Frank Ricci denied, Hannibal Lecter enabled.

Time to show the American public what they voted for.

It took a while to find it (page 100 of 103), but here is the dissenting opinion she wrote:

I join in Judge Parker’s dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not.

It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all “voting qualification[s].” And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority’s “wealth of persuasive evidence” that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

I respectfully dissent.

Judge Sotomayor, would you say that a wise black woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman? How about a wise black man? Where might he fall in your spectrum of ‘good conclusions’? How about a wise Latino man? And I guess I’m also curious as to how you think an Asian woman might stack up.

I have a couple other questions too

“So-and-so v Obama over the Tenth amendment, say or Texas V. Obama overthe interference ofteh feds in State matters. Or The Car Dealer Assn v
US over forcing Srtate Corporations to behave in a certain way.
Obviously i am not an atty. But in the Bush admin it was always ” X v Bush or Y v. Rumsfeld. Maybe all those attys were lefties. And there are no attys in the GOP except the Marquis de Queensbury.

somehow ties to their consistency with being weak on defending the country too (Surrender Doctrine)…. at least this has been true since JFK was lost. It is just another VOTE PANDER that Democrats/Liberals will go soft on crime/criminals (Holder (AG prior judgement?)) as long as the Criminals will continue to vote Democrat - this is the ultimate reward for their (criminals) loyalty and additional/final vote pander.

Well at least partially so. I am a liberal (I don’t want to misrepresent myself), and a lawyer, and this has always really bugged me. I would have found the other way in this lawsuit, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk. Section 2 of the 14th says: “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.”

The Amendment itself doesn’t define crime, and there is nothing in the text itself that specifically dictates that crimes include felonies (and not misdemeanors, for instance). In Section 5, Congress is given the responsibility of enforcing the Act. I think the VRA does govern ambiguities in Section 2.

I differ from Sotomayor because I think she probably misinterprets the intentions of the writers of the VRA - I believe that they probably thought that they were excepting felons. She’s got a strong case though - she’s right that the VRA does not except felons from its provisions. She’s being a textualist, rather than a realist. It’s really not a crazy position, I don’t think.

That said, I am with Obama on the policy. Why should felons lose the right to vote? I can understand 18 USC 922(g) preventing felons from owning guns (it’s a safety matter), but I just don’t understand why they should lose the most fundamental right in our land. Once somebody serves time in prison, and completes supervised release and probation, I think their punishment should be over. Preventing felons from voting also makes it more difficult for them to reintegrate themselves into society.

Thanks for letting me post - I am a long-time lurker, but a seldom poster.

didn’t include such offenses as using drugs … in fact, the priviledged (see__ Romance Poets) glorified the practice. It may be a good idea to lock up people when the only crime they can be convicted of is “drug possession,” but many “felonies” are creations of Congress … Congress-critters have no idea how to balance “I did somethng to protect citizens” versus “I disenfranchised my voter base.”