Supreme Court justices voice skepticism of voting rights law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    "Arbitrary supreme court and its decisions cannot repeal a law or its enforcement. "

    actually that is exactly their role if they determine a law violates the constitution . You are however right that if congress decides to overrule the supreme court they can go through the process of amending the constitution.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 28, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    do you understand how our government works? what exactly do you think the role of the judiciary is as one of the three branched of government. hint they are not just a simple rubber stamp enforcement arm.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Judges have been making law from the bench now for decades. They claim they are interpreting law, but when the interpretation goes to the point of creating rights that clearly are not in the constitution, it is just as much law making as anything the legislators do. Only problem is, we can boot out the legislators at the next election, not so with lifetime judges. The judiciary has acquired too much power. The idea of blind justice has long ago gone by the wayside. Anytime you hear the term liberal or conservative judges, you know that judges are just as much politicians as any elected official.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 4:50 a.m.

    Judges have no authority to write laws nor is their decisions approve of or deny a law. Only the legislator can write or change the laws. Decisions are opinions, not fact of law. As long as the law remains unchanged its still the law and the Judges cannot alter that fact.

    The judges do now work for the president or the legislaors nor do they all hve the same powers. Arbitrary supreme court and its decisions cannot repeal a law or its enforcement. The congress still has the power to deny Supreme court decisions as is their constitutional right. The congress is the only branch of governemnt that can affect changes in the constitution and overturn supreme court rulings that affect law enforcment.

    Law that legalize discrimination are unconstitutional and all civil laws are written as non discrimination and the argument that discrimination is being used to enforce the laws are not the jurisdiction of Supreme Court actions. Many discrimination accusation against law enforcement violation are in the jurisdiciton of the DOJ to investigate those enforcing the law and their behavior. Most of the time any decisions by the Supermen Court are discriminatory with any decision it makes.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    When the writer refers to male members of the court, he refers to them by their title.

    "...Justice Antonin Scalia...".

    "...Justice Anthony Kennedy...".

    When the writer of this piece refers to two female Justices, he refers to them as...

    "...Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor...".

    Why not be consistent?

    Why not reference who appointed scalia or Kennedy?

    The writer refers to Justice Kagan "...chim(ing) in...".

    Why not use a similar dismissive adjective to describe the opinion of scalia?

    "...The bulk of the discussion concerned Congress' actions in 2006, when overwhelming majorities in the Republican-led Congress approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension of the prior-approval measure, which was first adopted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965...".

    conservative activist over-reaching supreme court judges are now going to overturn an Act which has overwhelming support of Congress.

    "...scalia said he worries that the provision will never fade away because members of Congress would be reluctant to risk a vote against it. "It's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress,"...".

    It's clearly not the kind of question you leave to doctrinaire supreme court judges.