I don’t think many Black people were surprised by the SCITUS decision. Now let’s do an episode about teaching the Tulsa Race Massacre without mentioning race. Follow that with the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre. Maybe we could ask the survivors if they think that race was a factor.
For those having fun about Brown-Jackson using flawed numbers from an amicus group, be aware that John Robert’s gutted voting rights in Shelby County v Holder based on bogus numbers.
Shelby County v. Holder
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to stop several southern states from denying African Americans their constitutional right to vote. The law initially required six states — Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia — to get federal approval for their election laws and any contemplated changes. The original act expired after five years, but Congress renewed the landmark civil rights law repeatedly and, in 2006, extended it another 25 years.
In a 2013 case called Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that it was no longer necessary to keep the six states under federal oversight. America had changed, the court concluded. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the “extraordinary and unprecedented” requirements of the Voting Rights Act outdated and unfair.
To illustrate his point, Roberts constructed a chart and published it in the body of the opinion. It compared voter registration rates for whites and blacks from 1965 and 2004 in the six southern states subject to special oversight. Roberts assembled his chart from data in congressional reports produced when lawmakers last renewed the act. The data displayed clearly that registration gaps between blacks and whites had shrunk dramatically.
But some of the numbers Roberts included in his chart were wrong.
The chart suggested that rates of registration for blacks in 2004 had matched or even outstripped those for whites. But Roberts used numbers that counted Hispanics as white, including many Hispanics who weren’t U.S. citizens and could not register to vote, which had the effect of inaccurately lowering the rate for white registration.
There is no question great strides had been made in black voter registration in Georgia, which reached 64.2 percent in 2004. However, white registration was 68 percent, not 63.5 percent, as Roberts’ chart claimed. The rate of registration for whites exceeded that of blacks by 4 percent, rather than trailing it.
Similarly, the chief justice’s chart asserted that in Virginia, the rate of registration for whites was just 10 percent higher than the rate of registration for blacks, a narrowing that would have reflected enormous progress. But the actual gap, removing erroneously counted Hispanics, was 14.2 percent.
The argument Roberts was making — that the progress in southern states had been so substantial that there was no longer a need for the U.S. Department of Justice’s exacting oversight — might have remained persuasive. But the data he used as evidence was not true.
How did Roberts arrive at his numbers?
Roberts had relied on a report generated by the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2006. The committee’s staffers went to the right source: the U.S. Census Bureau’s post-election survey in 2004. The survey provides estimates of voter registration and turnout by state, gender, race and ethnicity, and citizenship.
On the error by Brown-Jackson vs Roberts (which I was not aware of until now) I think there is a clear difference. Roberts conclusion made sense based on the data he was given. The data may have been wrong, but the conclusion was logical and sound, given the data. Brown-Jacksons conclusion was very obviously wrong based on the data she was given. She made an error in logic or at least accepted and repeated a conclusion that was not backed up by the data she had right in front of her. I do not agree with those insinuating her error is a sign of low intelligence. I do believe she fell into the same trap most people do when they are emotionally attached to one side of a debate. When a conclusion supports your side you accept it uncritically and when a conclusion is in opposition to your side you scrutinize it. I think she missed the obvious flaw in this conclusion because she wanted it to be right.
I don’t think many Black people were surprised by the SCITUS decision. Now let’s do an episode about teaching the Tulsa Race Massacre without mentioning race. Follow that with the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre. Maybe we could ask the survivors if they think that race was a factor.
For those having fun about Brown-Jackson using flawed numbers from an amicus group, be aware that John Robert’s gutted voting rights in Shelby County v Holder based on bogus numbers.
Shelby County v. Holder
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to stop several southern states from denying African Americans their constitutional right to vote. The law initially required six states — Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia — to get federal approval for their election laws and any contemplated changes. The original act expired after five years, but Congress renewed the landmark civil rights law repeatedly and, in 2006, extended it another 25 years.
In a 2013 case called Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that it was no longer necessary to keep the six states under federal oversight. America had changed, the court concluded. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the “extraordinary and unprecedented” requirements of the Voting Rights Act outdated and unfair.
To illustrate his point, Roberts constructed a chart and published it in the body of the opinion. It compared voter registration rates for whites and blacks from 1965 and 2004 in the six southern states subject to special oversight. Roberts assembled his chart from data in congressional reports produced when lawmakers last renewed the act. The data displayed clearly that registration gaps between blacks and whites had shrunk dramatically.
But some of the numbers Roberts included in his chart were wrong.
The chart suggested that rates of registration for blacks in 2004 had matched or even outstripped those for whites. But Roberts used numbers that counted Hispanics as white, including many Hispanics who weren’t U.S. citizens and could not register to vote, which had the effect of inaccurately lowering the rate for white registration.
There is no question great strides had been made in black voter registration in Georgia, which reached 64.2 percent in 2004. However, white registration was 68 percent, not 63.5 percent, as Roberts’ chart claimed. The rate of registration for whites exceeded that of blacks by 4 percent, rather than trailing it.
Similarly, the chief justice’s chart asserted that in Virginia, the rate of registration for whites was just 10 percent higher than the rate of registration for blacks, a narrowing that would have reflected enormous progress. But the actual gap, removing erroneously counted Hispanics, was 14.2 percent.
The argument Roberts was making — that the progress in southern states had been so substantial that there was no longer a need for the U.S. Department of Justice’s exacting oversight — might have remained persuasive. But the data he used as evidence was not true.
How did Roberts arrive at his numbers?
Roberts had relied on a report generated by the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2006. The committee’s staffers went to the right source: the U.S. Census Bureau’s post-election survey in 2004. The survey provides estimates of voter registration and turnout by state, gender, race and ethnicity, and citizenship.
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
On the error by Brown-Jackson vs Roberts (which I was not aware of until now) I think there is a clear difference. Roberts conclusion made sense based on the data he was given. The data may have been wrong, but the conclusion was logical and sound, given the data. Brown-Jacksons conclusion was very obviously wrong based on the data she was given. She made an error in logic or at least accepted and repeated a conclusion that was not backed up by the data she had right in front of her. I do not agree with those insinuating her error is a sign of low intelligence. I do believe she fell into the same trap most people do when they are emotionally attached to one side of a debate. When a conclusion supports your side you accept it uncritically and when a conclusion is in opposition to your side you scrutinize it. I think she missed the obvious flaw in this conclusion because she wanted it to be right.
Yes. The both data sets were wrong.