Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
More dramatic fallout from yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the voting rights act.
Many on the left are outraged at the court's decision which we're gonna get into in -- -- but is that outrage justified.
I am deeply disappointed.
Deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter who -- the civil rights struggle for inclusion -- won -- in America.
Been dealt a severe blow this is that a dark day.
The -- court on my voice was joined by throngs.
Means of Americans who are.
Frustrated enormously disappointed.
This decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of Americans across the country.
The control -- decision that was made.
Joining me now I Andy McCarthy -- senior fellow at the national review institute in contributing editor national review.
-- -- confederate decision I mean you you would think by listening to some of these that racism was given the stamp of approval officially by the Supreme Court yesterday in what actually happened -- what what happened was.
The Supreme Court recognized that.
The institutional systematic race based discrimination and disenfranchisement.
That was the impetus for the civil rights that -- for the voting rights act in 1965.
Has long ago.
It -- to the dustbin of history and this particular provision.
At the time it was enacted was recognized by both the court and even the congress that enacted it of being a very dubious constitutionality.
-- And what it said -- rights act in a nutshell was if your state with a long history of discrimination -- of 65.
What you they used to.
And require literacy tests of blacks and and character tests.
They -- that you're gonna -- you can't change your voting rights laws unless you get pre clearance from the Department of Justice in this court.
And that was necessary at the time and there's no question about whether that was necessary -- time because of the what was happening in -- like Mississippi and so on but we are.
Forty plus he -- after that now -- there's a question about whether it's still necessary the High Court said.
Well it needs to be evaluated differently kids have blanket all United States have to go to -- first.
-- what people seem to forgotten is that the way they did this in the first place was constitutionally very problematic it was a bedrock assumption of that of states that entered the union.
That number one their sovereignty by the federal government would be respected and number two they would be treated equally by the federal government.
In order to remedy this profound people.
Those two things were put on hold.
But once the profound evil was remedied the idea was that they were going to -- we're gonna go back to square one.
And that's what -- -- the actual normal in the country which is right state rights states' rights and if that's not interfering with states right which is why when congress enacted this in the first instance they said five years that's what they thought this would take that was -- -- -- the -- do but method in the nineteen now nineteen.
I know I -- lawyer so I treasury and we did that several medicine.
Now let me ask you about what -- seen here on the left I mean this outrage because you have a great column up today at national review the talks about how you believe though the left has that they are recent test.
In their narrative that they need to perpetuate this narrative that.
That this is racist and then -- this is the right trying to get ignore the rights of blacks and other practices a great.
Success story you'd you'd have to be a progressive to hate this kind of progress that's the the only way -- you could explain it.
And the people who seem to -- -- our -- movement progressives and and the race -- because this is a moment.
I think appropriately that the Supreme Court took to recognize.
The achievement of American society in overcoming this form.
Of institutional racism.
And instead of celebrating -- the people who depend on this kind of demagoguery.
Are screaming bloody murder predictably.
And -- how active in your -- that if for example in Mississippi in 1965 the black registration rate was less than 7% 70%.
In 2004 Mississippi the black registration rate was 76%.
Which is higher than the white registration rate which is why the Supreme Court said.
You it doesn't make sense -- just carte Blanche we were subjecting Mississippi to Eric Holder in the DOJ before they try to mess with their voting rights act.
Exactly right and and also what the court recognizes and what I think the rest of us should recognize if we could put all this that this noise from the left the side.
Is what does that say about the American people what the left is basically saying is if this -- -- not on the books the people in those states and in other states throughout the country.
Want to have literacy tests.
Back and wanna have an -- character yeah.
I mean how crazy is that evident truth is also the truth is if they do do it again there are other remedies is not like your remedy -- you can -- -- this isn't taking away -- -- -- wanna get to this.
Minnesota state rep Ryan -- clerk who comes out yesterday with this voting rights majority best week.
Is four accomplices to race discrimination and one.
Now is try to take it back saying if that was offensive I apologize all by the way I didn't know what uncle -- really -- so what did you think it -- That's the question if he didn't mean it in a racially.
What did he think he was saying this guy went to Harvard to -- in the history major Harvard not to mention -- JD that he not go to literature class -- -- I intended to point -- -- Justice Thomas had turned his back -- African American civil rights I didn't intended as a racially derogatory -- so I just meant he was a racist not that he was a racist.
I'm glad he clarified.
It's unbelievable how blood mean justice I was really get this every time he issues a decision that some on the left don't like when it comes as favourites.
And it's not fair Andy thank you thank you.
Filter by section