Welcome To The Bitchery
Welcome To The Bitchery
This is a platform for User Generated Content. G/O Media assumes no liability for content posted by Kinja users to this platform.

Question for lawyers or knowledgeable people?

So, SCOTUS has issued quite a few interesting/heart-breaking rulings the past few days. Of course the victories for destruction of DOMA and for the legality of CA gay marriage are wonderful, even if the SC did cunt-punt a chance to end the gay marriage debate once and for all. However, the ruling on the VRA of 1965 seems almost inexcusable? Like, how could we have regressed back to a point at which we are not trying legislate in every way that is constitutionally possible against discrimination? Now, of course the question here for SCOTUS was to determine if this act was constitutionally possible, and they said no. It seems like they've ruled against it 5-4 because the majority wanted to avoid, in an ironic sense, discriminating federally against different states based on their track records. All nuances of that debate aside, my question is this: given that stance for overturning the crux of the VRA, if someone came along with new legislation that purported to extend that rule of the VRA- that states must get federal approval before changing their voting laws- to all states, is it possible that SCOTUS might (if it came to a SCOTUS decision, which it probs would) accept that? Anyone out there got any ideas on how this key piece of legislation could be saved?


Share This Story

Get our newsletter