Voting Rights Act Decision from SCOTUS

For John, BLUF:  Thinks may not change in Lowell, but beyond Connecticut things do change.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Over at Legal Insurection Professor William A Jacobson discusses the SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, with the title "Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision". He posted today, Tuesday, 25 June, at 12:46pm.♠  The discussion was with regard to the US Supreme Court ruling on Shelby County v. Holder.

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  All the decision did was do away with a remedial anachronism based on outdated facts as to the South.

Or will the South always be guilty, but the Democrats not so much?

Here is SCOTUS Blog Editor Amy Howe, "We gave you a chance:  Today’s Shelby County decision in Plain English".

The Court did not invalidate the actual preclearance provision of the statute.  But it did something just as significant:  it struck down Section 4 of the Act, which contains the formula that is used to identify the state and local governments that have to comply with the preclearance requirements.

I'm with the majority on the Court.♥

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I am slow in posting this.
♥  Have I ever mentioned that US Attorney General Eric Holder is my biggest disappointment in the Administration.  He has the background, but not the follow through.  Biggest disappointment.