The second decision involved the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A good thing in 1965, Section 5 evolved into a tool for Blacks to achieve the reverse of voter equality; it has essentially become a tool for Black voting districts to commit massive Black voter fraud using such practices as barring state voting auditors
from monitoring the accuracy of votes in predominantly Black voting districts.

Perhaps the Supremes had taken a good look at massive voter fraud in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Birmingham during last November's election. Incredibly, Obama had scored more votes than the total of eligible voters in the voter district. Most onerous, but apparently not embarrassing for Blacks, was the 115% of the vote Obama received in Black voter districts in Philadelphia.

Or perhaps it was the image of Black Panthers, wielding billy clubs, intimidating Whites from entering polling centers in Black districts. Under Section 5, it was the Federal government's responsibility to supervise fair elections, yet Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, chose not to prosecute these Black thugs, and in fact, covered up the investigation.

Maybe the folks on the court were taken aback by the Blacks who travelled about to seven states and cast a vote for Obama in all 7 states.

What the court essentially said is that the Federal government, under Section 5, had been given extraordinary power over state voting laws and had done a damn poor job of it. John Roberts himself wrote the decision and castigated Congress over their failure to heed an earlier Supreme Court warning that Section 5 was being abused and needed greater Congressional oversight.

While the Supreme Court probably didn't know how many dead people voted in the last election but, having sensed a hint of the "rotten", threw out Section 5, essentially telling Blacks voter equality laws were not meant to be used to commit voter fraud.