ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Legal SCOTUS rejects Arizona's proof of citizenship for voter registration (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=273876)

alnorth 06-17-2013 09:24 AM

SCOTUS rejects Arizona's proof of citizenship for voter registration
 
7-2 decision written by Scalia. Alito and Thomas dissents.

I haven't read the opinion and I'm sure the activists will hail this as some kind of "victory against Arizona's racism", but apparently Arizona lost on a technicality and they could eventually come back to court.

In prior decisions, the courts already ruled that the feds (through congress) decide when, where, and how federal elections are held and what voter registration forms need to look like. Today the court told Arizona that they cant just ignore federal law and use whatever voter registration form they want, they have to use the federal form, but what they can do is follow the proper procedure of asking the board in charge of designing the form to revise it allowing states to ask for proof of citizenship, and if that request is denied, then they could come back to court.

So, nothing was really decided, they punted it.

In other legal news, we had a supreme court decision with a very weird lineup: Thomas had a majority opinion on a procedural criminal law issue joined by the four liberals, while Kennedy and the other 3 conservatives dissented.

BucEyedPea 06-17-2013 09:32 AM

This aspect of voting should really be a state issue despite prior election decisions. Just more evidence that those at the federal level of govt can never restrain their powers but mainly expand it. At least they can come back. This post is pending reading the decision.

alnorth 06-17-2013 09:37 AM

There are now three major decisions left, and we should get them all by the end of next week. (Affirmative action in college admissions, the Voting Rights Act in Texas redistricting, and gay marriage)

Cave Johnson 06-17-2013 10:38 AM

Here's hoping the VRA is upheld. Texas isn't being shy about using race in all sorts of improper ways.

Quote:

Buck argued that his sentence should be thrown out since an expert witness psychologist, Walter Quijano, suggested during his trail that Buck's race could make him more likely to commit another crime in the future.

alnorth 06-17-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson (Post 9756799)
Here's hoping the VRA is upheld. Texas isn't being shy about using race in all sorts of improper ways.

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the VRA survives. At least, not the part in question.

The ancient, generations-old definition of which areas of the country must be precleared for congressional redistricting and which do not need to be precleared is obviously out of date. The government was reduced to saying "ok, we admit there's a problem, and we admit that you warned us to fix it years ago and we ignored you, but come on, these formulas are good enough, aren't they?"

Prison Bitch 06-17-2013 10:50 AM

Do the 4 liberals on the court EVER disagree with each other? Do they EVER take a non-liberal side? Or do they keep together in their little bubble permanently?

BucEyedPea 06-17-2013 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9756814)
Do the 4 liberals on the court EVER disagree with each other? Do they EVER take a non-liberal side? Or do they keep together in their little bubble permanently?

Yeah, at least the so-called conservatives, Republicans or right-wingers will occasionally take what is deemed a "liberal" stand.

Prison Bitch 06-17-2013 11:01 AM

But I heard that Liberals are open-minded?

Cave Johnson 06-17-2013 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 9756811)
I don't think there's a chance in hell that the VRA survives. At least, not the part in question.

The ancient, generations-old definition of which areas of the country must be precleared for congressional redistricting and which do not need to be precleared is obviously out of date. The government was reduced to saying "ok, we admit there's a problem, and we admit that you warned us to fix it years ago and we ignored you, but come on, these formulas are good enough, aren't they?"

I agree, it'll be 5-4 to overturn at least Section 5. Roberts has a pretty well defined background on the issue, and Kennedy's leaning that direction as well.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ing-rights-act

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...1#.Ub9BjvmsiSo

alnorth 06-17-2013 11:32 AM

The legal experts are now beginning to suggest that in the long run, the Feds probably lost this Arizona case.

Quote:

If a reader of the Scalia opinion stopped at the top of page 13, the impression would be very clear that Congress had won hands down in the field of regulating federal elections. But from that point on, there is abundant encouragement for what is essentially a states’ rights argument

...

The opinion seemed to leave little doubt that, if Arizona or another state went to court to try to establish such a constitutional power, it might well get a very sympathetic hearing, because that part of the Scalia opinion laid a very heavy stress on the power of states under the Constitution to decide who gets to vote. Indeed, that part of the opinion said that the Constitution simply does not give Congress the power to decide who can qualify, but only how federal elections are run procedurally.
It appears that a very strong supermajority of 7 justices, including all 4 liberals, basically said "Arizona, you dummy, you did it wrong. Do it this way and come back to us". The other 2 justices didn't want to bother with the delay and just give it to Arizona now.

It may take a few years, but when this case comes back, it could end up being unanimous.

AphexPhin 06-17-2013 11:41 AM

Keep fightin the good fight Arizona! I'm proud to say that I live here.

Xanathol 06-17-2013 05:40 PM

If it stands, I hope AZ takes Obama's stance and simply ignores the ruling - works for Barry!

DaveNull 06-17-2013 05:45 PM

If what stands? You still don't understand how the courts work, do you?

ThatRaceCardGuy 06-17-2013 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AphexPhin (Post 9756874)
Keep fightin the good fight Arizona! I'm proud to say that I live here.

Not surprised.

mlyonsd 06-17-2013 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveNull (Post 9757680)
If what stands? You still don't understand how the courts work, do you?

In the ruling Scalia hinted to AZ on what to do to bring it back. Not that means it would necessarily change the outcome, just how it might be viewed in another light.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.