tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949695397805914430.post1968390510647817884..comments2023-04-12T08:14:37.935-04:00Comments on Colored Demos:: Thoughts on NAMUDNOLuis Fuentes-Rohwerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915435038828190903noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949695397805914430.post-5508291626505471832009-06-23T12:40:40.100-04:002009-06-23T12:40:40.100-04:00Now, I think City of Rome says that Congress, in a...Now, I think City of Rome says that Congress, in an attempt to prevent intentional discrimination (and enforce the 15th Amendment), is allowed to reach out past intentional discrimination and capture some activity that the 15th Amendment doesn't prohibit - if that's the only way to prevent intentional discrimination, and in 1980 they were convinced a broad prophylaxis was. I don't see that Thomas disagrees with that at all. If you're arguing that City of Rome gives Congress a right to bar practices or changes that have a discriminatory effect after most intentional discrimination has evaporated, I don't think that's what it says at all. The question that City of Rome requires Congress to answer when it reauthorizes the Act, and I thought everyone agreed on this, is whether there's still enough intentional discrimination to justify an overbroad prophylactic that captures all sorts of changes that aren't intentionally discriminatory or even so discriminatory in effect (see, say, Barnett v. City of Chicago, a case about whether blacks should get 19 65-percent black wards or 20). Thomas makes a case that there isn't enough left; whether you find that convincing or not is quite debatable, but I think he's directing his attention to just the right question.Asherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06495408546806192092noreply@blogger.com