The Left is in Tizzy Over the Supreme Court Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

RUSH: the Supreme Court rule today that states can no longer be judged by voting discrimination that went on decades ago. This is a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform, the Voting Rights Act. A 5-4 ruling, and it rewrites a key element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for 50 years has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything, from how states draw their congressional maps, to where they place polling locations. It was all rooted in the belief that southern states were highly discriminatory against blacks, not letting them vote, not letting them register, so the states were totally subservient to the federal government when it came to voting.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/25/the_left_is_in_tizzy_over_the_supreme_court_ruling_on_the_voting_rights_act/

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Supreme Court rule today that states can no longer be
judged by voting discrimination that went on decades ago. This
is a decision that marks the end of a major
Civil rights era reform, the Voting Rights Act of five
to four ruling, and it rewrites a key element of

(00:20):
the Voting Rights Act, which for fifty years has given
the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how states
draw their congressional maps to where they place polling location.
It was all rooted in the belief that Southern states,

(00:41):
we're highly discriminatory against blacks, not letting them vote, not
letting them registers. So the states were totally subservient to
the federal government when it came to voting. The federal
government under this Act had the right to tell the
states everything, how they were going to draw their districting maps,
how they were going to run elections, and all that.
And the Supreme Court today just threw that out, saying

(01:03):
it's no longer applicable, and in fact, if anybody should
be punished for voting rights violations today should be the
Democrat Party. The Democrats created the ku Klux Klan to
keep blacks from voting Republican when that didn't work. They

(01:25):
created and forced the Jim Crow Laws to make it
hard firm to vote Republican. It's the Democrat Party and
agents of influence like the New Black Panthers, which now
terrorize voters in black districts. How about the fact that
Romney in fifty nine Philadelphia voting districts didn't get one vote.

(01:47):
Romney did not get one vote, zero folks, zero votes
in fifty nine districts. Now, if there are voting violations
taking place today, it's the Democrat Party anyway. This thing
has been thrown out now and the left is in
a tizzy. It's good news for the states are redistricted
when the GEOP took over and are being sued for

(02:10):
doing so. Now it's a quote Poe quote from the
Washington Time story. Beneath the legal ruling is a broader
social statement with the justice is saying that a state
cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there's
no evidence that it still exists. I mean this cuts

(02:31):
right to the core of affirmative action. When affirmative action
was established, it was to make amends for past transgression.
So what it basically was we were setting up new
discrimination to deal with old discrimination, and we were calling
that a remedy. But then people like me said, okay, well,
when does this new discrimination end in the civil rights

(02:54):
of You said never, Affirmative action is the law of
the land and it's part of the fabric, and it's
never gonna end. Well, wait a minute, you're now punishing
people who didn't do anything. Affirmative action is punishing people
who did not and have not discriminated against anybody in
their lives. Doesn't matter. It was so bad. It was

(03:14):
so bad that you're gonna be making a manage for
what you did for the rest of this country's life. Well,
the Supreme Court, when it comes to the Voting Rights Act,
just said, ah, a state cannot be perpetually held responsible
for past discrimination if there's no evidence it still exists,
which ought to be the guiding principle of affirmative action.

(03:38):
It ought to be the case that a business or
an individual cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination
if there's no evidence it's happening. Now, if there's no
evidence that it still exists. We go to the audio
soundbites Jonathan Turley on CNN's New Room Today. Jake Tapper

(04:03):
spoke with him, said the nineteen Voting Rights Act was
renewed for twenty five years in two thousand and six.
It was an overwhelming vote by a very divided Congress,
the vote three thirty three in the House, ninety eight
to nothing in the Senate. What's interesting is, even though
there was an overwhelming vote in favor of continuing the
Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice John Roberts made no secret

(04:26):
about his skepticism that it was still required. Turley said,
this this is very much a long term project for
Chief Justice Roberts. He stated years ago that he was
highly critical of of Section five, particularly taking out Section
four effectively takes Section five offline. But Roberts has been
gunning for this for some time. During the oral argument,

(04:47):
both Roberts and Scalia child at Congress and basically said,
no member of Congress has the guts to vote against
a bill like this because that you don't want to
be viewed his favoring racism or interfering with the rights
of minorities. And so what you have here is a
clear rejection of Congress and frankly, a degree of contempt

(05:08):
for Congress that came out of the oral argument, Well, okay,
you can put it that way. Degree of contempt for
Congress because it was renewed. This portion of the Voting
Rights Act was renewed for twenty five years, seven years ago,
and it was overwhelming three three in the House, nothing

(05:32):
in the Senate. It was clear, and that those two
votes are highly illustrative of attitudes everywhere regardless what the
right thing to do was nobody had the courage to
because they were afraid of being called racists. This provision
and no business being renewed for twenty five years. You know,

(05:53):
the past discrimination when it has long ago been dealt with,
the civil rights community wants per petual discrimination, reverse discrimination
if you will to continue for political reasons. This isn't
about making amends anymore. It's about two things. It's about

(06:14):
advancing liberalism, of course, but it's also about keeping the
bank population constantly royaled and angry and told that they're
being discriminated against, and that they're voting is being denied,
and they're voting rights and being denied, and that the
Republicans have designs on never having them vote again. It's
all part of that. Getting even with him is another russianism.

(06:37):
Get even with them is m is what was propelling this,
But there's no reason for it. It's like there's no
reason for affirmative action anymore. It's it was affirmative action
was illegitimate in the first place, simply replaced one discrimination
with another, sort of like, here's how it feels. We're
gonna make you go through what you put us. The

(06:57):
problem was the reverse discrimination was being applied to people
who had not engaged in it, and that's all the
courts said. Turley is right. The justice is basically called out.
Congress today has a bunch of cowards. You know you guys,
you didn't have a courage the right thing, So we're
going to do it for you, and we're just gonna

(07:19):
invalidate this this portion of voting rights there because it's
no longer constitutional. It's not legal to continue discriminating against
people who didn't engage in it in the first place.
Be great if this whole line of thinking we're applied
throughout our culture and society when it comes to affirmative action,

(07:40):
racial discrimination and all that