Civil Rights Group Hail Voting Rights Ruling - Big SC Decisions Coming

Update III: NAACP LDF Director-Counsel John Payton: "The entire thrust of LDF's argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy and, however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today's decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation's long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made."

Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU: "For more than 40 years, Section 5 has been a critical element of perhaps the most successful civil rights statute this country has ever enacted. As Chief Justice Roberts recognized, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in reducing voting discrimination, increasing minority voter registration and multiplying the number of minority officeholders throughout the nation. But, as Congress recognized when it reenacted Section 5 only three years ago, voting discrimination is sadly not a relic of the past and Section 5 therefore continues to play a vital role in ensuring that all citizens have an equal right to participate in the political process."

Update II: Voting Rights Act Upheld, opinion here. Narrow 8-1 ruling preserves Section Five.

Update: SCOTUSblog LiveBlogs SC Opinions and Orders at 9:00 A.M. Central Time.

One week left in the U.S. Supreme Court's term and huge cases remain that will spotlight the problems with rightwing jurisprudence.

See Walter Dellinger, Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick in Slate. Perhaps the most anticipated case: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

To get an idea of the GOP incoherence and hostility to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, check out An Outdated Law in National Review Online by Abigail Thernstrom.

Thernstrom says "[p]olitical questions should be resolved in the open through the political process," but fails to mentions that the 2006 congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act is what the GOP wants overturned by the Court.

As for present-day voter obstruction which Thernstrom fails to mention, she notes vaguely, "And sad to say, the whole issue of registration and ballot fraud has become one that splits Americans along party lines."

Now, why would that be? Because the GOP Can't Win Without Suppressing Votes, and the Party has no compunction over obstructing and suppressing nonGOP-voting Americans.

The decision is unpredictable. A five-four decision either way looks possible, though the case could be decided on a question of Congressional authority with liberal-rightwing votes scattered.

One thing is certain, the civil rights community is worried.

Bush on the Economy

From Slate's Jacob Weisberg who collects Bushisms:

"The economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but—and to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move."—Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008

Click here to see video of Bush's comments. The Bushism is at 7:55.

Hillary Cannot Win Democratic Nomination

Just some good news to start the week, that in a sense, is not news: Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination.

See Timothy Noah at: Hillary Clinton, Fairy Princess. Stop pretending she has a plausible chance to win the nomination? Obama will win the nomination.

So all those friends and progressives who have refrained from tossing 10-point weights into their TV sets and plasma screens have no reason to fear.

Have a good week, (it's going to hit 70 in Wisconsin), and let's celebrate her demise and Obama's coming nomination.

As noted at the top of Daily Kos, of the remaining 682 delegates left, Obama needs just 286 delegates to win the nomination. That's some 42 percent.

By the way, isn't the Rev. John Hagee whose endorsement John McCain sought and obtained a whack?

Twenty Years of 100,000 Troops in Iraq in Long Shot Gamble

It's of little importance what administration frontman Gen. David Petraeus has to say next Monday about Iraq.
If he has something on his mind embarrassing to Bush, then he won't say it.

If he tells the truth about Iraq, he won't be around long, so the career-minded General certainly won't be telling the truth, the Bush truth anyway is being crafted by politicos at the White House.

One truth Petraeus won't acknowledge are the lies and lust for oil that have killed 100,000s.

Kevin Drum of The Political Animal points to Fred Kaplan's another substantial bit of truth that likely won't be told:

- The matter if 100,000 American troops in Iraq for 20 years -

BURIED LEDE ALERT....Fred Kaplan has a good piece in Slate today about the upcoming Petraeus report and what Congress needs to ask about it. But I was more taken by an astonishing statement at the end of the piece from Stephen Biddle, a member of Petraeus's advisory panel. Here's his comment about the current plan to restore stability to Iraq via a "bottom up" strategy of working with tribal leaders:

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years — and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

Here's Paul Krugman's take:

Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Oh, and not to bury my own lede, but just wondering how many troops could get PTSD disability benefits with the money spent on the slimy- PR-induced-Bush-says-"We're kicking ass"- surprise visit to Iraq last weekend. What a man that Bush is.

###