VRA decided 13 years ago

I've rarely seen Dionne so pained:

Recall that when conservatives did not have a clear court majority, they railed against “judicial activism.” Now that they have the capacity to impose their will, many of the same conservatives defend extreme acts of judicial activism by claiming they involve legitimate interpretations of the true meaning of the Constitution.

It is an inconsistency that tells us all we need to know. [The Voting Rights Act decision] is not an argument about what the Constitution says. It is a battle for power. And, despite scattered liberal triumphs, it is a battle that conservatives are winning.

And, like so many of today's national ills, its origins reside in--what else?--Bush v. Gore.

Absent that 2000 Rehnquist decision, we never would have suffered Roberts and Alito's VRA decision, because they too would have been absent, along with their Bush v. Gore-like obscenity of Citizens United. Still present would have been nearly 4,500 Americans lost to neocon madness in Iraq, and maybe, just maybe, an economy unafflicted by almost criminal neglect. 

We don't know whom the duly elected President Gore would have nominated to the Court, but we can be sure it would have been men or women--white, black, or brown--who regarded the Constitution as something more than an ideologically dessicated party's platform.  

As laudable as the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions are, they don't mean political power. Shelby County v. Holder and Citizens United do. The unscrupulous designs of the former are already in motion, and though a few bags of cash are ruefully rethinking their 2012 activities, they'll be back in '14 and '16--bigger, badder, and smarter than ever. You can literally count on it.

All because of Bush v. Gore--though not as morally dreadful as Dred Scott, the Court's fin-de-siècle version of it.

E.J., we'll have that drink with you now.

Comments

[Peter G]

I would argue the very opposite. As have you. The Republicans are the bulimics at the buffet table when it comes to voter suppression as the last election amply showed. And it blew up in their faces. I would argue, given the poor turnouts in American elections,there are more votes to be gained by outrage over the inevitable suppression of votes than there are to be lost by the suppression of the vote in itself. Americans are no more or less likely to take their rights and obligations for granted than any other people. But I would submit that American's jealous regard for those rights, when threatened, exceeds that of other nations by far. Every policy debate in the US is a constitutional debate. Every freaking one!