Supreme Court at Work
We haven't blogged an assignment for a while so let's do one. Comment by the end of day Friday the 16th.
Looks like the Supreme Court will be reviewing some Civil Rights legislation to see if still "relevant". Keep your comments brief but since part of our AP curriculum include civil rights and civil disobedience maybe this can kill 2 birds with one stone. I welcome your comments as the Supreme Court Justices Will Hear Challenge to Voting Rights Act. Please keep your comments relative to the function and work of the Supreme Court and not your own personal biases.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 3:46 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Woohoo! Yay for outdated legislature!! Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we have laws that exsist for just a few people. Like the no music during senior priv at school. We're not supposed to have it because a few people took it too far. Like racism. We're allowed to have opinions, or even prejudices, because they're natural, but when someone takes them too far... I think it's ridiculous that we have to waste the Justice Department's time (and money, I'm guessing??) on moving a local election from a house to a local school... don't you? But maybe I'm biased. Or maybe the media is? Bias in the media, anyone?? Abolish it.
I completely agree with you Lizi, I found the topic of this article totally ludicrous. It isn't fair to have special laws just for a few of the minority. Plus the issue with the firefighters was just crazy. Why should a promotion for the rest of them be disreguarded just because of a few low scores. But overall, I'm not really quite sure on what should be done on the outdated act.
[STEPHEN HANDLON]
There is so much outdated legislation out there its unbeleivable. While racism obviously is not eliminated just because we have our first African American President, the law no longer appears to be necessary. The fire fighter incident is ridiculous as well because I doubt the test was "biased".
Danielle
1st) isn't having any minority law racist?
2nd) then again, shouldn't we have laws to stop discrimination...or are they outdated? do we still need them?
3rd) unnecessary, or apart of history?
IDK.
I agree with Stephen that racism will not be eliminated and that this law is no longer needed. The America that voted for Obama is a lot different than the America that needed this Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court should review this Act again to see if it is still needed. That way, if it isn't needed, they can eliminate it, or re-write it, to better benefit the included states.
[Taryn Upmann]
I truthfully don't see what the problem is with this legislation. It doesn't say anything about racism besides making sure that minority's get a fair chance to vote. It's not giving them more jobs, or helping them succeed at anything as far as i can tell. So what's so wrong about making sure their rights are safe? We have to consider that our influx of races always creates and unwanted peoples. Blacks one day Mexicans the next, to me this legislation just safeguards any minorities rights, at any time.
(the only issue is that it's effective in only a few states. To truly be fair it should be applicable to all states shouldn't it?)
IDK, I think there will always be people out there who base things on things as dumb as physical characteristics. I say judge people based on their kindness, dreams, and overall personality. But people are jerks. But then it's natural to have prejudices, I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to have them, but we shouldn't act on them especially in such a negetive way. I'm torn, I don't think we should have laws based on race in the first place, but sometimes they are necessary to protect other's lives from the super jerks. Stop judging based on race! Of course there will always be those who do so here's my final thought. Sometimes I wish we were all just grey blobs, that way we wouldn't have these problems (and half the celebrities today wouldn't be famous anymore). Too bad were not and people are jerks. Isn't it the slightly less jerky people's responsibility to help protect other's rights from the super jerks? Regardless of the time and number of super jerks? (Sarah Anderson)
Ok I don't think my original post was very good so I'm redoing it.
Yes I agree with Stephen and Bill on how racism isn't obviously gone now that we have a black president, and we probably don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore because that part of racism isn't an issue anymore. So it should be done away with or changed. And for what the court should do in these particular cases- I'm not really sure.
A few things they should consider..
1- Would removing this really impact the voting process of minorities?
2- Does this in anyway represent our history and should be "preserved?"
3-Is this just more out of date "garbage" that should be taken out?
Well like everyone else, i don't agree that things should be set to only a few certain people. As Stephen said, Racism won't go away just because Obama is our president, if anything it might get worse. But to fight about something that was set over forty years ago, whether it be relevant today or not, is a waste of money. To answer Ben, i dont think its just "garbage" but i also dont think that it represents our history to the point of "preservation". I would also like to know: How does removing it or keeping it impact the voting process?
[Suzy Kent]
Sure there may be some outdated legislation, but one of the Supreme Court's tasks is to interpret the Constitution. The case does have to 'climb the ranks and 'pass certain checks' to get to the Supreme Court. Apparently the challenge to the Voting Rights Act has found its way to the Supreme Court, although the Constitution hasn't changed recently. So, the Supreme Court's decision should be relatively the same.
Yes, I agree that electing a minority president(first african american), Barack Obama, won't solve all the issues regarding racism.
The Supreme Court should review the Act and see if it is still necessary and interpret the constitution.
I agree with the following question from Taryn Upman:
"(the only issue is that it's effective in only a few states. To truly be fair it should be applicable to all states shouldn't it?)".
I don't really see the problem with continuing to enforce this part of the Voting Rights Act. I mean, look at the problems it's causing: only that these specific areas with a history of discrimination have to get changes to voting procedures approved by the Justice Department. Now I don't know how long this approval could take, but seeing as this only affects a few small areas of the United States it seems like it wouldn't take too long. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. In fact, it seems to be working fine, considering the election of Barack Obama. I don't see the argument that the U.S. would be better off without this law in place.
P.S. Did you catch what Chief Justice Roberts said about discrimination? "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
That looks like circular reasoning to me, which would be a fallacy. This gives me great confidence in the Chief Justice that George W. Bush has selected for our Supreme Court.
This law does seem unnecessary as discrimination and racism have significantly been reduced in our country. The Supreme Court should abolish it since it only applies to a few states based on events that occurred 40 years ago, which is unfair to those states. America is very different today than it was 30-40 years ago and out-dated laws such as the Voting Rights Act should be abolished.
I do agree that the Voting Rights Act is a little outdated but I don’t think that there has to be money and time spent on it trying to get rid of it. The Justice Department shouldn’t have to be tied down by all this either. Racism is going to continue even with the election of an African American president. Instead of abolishing the whole thing they should change it to include all of the United States; not just singling out certain states.
The supreme court should review the act. They could rewrite or even remove it. Removing the act could also be a turning point in our country as well (in a good way). It could mark the turning point our country as a whole. There would be no such word as "minority" anymore. America would just be one whole majority. The only way we could make it happen is if we stop categorzing ourselves. It would take a lot to do that. If i was a member of the supreme court, i would keep the act and further changing it. I just dont think our country is ready for the change yet (:
haha to max's "P.S." about our chief justice.
At all points in history there has been a minority, and at all points to come, there will be a minority; there's no getting around it, really. I propose that the Court reviews the Act, keeping in mind not the present minority, but the theoretical minority that could one day encompass a whole new demographic of people. Doing this, America may attempt to avoid “this divvying…up by race”, dividing us by the negatively connotated ‘minority’, and, instead, accomplish a simple protection of the neutrally denotated ‘minority’-those of a factually lesser population percentage. At the time of enactment, African American was the minority they hoped to protect, but now with a new America full of a new people, perhaps the intention of the Act should be addressed rather than the politically correct implication.
This Voting Rights Law, I believe, is too outdated for our society, hence the Voting Right Law of "1965". Agreeing with others, racism will never be completely abolished, but there is not a need to have a law about voting privledges with who can and cannot vote. I found it to be very off-topic to include the firefighter story in there. I don't really see how a "firefighter" test can really be biased towards one race or the other.
alright seriously??? They said that this case has potential to be the most important case in our time?? Nothing is being accomplished because of this. Some people just don't want to take a little more time to make sure that they aren't being biased so now they are going to take time that could be used on more important things, and waste it debating if a rule they made a while ago still needs to be followed. WHO CARES.
I think that it is a good idea to review legislation. Some of the laws that were passed in the 1960s are no longer relevent today, but some are. The biggest problem that I have with the legislation is that the requirements only apply to nine states. Isn't that in itself passing judgement upon the citizens of those states? Our government is so afraid to appear biased, but if I lived in one of the nine states, I would feel like the legislation is labeling me and all of the other citizens as racists. I know that the legislation was passed to make voting fair, but is having it apply to only a select group of people fair? I didn't know that the Supreme Court could chose where to enact legislation.
Racism will never truly leave our society. Even the people electing Barack Obama as the first African American President will not solve a lot of the racial problems. Upon reviewing the act, the Supreme Court should keep the act because the act keep states, that had a history of discriminatory acts, from implementing any change to voting without the approval of the Justice Department. Even though Southern states no longer are discriminatory in their voting process, racism will always be present and this act protects the minorities living in America.
Forgot to put my name on the last blog at 12:07.
Michaela Antolak
The function of the Supreme court is to decide whether a law is constitutional and not to remove inconvenient laws. I am not sure that one Presidental election is enough to prove that prejudice is gone, just look at the immigration debate.
Yes reviewing the legislature is needed becuase it is too outdated, and racism will never truly be gone. I completely agree with Jennifer, to be a citizen of one of the nine states i would feel labeled racist. The act had good intentions at the time but things need to be updated.
This seems like a pretty redunculus law. It was great in the 60s when there was a lot of racial discrimination but now it is unnessacery. The story about the firefighters was great example of how it is being used in ways it was not suppose to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home