Potential SCOTUS Ruling on Gay Marriage

[TemplarKormac]

It may happen today, on three cases dealing with gay marriage. One on DOMA and the other on Prop 8 and another I don't know the name of. I will let you know if the rulings have been handed down.

 

[martybegan]

According to SCOTUSBlog probably not today.

They found section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconsitutional, and that was a biggie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

According to SCOTUSBlog probably not today.

They found section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconsitutional, and that was a biggie.

Interesting, you have a link?

 

[martybegan]

According to SCOTUSBlog probably not today.

They found section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconsitutional, and that was a biggie.

Interesting, you have a link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

The gist of the ruling is that the VRA is still in effect, and you cannot discriminate when it comes to voting on basis of race. What is changed is that most of the South had to "pre clear" any voting law changes with the Department of Justice, based on their (very very real) previous discriminitory (exclusionary) tactics. This is what Sections 4 and 5 of the acts cover. Section 5 describes pre-clearance, Section 4 sets the conditions that require pre-clearance.

What the court did was strike down Section 4 as outdated and unconsitutional due to this. Congress can re-write it and try again.

 

[hazlnut]

According to SCOTUSBlog probably not today.

They found section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconsitutional, and that was a biggie.

Interesting, you have a link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

The gist of the ruling is that the VRA is still in effect, and you cannot discriminate when it comes to voting on basis of race. What is changed is that most of the South had to "pre clear" any voting law changes with the Department of Justice, based on their (very very real) previous discriminitory (exclusionary) tactics. This is what Sections 4 and 5 of the acts cover. Section 5 describes pre-clearance, Section 4 sets the conditions that require pre-clearance.

What the court did was strike down Section 4 as outdated and unconsitutional due to this. Congress can re-write it and try again.

Great summery.

I don't know why the liberals and far-left are making such a big deal out of this.

 

[novasteve]

Doesn't this and zimmerman topics all b elong in the legal/justice topics or do those rules only apply to me?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It belongs in current events, because, as it stands, when the event happens, it will be current! Get my jist?

 

[rightwinger]

DOMA is dead

On Prop 8 they will probably defer to the lower court ruling

 

[bodecea]

Interesting, you have a link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

The gist of the ruling is that the VRA is still in effect, and you cannot discriminate when it comes to voting on basis of race. What is changed is that most of the South had to "pre clear" any voting law changes with the Department of Justice, based on their (very very real) previous discriminitory (exclusionary) tactics. This is what Sections 4 and 5 of the acts cover. Section 5 describes pre-clearance, Section 4 sets the conditions that require pre-clearance.

What the court did was strike down Section 4 as outdated and unconsitutional due to this. Congress can re-write it and try again.

Great summery.

I don't know why the liberals and far-left are making such a big deal out of this.

We are? I'm not.