national

I think the events on the last few months prove without a doubt that we need that law. Looks like the "impartial" US Supreme Court doesn't care much for the 11/6 result. Poor babies.

With several SC openings expected over the next 4 years, this past week's election will have its most lasting impact here. I wonder how many of these states with a history of discrimination voted for Obama in 08 or 12. That might be one indication of whether their culture has really changed.

From the article: "The America that elected and reelected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965. Congress unwisely reauthorized a bill that is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp. It is unconstitutional," said Edward Blum/Project on Fair Representation ....Hmmm. So, the apparent reasoning goes: Obama was elected, therefore we are no longer racist and pre-clearance laws should be taken off the books. Is that the logic? Sounds like a phony quid pro quo. Of course, a quick look at the post election electoral map shows us the south had no role whatsoever in re-electing Obama. Anything but. Moreover, it has nothing to do with who gets elected, but rather, who gets to vote. Neo-confederacy is alive and well in the south - a quick look of the Southern Poverty Law Center web site can tell you that. And I have no doubt the republicans, certainly the current lot of extremists, would dearly love to see their "Southern Strategy" style of election politics brushed off and given a new lease on life. In other words, what the conservatives are really arguing for, in subtext, is to regain racist entitlement: Because Obama was elected, it's only fair the political handicap of the Voting Rights law we've been saddled with over the last half century be eliminated. Or put more bluntly, because Obama was elected, we're entitled to go back to our old tricks.

I sense another "Citizens United" coming. This right wing court is illegitimate, since two justices were appointed by the selected, unelected Bush. Good thing Obama will probably get to make a few picks, and we can start reversing the partisan decsions they have made. Funny that they claim they are against anything other than a literal interpretation of the Constituion, but can somehow find where it says Corporations are people. That's not in my copy.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is not a "political handicap"! It is simply a guarantee that state's with a history of voter suppression must submit to strict federal oversight. That ensures the liberty every citizen, not just neighborhoods of rich and middle class whites! With fresh efforts of voter suppresion rampant in Ohio and Florida, strategies that caused long lines and voter list confusion in mostly minority areas, the Voting Rights Act is exactly the mechanism with which to combat and remediate those problems. The Voting Rights ACt is one of the cornerstones of our collection of human rights in the United States. To invalidate that law now would be the most heinous show of judicial activism ever. If the VRA is weakend in any way there should be rioting in the streets. Why is it that conservatives can think of nothing else but reducing our hard won human rights: marriage equality, Voter ID (suppression) and now the Voting Rights ACt. This is disgusting and a continuation of the loosing trend Republicans doubled down on in the last election and lost.

divineleft, there is no debate that conservatives are searching for the most activist judges they can find to enact their most cherished prejudices and give strength to their effots to disenfrachise disadvantaged voters. I sincerely think that if many more rulings are as agregious as Citizen's United, even the least informed will take it out on the Repubican Party, further reducing their already diminished constituency to older white men and conservatives.

With several SC openings expected over the next 4 years, this past week's election will have its most lasting impact here. I wonder how many of these states with a history of discrimination voted for Obama in 08 or 12. That might be one indication of whether their culture has really changed. -------------------The Northern States, that don't have the restrictions voted the same as those in the south. Obama got less than 80% of the counties in this country. The only areas that Obama got are large inner city areas where a large number of people live off the gov't dole!! Look at the maps of the election results showing county by county. The country is Covered in red, EXCEPT were most of the free money gets given out!

The only areas that Obama got are large inner city areas where a large number of people live off the gov't dole!! = If that is the case, why don't you conservatives move into these areas and sway the voting so only YOU have any power or rights. Afterall, your stuff don't stink. Right?

Avejoecon, check again. Almost every red state is a net recipient of federal dollars and almost every blue state is a net contributor. Blue areas are directly subsidizing red ones. On a more local level, those blue specks on the electoral map heavily subsidize the states they are in. In other words, Hennepin County is the economic engine of the state that heavily subsidizes the sparsely populated Pine County. The deep red exurbs are only possible due to their proximity to Minneapolis. They share in the benefits provided by the city, while avoiding many of the associated costs.

So since you insist on putting things in these terms, just who are the makers and who are the takers?

Congress passing and President Bush signing into law a 25 year extension in 2006 gives a compelling argument for keeping the law in place. Also when there is such a disparity between black and white voters for Obama shows that discrimination still exists especially in the South.