On September 21, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the parts of the federal Voting Rights Act that require certain states to pre-clear election law changes with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, D.C., 1:10cv-651. Here is the decision.
The Alabama case is one of several constitutional challenges to this part of the Voting Rights Act. A few months ago, another U.S. District Court had in Washington, D.C., had also upheld this part of the act, in a case filed by some North Carolina voters. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news and for the link to the decision, which is 151 pages long. UPDATE: a third case challenging the pre-clearance parts of the Voting Rights Act, State of Arizona v Holder, happens to be before Judge Bates, so that increases the odds that the Arizona challenge will also lose. See this story.
Each State happens to be a NATION-State.
1776 DOI, last para.
1777 Art. Confed
1783 Peace Treaty
1787 Art. VII; Art. I, Sec. 10
The pre-clearance stuff is one more result of the EVIL *politically correct* stuff from the 1960s — i.e. a total subversion of the 15th Amdt.
See the 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 – 15th Amdt connection.
The 15th Amdt happened due to the very close 1868 Prez election — Grant barely won in many northern States — having black ex-Union Army and Navy persons.
The Congress MORONS are too stupid to pass a simple one line law —
Any public officer, Federal, State or local, legislative, executive or judicial, who violates the 13th, 14th, 15th, [etc.] amendments shall be guilty of a felony and be imprisoned for not less than 100 years (repeat 100 years), be fined a mere ONE BILLION dollars and be subject in civil action to UNLIMITED damages by any person whose constitutional rights have been violated by such public officer.
Too difficult for the SCOTUS legal history MORONS to understand ???
The brain dead courts do NOT know the difference between
A. INTENTIONAL and
B UN-intentional (aka negligent)
violations of Constitutional Sections.
SEVERE punishments/ civil remedies for A.
Lesser punishments/ civil remedies for B.
When did the appointed SCOTUS robot party hacks become RETARDED (or are they genetically retarded — like the robot party hack Prezs who nominate them) ???
1861 with Lincoln or even earlier ???