As to the term “crime” in the context of rebellion, I would say that I agree with you insofar as a correct interpretation of the pre-Civil War Constitution is concerned, but the pre-Civil War Constitution is probably not the framework under which Sotomayor bases her judicial philosophy, and in leiu of that, established precedent and post-Civil War norms are probably the way to go on this one.

I’ll reply to some of your other points when I have the time to do so.

I didn’t play the next year so painful was the experience.

Just now I am smarting from the Gamecocks blowing a 6-0 lead last night to East Carolina to lose in the 11th and get eliminated from the college baseball tournament.

1) Here’s my thinking on this,and I think it is Sotomayor’s as well. The 14th A guarantees the right to vote to a broad category of people,but excepts people that participate in rebellion and other crime. (Incidentally, what import do you give the word rebellion? Doesn’t that help define the word crime – and if it does, then wouldn’t it help limit crime either to very important crimes or crimes against the state?) The 14A thus allows Congress to deny federal representation to the states if they deny the franchise except on certain limited considerations.

2) Crime is one of those considerations. But what crimes are to be excepted? The Amendment doesn’t state.

3) Section 5 gives Congress the right to enforce the Amendment. The VRA is one of those laws.

4) The question then is whether the VRA speaks to the issue of what crimes are excepted. I think it doesn’t, Sotomayor thinks it does.

Where do you think Sotomayor is wrong? Just point 4? If so, I think your disagreement with her is basically a very narrow one about statutory interpretation methods.

I may not be able to respond this morning, but I am interested in your response.

As to your ideological support of felon voting privileges, I have to disagree with you (naturally, I suppose, considering the conservative/libertarian roots of the site). From a philosophical point of view, it could be argued that the felon forfeits his right to vote when he egregiously violates the social contract between government and the citizenry, and in fact, this is exactly what I argue. From a more pragmatic angle, it’s foolish to think that a felon would vote based on what is good for others, rather than himself. Certainly, the Founding Fathers thought so highly of suffrage as to limit it to property-owning men in the first draft, whom they believed would have a vested interest in the stability and prosperity of the US. Anyways, good on you for being so civil! Even if I disagree with you (and I disagree with you strongly, here), I appreciate that you were respectful.

I’m sure Sotomayor has more controversial positions, but I cannot disagree with her conclusion that “I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it..”

I might note that, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, prisons likely contained more Irish than any other group. More importantly, “felonies” did not include anything dealing with drugs, nor carjacking, nor many of the other things Congress and the States have since declared to be “really bad crimes.” Voting rights were not so much an issue, as many felons were simply shot or hanged, obviating any ballot-box considerations.

The whole issue is somewhat mute: New York City has had a Black Mayor (Dinkins, D, 1990-93) and the State currently has a Black Governor (Patterson, D, 2008-present) … when “minority” politicians control government, it becomes really difficult to convince a Court that the government is infringing on minority rights.

I expect our Republicans to put up a reasonable show of “Obama’s pick is bad,” just because they have to … but since some Republicans drove Arlen Specter into the Democrat fold, and he sits on the Judicial Committee, I would expect that resistance is futile.

I agree with you completely. In practice, it can only be worse. Much worse.

It reminds me of a question I asked during the past election, “where’s OUR George Soros?” The subjects are unrelated except for one fundamental question: Are there ANY power brokers in the GOP? Anyone at all??

Are we starved for leadership or are we starved for FUNDS? We’ve got a handful in the House, one or two in the Senate, a couple of governors, and a former governor TRYING to make a difference… But as the old saying goes, “if a conservative politician says something and the liberal press ignores it, did they make a noise?”

And the Dems call US the “party of the rich”! More like a party of cowards.

Either way we agree, and I didn’t even have to refer to my friend as dense.

Aaron, sometimes you are so dense due to how good and earnest you are.

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.

If you haven’t read it yet you can find it here , I haven’t finished it yet but right from the beginning he basically accepts that racism is inherent due to the fact that there is a disproportional amount of felons who are also a protected class.