinion on today’s ruling from this absurd court. Here’s a clue, that what I say is right, the dissenting opinion was LONGER and contained more Evidence and PROOF than the one written by Chief Justice Edwards.

.

I will share as much as I can, from the dissenting opinion, today. However, I am so very much pain I wonder just how much I will be able to accomplish. Right now I will share, the single most salient and intelligent sentence in either opinion:

.

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

.

I am going to post this, right now, so that I have something out. I am working, as you are reading, to finish this piece. There is so much to be shared, so much to be said!

.

Continued -

! Right now I have come back, to this article I write. For I have had a moment with out pain, and I must take advantage of that.

.

Here is more from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:

“But, the Court insists, the coverage formula is no good; it is based on “decades-old data and eradicated practices.” Ante, at 18. Even if the legislative record shows, as engaging with it would reveal, that the formula accurately identifies the jurisdictions with the worst conditions of voting discrimination, that is of no moment, as the Court sees it. Congress, the Court decrees, must “star[t] from scratch.” Ante, at 23. I do not see why that should be so.”

.

SEE, there is a salient point,  that will be missed by most. That, in this decision, the Court has directed Congress to go back to the drawing board. However, this is NOT 1964 and the roles have changed. Justice Ginsburg put it best when she said:

“Congress’ chore was different in 1965 than it was in 2006. In 1965, there were a “small number of States . . . which in most instances were familiar to Congress by name,” on which Congress fixed its attention. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328. In drafting the coverage formula, “Congress began work with reliable evidence of actual voting discrimination in a great majority of the States” it sought to target. Id., at 329. “The formula [Congress] eventually evolved to describe these areas” also captured a few States that had not been the subject of congressional fact finding. Ibid. Nevertheless, the Court upheld the formula in its entirety, finding it fair “to infer a significant danger of the evil” in all places the formula covered…”

.

FURTHER:

“The situation Congress faced in 2006, when it took up reauthorization of the coverage formula, was not the same. By then, the formula had been in effect for many years, and all of the jurisdictions covered by it were “familiar to Congress by name.” Id., at 328. The question before Congress: Was there still a sufficient basis to support continued application of the preclearance remedy in each of those already-identified places? There was at that point no chance that the formula might inadvertently sweep in new areas that were not the subject of congressional findings. And Congress could determine from the record whether the jurisdictions captured by the coverage formula still belonged under the preclearance regime. If they did, there was no need to alter the formula. That is why the Court, in addressing prior reauthorizations of the VRA, did not question the continuing “relevance” of the formula.

Consider once again the components of the record before Congress in 2006”

.

Some FACTS and NUMBERS before we continue: In 2006 The Senate voted 98-0 in favor of reauthorization and a Republican controlled House voted 398-3. It wasn’t like any other legislation, passed that year. It has near unanimous support from both sides of the isle. Yet SCOTUS (NOT elected representatives of the COUNTIES and States) expresses Judicial Hubris by placing their very limited experiences (outside their Ivory Tower), and total lack of knowledge of what  happens on the streets, and inflicted a wound to our Republic, our nation.