But that was just part of the "ugliness that erupted from the bench" when the high court heard a challenge to Section 5 of that 1965
Section 5 requires part or all of 16 states (mostly in the South) to get permission from the U.S. before changing their election laws, as a way to make sure minorities aren't disenfranchised.
In a scathing op-ed, veteran Supreme Court reporter Greenhouse took the Supreme Court to task for being on the verge of dismantling one of the most important
'Even the name of it is wonderful: the Voting Rights Act,' Justice Scalia said, his voice dripping with sarcasm as he suggested that only political correctness, rather than a principled commitment to protect the right to vote, had kept the disputed Section 5 of the act alive through four successive Congressional re-enactments.
The VRA was enacted when Southern states used ugly tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests keep blacks away from the polls.
In more recent years, the U.S. has used the VRA to thwart laws such as voter ID laws that have the effect of disenfranchising minorities.
(In fact, one recent study found voters in Southern states covered by Section 5 do in fact have more racial bias than those in Northern states.)
By undermining the authority of Congress, which passed the VRA, Greenhouse points out the court would be assuming a "big new power," as Justice Elena Kagan said during arguments.
"The Roberts court stands on the brink of making an error of historic proportions," Greenhouse writes. "A needless and reckless aggrandizement of power in one case to satisfy the current majority’s agenda will erode the court’s authority over time."