Tonight's opening segment on the history of the Voting Rights Act included a few elements that are worth singling out.
Here's LBJ's speech to Congress supporting the Voting Rights Act, for example. YouTube offers an abbreviated version, but the full thing runs over 45 minutes:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a similarly full version of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech in Montgomery. YouTube gives us the last (most famous) couple of minutes, but if you look at the text, you'll see he had quite a bit more to say before he got to the "How long? Not long" part.
Lastly, here is tonight's graphic summarizing the overwhelming support for the repeated renewal of the Voting Rights Act:
Leave a Comment:
Looking at that graphic, I wonder how many in the House would vote against it today, given the TP influence and all the voter suppressor shenanigans at the election.
I would almost bet the Voting Rights Act wouldn't pass the Hastert Rule in this Congress.
The once concealing shroud that has covered overt and public racism has been lifted by long quieted voices from the far white right, now validated today by a Supreme Court Justice.
This. Is. Not. Over.
Ex- Justice Scalia?
Call me presumptuous (though not by much). I
feel confident that after yesterday’s outrageous behavior and clearly discriminatory
statements by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that favor his valued corrupting
.1% over the remainder of We the People, that We the People can and will find
him guilty of both Contempt of Congress and Contempt of Constitution. How can this be done? Simply, by following the Constitution, stupid!
Let us start our Constitution lesson to Mr. Scalia (which he soon will be addressed as if he has indeed violated his constitutional oath) by noting that no person,
inconsistent law, nor organization is above the Constitution. In effect, no Supreme Court Justice can attempt to overthrow the Constitution because once they do it, they violate their Constitutional Oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of
the United States and its laws thereof, and they instantly stop being a Supreme Court Justice and immediately transition into becoming a traitor. By Mr. Scalia’s actions, it becomes clear that he sees little need for equal protection and due process (which were the two major reasons We the People fought both the American Revolution and the
Civil War), and therefore We the People see little need for Mr. Scalia to
continue to represent us in the Supreme Court, as a lawyer, or as any other
public figure. Mr. Scalia can be considered as a traitor for attempting to sell out the rights of We the People in the Constitution, as well as the Federal Government (which in this case includes Congress whose Voting Rights Acts Mr. Scalia is attempting to overthrow as well as his share of the Supreme Court by being a political hack evidently in the payola of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, et al.).
Of course, this is not the first time that Mr. Scalia’s devotion to the
Constitution has come under question. With his part in the decision Bush v. Gore, the equal protection and due process of our election process was seriously questioned. This has been even more seriously questioned in Citizens United. Considering the
voting irregularities during the last election in Florida, Ohio, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (all of which had GOP Governors, almost as if they
knew the system was fixed), one might question the sincerity at which the Conservative
side of the Supreme Court considers the one-person one-vote concept. It is almost as if the GOP were attempting to re-create another Confederacy in which they do not have to deal with equal protection and due process since they are becoming so outnumbered with their bigoted opinions.
That is where my creating a fourth branch of Government, We
the People, becomes so critical. We the People are one big and immensely powerful oversight tool that can fulfill President Lincoln’s prophecy of Creating a More Perfect Union by driving out anti-Constitutionalist public figures. In
effect, the We the People Branch allows privatizing the Attorney General
function (as well as the entire DOJ) when our Constitution, We the People, or
our Federal Government comes under attack by enemies Foreign or Domestic, such
that any We the People (be them an attorney like myself or not) can bring
popular We the People suits against those public figures who are clearly
attempting to overthrow the Constitution and the Federal Government by placing
their own interests above it (former Presidents Nixon and George W. Bush/ Dick
Cheney come to mind). We the People propose trying Mr. Scalia in two places, first in the Court of Public Opinion which has already started by a solid round of mocking his comments and judicial impartiality in such Internet sources as Politico, the Rachel Maddow show, and Real Clear Politics; and second (because I came up with the idea of the We the People Branch of Government) We the People could try such allegedly traitorous public figures as Mr. Scalia at any location we desire because his traitorous
actions have affects in all 50 States of the United States of America. I suppose Seattle might be a good location (Federal District Court in the Western District of Washington) because it would be easy for me, is a relatively blue location and it would be difficult for him to sell his brand of discrimination to a Seattle Jury, and would be relatively difficult for him to reach on airplanes. I do believe that Mr. Scalia will
have to pay for his own transportation and legal fees, since his traitorous anti-Constitutional activities are clearly extracurricular to the Constitutionally-defined role of
the Supreme Court Justices.
Who knows, perhaps after Mr. Scalia has been soundly
ridiculed for his comments that appeared discriminatory towards the vast
majority of We the People, as well as blatantly anti-Constitutional, perhaps if
we turned his trial out here in Seattle into enough of a circus, that the
President of the United States might even consider me as Mr. Scalia’s
replacement on the High Court. I, after all, have actually read the Constitution (particularly the Separation of Powers, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses; as well as the idea that the Constitution is really all about We the People), which evidently Mr. Scalia has not.
Is there a Constitutional remedy? Can we impeach a Supreme Court Justice?
Maybe we should amend the Constitution to require that Justices be re-affirmed every 10 years at least. We cannot vote them out of office.
What recourse do We the People have?
I think we have the right to impeachment, but apparently the action has to be brought by the house or the senate. But I really like your idea of having justices re-affirmed (or not) every 10 years (or less). I'm all for impeaching all of the crooks, including the ones on the supreme court. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of crooks in the house and senate too. We need to get the good guys in the house and senate to take the first steps to begin an impeachment action.
The Supreme Court justices apparently have to take one of these oaths:
"I, _________, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me as ________— under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. So help me God."
The Combined Oath
Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:
"I, _________, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me as ________— under the Constitution and laws of
the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
moviefan: if you are right that we can impeach the justices, maybe we should get some congressman to at least enter a bill or whatever to impeach based on violation of the oath. Just the threat might do the trick. The only problem is that it might be a bad president. "Bloody instructions being taught return to plague the inventor." The right might then just try to impeach some liberal justices.
True, but the liberal judges haven't violated their oaths. But I couldn't put it past the republicans to come up with something bogus and then run with it. I think our best bet might be to do everything in our power to replace republicans in all areas of government in 2014.
Yes, moviefan, replace those we can. Also, see my answer to your comment below: keep up the public comments. Shame them into doing the right thing.
The problem is that the longer we delay, the more bad rulings can be made and the worse things could get especially with the sequester cuts most likely being put in place.
When I listen to the words that President Johnson spoke, I feel proud of what we as Americans - citizens of the USA - can be.
When I listen to the words that Scalia spoke, I am horrified when I think about the direction we might be headed.
How far are we from marches and beatings - lynchings even?
I'll have those n......s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson
does this make you feel proud? how come Rachel didn't post that gem?
Just keep it up . Seriously.
There will be a backlash of unimaginable proportions .
I guess you didn't notice that when you tried to suppress the vote with voting hours cutback and ID laws , people were willing to wait in line up to 9 hours to vote, send a resound F**k You to the suppressors. This will be civil rights movement 2 .
National voting standards are need now.
Ya , Keep it up and you will awaken a sleeping giant .
If the Court says it is un-constitutional to require some states to have their changes to voting reviews by the Justice Dept, than we should require it of all states.
If they do strick down the clause, we will just have to fight back at the polls by waiting in line, getting required ID and helping those who cannot get such easily.
We do not seem to be able to get rid of justices who follow some ideology or party instead of the Constitution.
We need to find a way to et rid of these conservative "justices" who have proven themselves so unjust. It may be time to look at impeachment of at least Scalia.
moviefan: I am not sure we can impeach him. What we need to do is lean on Kennedy and Roberts. The only leverage we have is "legacy." I think that is what got Roberts to find a way to uphold the ACA. If the Supreme Court strikes down this provision, it will go down as a racist, partisan court. I do not think either Roberts or Kennedy want to be remembered for voter suppression.
Keep up the noise Rachal and Rev. Al.
Thank you Rachel for doing this story on your show! Of all the outrageous miscarriages of justice we've seen in the past 12 years, we may be witnessing the most egregious of all in this Supreme Court trying to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Please keep covering this. Thanks again.
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, but... What is stopping the court from ruling that the only part that's unconstitutional about the Voting Rights Act is that there are places in our country that *aren't* subject to the scrutiny of the Justice Department when they propose changes to their laws?
Seems to me the Constitution guarantees the right to vote, no matter where you live or what your skin color, so states' rights are out as an argument. The amendment allowing voting rights, in fact, was created with the stated and explicit intent to get rid of what was once a state right. That the Congress has a right to pass laws that help enforce Constitutional law is certainly not unconstitutional. But I do see where one *could* make an argument that because some places have to clear an extra hurdle when they change election laws, some peoples' right to vote is arguably more protected by federal law than other peoples' right to vote elsewhere. (Obviously, there's a logistical reason for why some places are subject to this scrutiny, and I'm not arguing that it's wrong.) But by that logic, shouldn't everyone be "entitled" (Scalia, I'm looking at your racist face when I say this) to the same protection?
So, what stops the Supreme Court from saying, "We don't throw out the scrutiny; we rule that because this federal protection of voting rights applies to part of the nation, it applies automatically to all of the nation?" Is there anything preventing such a ruling? Any Constitutional argument otherwise?
And more to the point: if this were put on the table as an option for how the Court could rule, what would the plaintiffs have to say for themselves? Their claim that the law unfairly targets some districts would be agreed with. If they don't like it, they are therefore doomed to argue, somehow, that federal protection of citizens' Constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional--that we can amend the Constitution, but we cannot enforce it as strictly as Congress agrees it needs to be enforced.
...Seems to me that'd be a tough argument to defend.
(Note: I don't actually think the VRA is unconstitutional. But wouldn't it be lovely if, instead of overturning the protections, the case actually resulted in those protections' expansion?)