There are three interesting Supreme Court decisions I want to talk about. Two of which I agree with and one is clearly a bad decision by 5 out of 9 judges.
First the bad decision. SCOTUS had no business tearing apart the Voting Rights Act. (Huffington Post News story)
They specifically declared the formula in Section 4 unconstitutional. "The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting
jurisdictions to preclearance.”
Specifically they said that our country has changed and they the formula must be updated.
This is a bad decision because they admitted that at one time the formula was good. Roberts said "Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem
speaks to current conditions"
But you see, that is CONGRESS's decision, not the Courts. The court is there to determine if the Congress overstepped it's bounds, NOT to determine if they did a good job or a bad job. If Congress has the power to make that determination, they have the right to do so poorly.
Honestly, I believe that Congress should simply say, screw it, EVERYONE has to be subject to jurisdiction for preclearance. That is, every single state and every single county should be forced to ask the DOJ if their voting procedures are racist.
It would end a lot of vile and corrupt practices, such as gerrymandering.
Second, the good news. SCOTUS said that the Federal Government must recognize the Marriage of Gays, done by states. Gays are people too, and as such have the rights to obtain the legal status of married, with all the tax, medical, etc. benefits. (CBS news story)
This is fairly obvious and not that surprising. Scalia himself predicted it would happen 10 years ago - although he was too preejudiced to understand it is a good thing. He was kind of like an old racist from the 1860's saying "Why if we free the slaves, they might marry our white people." Yes, his prediction was true but he was too prejudiced, and frankly, illogical to see that it was not a bad thing.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court also confirmed a lower courts decision that said being homeless does not mean you are not allowed to own anything. Specifically they stated that the state of California could not take the possessions of homeless people and destroy them simply because they were on 'public grounds' and the homeless people had stepped away from them (to go to the bathroom or get on a food line.) (Death and Taxes Blog)
Note, California had previously stolen and destroyed such possessions including identification (such as driver licenses, social security cards, etc.) and cellphones (if you don't have an address, a cellphone is vitally important to stay in touch with people.)
Frankly it was a rather evil attempt by the state of California and not that surprising that the Supreme Court sided with the homeless people.