Image 01 Image 03

Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision

Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision

will surprise no one.

They cling bitterly to racial politics even though the decision was based on the Constitution and the change in society since 1965.

They certainly don’t understand the decision itself, and that discrimination as to voting rights still is illegal. All the decision did was do away with a remedial anachronism based on outdated facts as to the South.

Here’s a key portion of the decision:

Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.

Here’s the ignorant and confused reaction:

h/t Twitchy for this:

and the inevitable new addition to the permanent campaign:

And, we have a #Winner:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They understand all right. They just don’t want you to understand.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to caseym54. | June 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    Yes, they understand perfectly. Their stock phrase “expansion of voting rights” means “dead people voting for Democrats”.

      Tortuga in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | June 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Not just dead people, the undocumented dimcrats have finessed voting fraud into an art form as has ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Media Matters funded paid for absentee ballots and yellow dog dims. 2014 will be the pivot for staying a USA vs NUSA, SUSA, WUSA, SWUSA. Hey, breaking up the pinko,commie, progressive USSR into Russia and other sovereigns, it’s good enough for America.
      RICO all banksters, IRS bureaucrats and their ho politicians.
      OH, and flat tax on gross Hollywood movie receipts so those progressives get some joy paying taxes as do us average joes and janes.

        Neo in reply to Tortuga. | June 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm

        For being all ‘progressive’, the Left sure lives in the past a lot.

        Valerie in reply to Tortuga. | June 25, 2013 at 2:52 pm

        Dead people, people living in nursing homes and group houses who would not choose to vote of their own volition, and people who are willing to be bussed from place to place over the course of a “voting month.”

        objective in reply to Tortuga. | June 25, 2013 at 10:32 pm

        Interesting. Could you provide some evidence, beyond mere opinion of this statement?

    objective in reply to caseym54. | June 25, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Please, oh please provide one shred of actual evidence, hard data, metrics or facts (other then FOX news) that supports any of the truly bizarre claims being made in the comments section here. I mean really–wildly unsubstantiated claims, bizarre statement (dead people voting? really? this has NO impact on elections, as proven by multiple studies for anyone who takes the time to look), and anecdotal evidence masquerading as fact. I get it: you FEEL really strongly that this MUST be the way it is. But sorry folks, your feelings, however heartfelt are simply not reality.
    Evidence, please. Actual research, data, and science. Hopefully from more then one source. This kind of nonsense is why the left makes sport of stupidity on the right. And rightfully so.

      CREinstein in reply to objective. | June 26, 2013 at 12:08 am

      True the Vote is my reply.

      Go to their website, and examine the evidence.

      Consider yourself responded to.

        I’m familiar with TrueTheVote… they also have not provided evidence of widespread systemic voter fraud. Plenty of examples of registration fraud in both parties… but no genuine voter fraud outside of a handful of cases over a decade.

We can’t have equality in this country. The special victims groups and race baiters have work so hard and for too long building their cottage industries and power bases to give any of that up. Gee, they would have get real jobs which wouldn’t value spewing hot air and silly opinions.

“AG Holder on Voting Rights Act: Congress needs to act so that every American has equal access to the polls. @wdet #VRA”

I TOTALLY agree.

START by impeaching Holder.

[…] PROF. JACOBSON: Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision. There are a lot of them. Let me just add that I don’t trust the current […]

Isn’t it funny how people who call themselves “progressives” are arguing that no progress on civil rights has occurred in these states in the last 50 years? More than that, they’re arguing that no progress can ever be made, and that 1965 must be frozen in time forever.

    objective in reply to Socratease. | June 25, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Perhaps you could site who you are referring to? Such baseless claims, unsupported by any evidence don’t help prove your point. In fact, every leader of status in the civil rights movement I know if is very aware of the notable progress made in the last 1/2 century. Are you arguing that since progress has been made, we should assume there is no longer a need for voter protection? Do you consider that a logically valid point? Would you support taking away your 2nd amendment rights under the same logic? Might I suggest we should protect your rights to the 2nd amendment AND the rights of everyone to vote.

      Radegunda in reply to objective. | June 26, 2013 at 12:12 am

      I absolutely believe that voters should be protected when people wielding clubs and talking in a menacing way attempt to scare them away from the polls. Eric Holder does not believe so if the people being intimidated are white and the intimidating thugs are “his people” — specifically, Black Panthers announcing they’re going to make sure the “black man” wins. (One of those Black Panthers is well known for expressing his desire to “kill whitey.” Yeah, racism does still exist.)

        They weren’t scaring anyone away. That’s the point.
        There were no complaints. And white voter turnout in that precinct was higher than the 4 previous national elections… proving zero voter “suppression”.

          Radegunda in reply to teekeemon. | June 26, 2013 at 12:33 am

          There was a trial and the perps were convicted, which is not surprising since it was a particularly blatant attempt at voter intimidation. Whether anyone actually went home without voting is immaterial: the effort to intimidate was egregiously illegal.

          Then, Eric Holder told charge of the Justice Dept., and the case was thrown out before it went into sentencing. Holder has been quite explicit in his belief that civil rights laws are NOT supposed to protect the rights of white people. And the whole Justice Department, particularly the Voting Rights Section, is pervaded with a highly racialized view of “justice.”

      Radegunda in reply to objective. | June 26, 2013 at 12:25 am

      The Supreme Court’s decision in no way takes away any eligible citizen’s right to vote. Insinuating that it does so is rank demagoguery. Restricting voting on the basis of race is still every bit as illegal as it was yesterday.

      Protecting the right of citizens to vote, if it’s meaningful, entails protecting the right not to have one’s legitimate vote canceled out by illegitimate votes. Democrats, for some reason, are wont to make illegitimate voting very easy (same-day registration e.g.), and they scream a blue rage when anyone tries to apply elementary safeguards against illegitimate voting (e.g. a requirement that voters identify themselves).

      Those international “observers” who came over in 2012 expecting to find voter suppression were instead shocked at how absurdly lax our voting system is — and it’s lax mainly because Democrats find it serves their agenda to make fraudulent voting easy.

Damn. Those progressive just aren’t going to be happy until they’re allowed to vote on our behalf.

Liberalism is merely an unprincipled philosophy.
Progressivism is simply positive or negative monotonic change.

Conservatism is of unequal character engendered by a diversity of philosophies and perspectives. American conservatism is founded on the principles of individual dignity and Creator-endowed (i.e. intrinsic) rights, implying, but not limited to, the sins of the father are not accorded to the son, nor are the sins of the individual accorded to the tribe.

The contemporary conception of “liberalism” and “progressivism” is derived from ancient relics that preceded and survived the emergence of classical liberalism and the tempering introduction of Judeo-Christian philosophy.

The so-called “modern” philosophies of “liberalism” and “progressivism” are sponsors of the worst excesses of individual dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification. They denigrate individual dignity, devalue human life, and sponsor corruption through their selective recognition of each.

Anyway, the American Dream may yet be realized, despite the persistent dysfunction of a minority.

Aww, da widdle wefties have panties in a wad. And that includes males.

radiofreeca | June 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm

Professor, you were perhaps expecting something well-read and rational from these people?

What’s actually truly ironic is that adding 15+ million of new American citizens to the voting rolls, plus all of generation of fake voting ballots by the Dems, is the biggest disenfranchisement that minorities in America face. After all, if all over the country the Dems throw out your vote, and replace it with another – that’s a problem.

Gee. Living in a state not covered by (non unconstitutional) Section 4, does this mean that I still don’t have equal access to the polls ?

[…] Here is from Legal Insurrection: Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision […]

This is a very good decision by the SCOTUS. The Demoncrats are just rascist. That’s why all the disparaging remarks.

inspectorudy | June 25, 2013 at 2:10 pm

Let’s be honest here, if any of you were awarded a special parking permit that allowed you to park anywhere you wanted to park, by the feds, and then SCOTUS took it away would you be unhappy? That’s what is happening with VRA and affirmative action. They no longer want equality but “Special” victim hood entitlements. Until the present generation passes there will never be an equal society. Think of all the race hustlers and how they never agree that ANY racial progress has been made or that some of the restrictive laws can be eliminated. Hell, they would institute more if they could get away with it. I say give them 40 acres and a mule on top of the White Sands proving grounds!

Now maybe we Tarheels can change the State law requiring that candidates be listed alphabetically by party on ballots. IOW, democrats are always listed first. It would have taken federal permission to change that law prior to this decision.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | June 26, 2013 at 7:04 am

    Really? What state has such a blatantly unfair law?

    Australia used to list candidates alphabetically by name. That gave something like a 2-3% advantage to whoever’s name started closer to the beginning of the alphabet, and resulted in a small but detectable skew in the distribution of names in Parliament compared to the population. That continued until the Democrats (a now-defunct minor party that arose in the late ’70s) drew attention to this by adopting a deliberate strategy of selecting candidates with names early in the alphabet. Their point was to get the law changed, by blatantly taking advantage of it and telling the major parties that it was up to them to change it. In 1984 the law was changed, and ballot order is determined by lot.

In 2006, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years passed the Senate by 98 to 0. That’s how uncontroversial it was. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Republicans from Texas, voted for it. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, both Republicans from Alabama, voted for it. The bill they voted for contained the section that the Supreme Court struck down today.
Were these conservatives wrong?
Did they make a grave error in judgment?
Hell, the case itself, Shelby County v. Holder, came from Alabama. Did Shelby and Sessions betray their state?

If Chief Justice Roberts thought his vote to save ObamaCare last year bought him some respect with the Left, he can put that idea away for good.

If they gave a hoot about everyone being able to vote they’d be against voter fraud because every illegal vote cancels out the vote of some other citizen who voted legally. The greatest voter suppression is voter fraud, the specialty of Democrats.

“Ignorant and confused…”

What do you expect? It’s the Left.

Don’t worry, lefties. John Roberts will probably have an opinion for you tomorrow that will make you all love him again.

SCOTUS is kickin’ them cans down the road as fast and as far as possible.

Anyone here remember the United States of America? Nice country it was. Too bad about what happened to it.

If the race-baiter types and Leftists are unhappy, them I’m tickled with joy.

thanks professor!

Well, now that the republicans won’t let the blacks vote anymore, I guess it’s only fair that they let the Mexicans.

Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan) counties in New York were covered by VRA Section 4, so we all know the “vote deniers” there will be rewriting the laws tonight to disenfranchise as many as possible.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | June 25, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Noah Rothman wrote a superb essay about a month or so ago predicting exactly this reaction if SCOTUS ruled this way. I linked to it in the Tip Line at the time.

This display of misinformation and excessive emotion are deliberate and a pre-planned strategy. Democrats will use this ruling as a campaign issue for the mid-terms. They hope that this issue will motivate liberals who may be discouraged to turn out in next year’s mid-terms and improve their chances of re-taking the House and holding the Senate. But to get them to turn out, the liberal opinion shapers have to get liberals emotionally engaged.

Expect demagoguery overload. It will be nauseating.

Particularly ironic that #SCOTUS gutted #VRA in wake of presidential election in which voter suppression was rampant…

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to teekeemon. | June 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    The suppression came from the Obama campaign. The New York Times wrote about the strategy in July 2012.

    “He [Obama] is running a two-track campaign. One track of his re-election drive seeks to boost turnout among core liberal groups; the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat in the most hostile segment of the electorate, whites without college degrees.”

    As Sean Trende wrote recently, the two prong strategy was highly successful. They got blacks to turn out and vote in record numbers – even more than turned out in 2008 – and they suppressed the votes of 6 million poor and middle class whites.

      That NY Times article was hilarious. Supposedly, Obama ran ads demonstrating middle class workers telling the truth about Mitt Romney in their own words… and that’s how Obama “suppressed the votes of 6 million poor and middle class whites”.

      So, Mitt Romney’s negative ads weren’t quite as hard-hitting… and did no damage to Obama with that demographic… and that’s Obama’s fault?? LMAO

        Ragspierre in reply to teekeemon. | June 25, 2013 at 6:03 pm

        Wow. You are so far up Pres. Snoop-Dog’s butt, you can see the backs of his teeth.

        I can’t seem to recall any “truth” Obama told about Romney.

        I do remember him lying to all of us to try to survive Benghazi until the election was over. I remember him attacking the 1st Amendment in the process, too.

          Perhaps those “6 million” white voters didn’t show up for all the reasons conservatives are providing post-election…?

          Reason 1) R
          Reason 2) I
          Reason 3) N
          Reason 4) O

          Actually. “Feckless” RINO is what they’re saying.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2013 at 6:42 pm

          Yep. More lies from a lying Collectivist troll.


          The butt-hurt with you is strong. The toxins resulting from all that bung-sucking you have done, no doubt.

          Perhaps its the vision of all those very POPULAR voter integrity laws and redistricting plans going into effect that is driving you to this level of dementia…???


    Ragspierre in reply to teekeemon. | June 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    You refer to the IRS scandal, clearly.

    No? Some stupid BS from the moonbattery?

Awww, the black man sitting in the Oval Office is ‘deeply disappointed’. Now, that’s irony!

“Jerome Vaughn @jvdet

AG Holder on Voting Rights Act: Congress needs to act so that every American has equal access to the polls. @wdet #VRA”

Is this moron talking about the samw AG Holder who saw no issue of “equal access to the polls.” when the Black Panthers were blocking the polls in Phili? Yes I think it is the same AG Holder he’s talking about.

    Lady Penguin in reply to MikeAT. | June 25, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Yes, would like to ask Mr. Holder about that voter intimidation and non-prosecution of the Black Panther Party. Obama, Holder and the race baiters goal is to suppress the white vote.

      Two African-American men did show up at a polling place dressed as stereotypical Black Panthers, but the Philadelphia District Attorney says that she took no action because there were “no complaints and no evidence” of any wrongdoing. Similarly, Zack Stalberg, Executive Director of the nonpartisan poll monitoring organization the Committee of Seventy, says that the two strangely-dressed men were “off-putting, not quite intimidating.” Indeed, the sole basis for any allegations of voter intimidation are statements by two poll watchers from an organization called “Democrats for McCain.”

        Ragspierre in reply to teekeemon. | June 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm

        Yes. And nobody was prosecuted for lynchings in Mississippi in the 1950s, ergo…no lynchings.

        And Thunk Progressive as your source…??? Impressive.

          Yeah, that’s my source. And their sources are also referenced. Reading is fundamental.

          Not to mention… kinda tough showing “voter suppression” by two clowns… when white turnout in that PA precinct was higher than the four previous national elections.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2013 at 6:34 pm

          OH, it wasn’t JUST your source. All you could manage was a paste and clip.

          And the Thunk Progressive piece was full of demonstrable LIES.

          Not surprising you warmly approved. For instance, the NBP case was DEFAULTED. Nothing left but to collect the fine and impose whatever other penalties were involved.

          And, of course, two Clansmen in full paramilitary dress carrying truncheons would be only slightly “off-putting”.

          You are a lying SOS.

Guess which two Republicans would rather not be in the position that SCOTUS just put them in today…

“It is up to Congress to right the wrong of this decision and ensure that we do not turn back the clock on America’s democratic progress,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an official response to the ruling. “The Senate will act. I have asked Chairman Leahy to immediately examine the appropriate path for the Senate to address this decision.”

That puts McConnell and Boehner in the same predicament they face in the fight over immigration reform: Would killing new Voting Rights Act standards ahead of the 2014 election be valuable enough in the near term (for both the party as a whole and their own leadership prospects) to outweigh the damage it would do to them in 2016 and the future with minority voters who will be watching this story very closely.

Wow, all the supremes did is do away with antiquated stuff. The law still stands. However, dims will overact and immediately demand the naturalization and citizenship of these 30 million or more illegals to fill the void resulting from the loss of cemetery residents, the mentally challenged, residents(not citizens) unable to speak, read, or write in English, illegal voters, bussed in voters from south of the border, and the vote early and often crowd since proper ID can now be required at the polls.

Darn, with fewer eligible voters and the inability to stuff the ballot boxes, dims may win fewer elections. Oh the shame of it all.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Tuesday his state will re-establish its voter ID law after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required certain states to seek federal approval before changing the electoral process.

Congress must devise a new racial calculus to determine which counties and states must petition the federal government to change election laws, the majority announced.

Texas greeted the ruling with plans to implement its suspended voter ID laws and district maps.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government,” Abbott’s statement read.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to Neo. | June 25, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    Great job AG Abbott, I’m tired of Texas paying for Democrat legislative segregation and discrimination.

I think that when Congress passes the new standards on which states have to get Fed approval of election law changes, California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Massachusetts should be the states named.

Lady Penguin | June 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm

The racists are out full force. The only discrimination I see is against the whites. Deliberate suppression of conservatives and tea party groups by the IRS with direction by the WH, though the lies continue. Want to talk about suppression? The precinct where I was an observer was run by a black lady ( nice and businesslike) but there were black individuals working the precinct who were hostile and antagonistic toward whites and anyone they thought might not be voting for their boy-king. The precinct leader didn’t stop them.

The greatest setback to our country right now is ignorance at the highest levels.

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Is a Poison Chalice for the GOP
Businessweek –

“…The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act will make it easier for Republicans to hold and expand their power in those mainly Southern states. That will, in turn, make it easier for them to hold the House. It will also intensify the Southern captivity of the GOP, thereby making it harder for Republicans to broaden their appeal and win back the White House…”

Awww… pity that.
It’s not like they have a candidate that can beat Hillary anyway. She’s up double digits on every candidate they have in FL.

Redneck red FLORIDA!

If people criticizing the decision are so convinced that it’s wrong… why not subject EVERY state to the restrictions?

[…] partisan reporting and misunderstanding. Another person not surprised that this will happen is  Professor  William Jacobson at the Legal Insurrection blog.   Here’s the background: Section 5 of the VRA deals with what is known as “preclearance” […]

Midwest Rhino | June 25, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Obama gets elected out of a racist church, and all we hear on this decision is these states are STILL racist and must be controlled. They have gotten WAY too comfortable with the (racist) power of the race card.

Supreme Court decisions are dividing Republicans

    Ragspierre in reply to teekeemon. | June 26, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Oh, ekkkkkcellent. Maybe they won’t be able to screw up the immigration system after all.

    You Collectivists, by contrast, are in lock-goose-step behind your Pres. Snoop-Dog.

    Well, and your contrived racial BS.

      Actually I’m not.
      Domestic spying enabled by the Patriot Act is unconstitutional by the 4th Amendment… regardless of extra-legal Gonzalez/Yoo-style rulings claiming meta-data collection is acceptable. Glad the right is finally on board with recognizing what we’ve been saying all along. Although they are entirely suspect with their motives for the 180 flop.


        Ragspierre in reply to teekeemon. | June 26, 2013 at 8:34 am

        Not in the least.

        Of course, you are WRONG. It ain’t the tool, but the abuser.

        BOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooosh also made use of criminal wire taps during his presidency. He didn’t tap the AP, Fox, and others in violation of the 1st and OTHER Amendments, did he?

        You saying you were right all along is a valid as you saying, “That law might be abused”.

        Yuh, duh. They ALLLLLL can be abused. Now, step up and admit YOUR guy was the abusive SOB. Or, do like Hill-larry, and enable really bad men all your life.


[…] June 26, 2013 » Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision […]