I am not an expert on the SC, but if the SC should never have the power to make a determination on legislation enacted and renewed by Congress, then there's really no point to having a Supreme Court.
Also, this is not the first time that this section of the VRA has come before the Supreme Court. It's come up several times and been upheld in the past. So, the Supreme Court has been making this "determination" for quite some time now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all
No, I did not say that at all. They did not determine the VRA is unconstitutional, they determined the formula being used is because Roberts claims times have changed. But in 2006 Congress did look at the data extensively and they determined the formula is still useful for today.
I would love for you to find for me the last time the SCOTUS determined Congress interpretation of facts and data was wrong. This would be like SCOTUS telling Congress that they cannot schedule marijuana as a schedule 1 drug because the science says it has health benefits. The explicitly argue they will not do this because it is the job of congress and congress alone to determine this.
Had Congress just kept the formula without looking at data, the SCOTUS could have ruled justifiably that Congress did not even look at the data and cannot keep the formula indefinitely. That's fine. That is not what happened.
SCOTUS literally did something only Congress has the power to do and I've read tons of SCOTUS decisions and I cannot recall a single time when they did not defer to Congress on fact finding data and did it for them.
Those previous rulings do not tell Congress how to interpret data, it does the opposite it says it's their job. They did not make a determination of legislation, they made a determination on Congressional interpretation of facts and data. This is an absurd and activist position. Where does it end? Can they tell Congress how much pollution to regulate, too?
