It would seem that rather than judicial overreach, you are more bothered by your preferred political impact, just as in the past when you liked it in the case of Roe V Wade where you claimed that the Constitution was a "living, breathing document". If you believed that and were logical, then why wouldn't you see the Voter's Rights Act in the same light?

(Of course, I disagree with you that this is a case of judicial overreach, but I've set it aside for now just to marvel at your flip flopping).