If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN) NewsFlash The Supreme Court ensures our next president will be Lynyrd Skynyrd   (cnn.com) divider line 637
    More: NewsFlash, Voting Rights Act, supreme courts  
•       •       •

28168 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

637 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-25 10:39:06 AM
I don't get it.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:17 AM
I see your true colors shining through
 
2013-06-25 10:39:27 AM
Sam Alito's opinion merely read "butter".
 
2013-06-25 10:39:36 AM
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of FREEBIRD!!
 
2013-06-25 10:39:39 AM
A high school gym coach? We could do worse
 
2013-06-25 10:39:52 AM
Is this about Paula Deen?
 
2013-06-25 10:39:53 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.


Jim Crow is back baby!!
 
2013-06-25 10:40:02 AM
I don't think he is running.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:19 AM
Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!
 
2013-06-25 10:40:23 AM
fark you Kock Bros.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:37 AM
This one? Jesus mods, we have a great discussion going in a whole other one which is wasted now.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:49 AM

bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!


Tomorrow.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:05 AM
media.hamptonroads.com
 
2013-06-25 10:41:11 AM
A gym teacher couldn't be any worse than a senile old movie actor.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:14 AM
But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-06-25 10:41:18 AM

drew46n2: Is this about Paula Deen?


She gets to be VP now.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:18 AM
This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:29 AM

bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!


They will tomorrow!
 
2013-06-25 10:41:30 AM
well, it's not like the south was ever in play for democrats anyway.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:38 AM
It's up to these State to now show it is not needed.

Let them try.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:56 AM
Look for even more fun voting laws coming from Red states in the next election.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:11 AM
Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:14 AM
Discrimination don't exist round these parts no more, yessir! What, that stars and bars on our state flag? Sheeeeeeet son, that's about HERITAGE. Now go ahead an pay this here heritage tax and the vote booth's over yonder.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:17 AM

drew46n2: Is this about Paula Deen?


The Supreme Court just ruled that Paula Deen doesn't actually exist.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:29 AM
This is where that constitutional right to vote would come in handy. States are given pretty broad power to determine qualifications for voting with the major caveats provided for by the voting amendments. Stupid Constitution.
 
2013-06-25 10:42:55 AM
If you live in a red state and you skin isn't white, enjoy voting suppression for the next few decades :(


I don't get it, this today, but they sent the affirmative action one back to lower courts? wtf
 
2013-06-25 10:43:01 AM
I'd say we should shift to the popular vote, except that would mean we'd all have to grow neck beards and post to Reddit.
 
2013-06-25 10:43:08 AM

Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through


That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.
 
2013-06-25 10:43:12 AM

drew46n2: Is this about Paula Deen?


People will deny, but I think it's clear as can be.
 
2013-06-25 10:43:21 AM
Well, I guess now someone will have the chance to shout "PLAY FREEBIRD" at the inauguration and it may very well happen.
 
2013-06-25 10:43:31 AM
I am ok with this.jpg
 
2013-06-25 10:43:38 AM
Should have been 9-0.
 
2013-06-25 10:43:51 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.


Pretty much this.

It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:02 AM
I'll shiat a brick, eat said shiatted brick, and then shiat said eaten brick before Congress passes another preclearance formula.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:12 AM
taxandspend:

beta.images.theglobeandmail.com

Accidentally Approves


/FTFY
 
2013-06-25 10:44:45 AM
www.raizlabs.com
Has socialized medicine and now better voting rights than a red-stater.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:48 AM

James!: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of FREEBIRD!!


Nice!
 
2013-06-25 10:44:49 AM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-25 10:45:01 AM

Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.


But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:08 AM
I sometimes doubt the courts commitment to Sparkle Motion.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:11 AM
And it will be pronounced 'Lĕh-'nérd 'Skin-'nérd
 
2013-06-25 10:45:21 AM
After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.

your burdensome regulations impinge on our first  amendment right to be racists
 
2013-06-25 10:45:40 AM
As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:41 AM
Well, they don't call 'em the slave states for nothing.

This is a bigger threat to democracy than the NSA distraction.
 
2013-06-25 10:45:45 AM

skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.


Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:06 AM

drew46n2: Discrimination don't exist round these parts no more, yessir! What, that stars and bars on our state flag? Sheeeeeeet son, that's about HERITAGE. Now go ahead an pay this here heritage tax and the vote booth's over yonder.


And yet, the South is the most integrated region of the country and elects the most black people to Congress.  But I'm sure that's entirely due to these laws.

New York City, meanwhile, is the second-most segregated city in the country, has the greatest income divide, has cops regularly gunning down minorities regularly, yet its media outlets are proclaiming this Supreme Court decision as some sort of racial apocalypse.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:14 AM
You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:14 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


Especially since our northern red states have been playing games with who can vote over the last few cycles.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:30 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


Unless you studied 3rd grade history or have a memory that goes back 40 years, I can see how this might not make sense.
 
2013-06-25 10:46:40 AM

bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.


Currently in Raleigh, I feel your pain.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:07 AM

Cythraul: They will tomorrow!


James!: Tomorrow.


My point is more that Scalia punted on the issue of gay marriage last week when he said that the court can't make moral judgments on the state of the country. But, right here, we are judging how far the country has progressed.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:08 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:16 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.

 
2013-06-25 10:47:19 AM

MCStymie: Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


No, you don't. It's Lynyrd Skynyrd. Ergo, it would be shiat.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:29 AM
Vote for Kang or Chodos either way your screwed.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:52 AM

MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


That could work.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:05 AM
What Gays can vote?
 
2013-06-25 10:48:13 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: I don't think he is running.


I'm pretty sure he died in a plane crash.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:31 AM

James!: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of FREEBIRD!!


This made me laugh. I am ashamed.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:46 AM

FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.


I think it should've been expanded to cover the entire country.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:47 AM

Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.


Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.
 
2013-06-25 10:48:57 AM

DamnYankees: This one? Jesus mods, we have a great discussion going in a whole other one which is wasted now.


We only care about teh fuhnnies here.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:11 AM

MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


surprisingly, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes have not done that one.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:17 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


In all fairness, it wasn't singling out the south, it was singling out states with past history of voter suppression.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:18 AM
Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

And it is, of course, better for nine five Supreme Court justices to ensure that it "speaks to current conditions" (or, in Constitution-speak, is "appropriate legislation") than for Congress to do so.

98-0 in Senate
390-33 in House

. . .

5-4 in Supreme Court, too bad.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:30 AM

Jon H: What Gays can vote?


We can't if we fail the 'straight test' at our local polling place.
 
2013-06-25 10:49:38 AM

djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.


No registration card?
 
2013-06-25 10:49:41 AM

bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.


It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.
 
2013-06-25 10:50:10 AM
FTFA "But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists."

Where is this bastion of tolerance and equality?
 
2013-06-25 10:50:14 AM

djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.


Sure, you can make an ID card required.  You just have to make sure it's free and readily available.
 
2013-06-25 10:50:25 AM
Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:15 AM

FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.


My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:17 AM

skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.


Like there's a difference..
 
2013-06-25 10:51:22 AM

qorkfiend: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.


Too many Mexicans?
 
2013-06-25 10:51:25 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


Since when does the south has a problem with having one set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another?
 
2013-06-25 10:51:37 AM
Simple solution: Pass a federal law that doesn't discriminate against those states. Make *all* states subject to federal approval of federal election procedure. We in Ohio could use that intervention.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:52 AM

DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.


I will headdesk if that happens.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:53 AM
It is not SCOTUS's place to decide which states Re racist. Congress should make EVERY state require federal approval before changing voting laws.

Do you really think Arizona and Wisconsin are immune to voting shenanigans? That's absurd.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:55 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.


Then appeal to Congress to do that. The court is simply substituting its judgment for Congress's here. It's the height of judicial activism.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:10 AM

Lucky LaRue: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Like there's a difference..


One looks like they were in a horrific plane wreck and the other is Skynyrd.
 
2013-06-25 10:52:18 AM
wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2013-06-25 10:52:26 AM
The Court has determined that the old formula for determing which states should have extra scrutiny is out of date, and has asked Congress to come up with a new one.  So once Congress does that, the Voting Rights Act can be enforced again.

/lol
 
2013-06-25 10:53:18 AM

Parmenius: Simple solution: Pass a federal law that doesn't discriminate against those states. Make *all* states subject to federal approval of federal election procedure. We in Ohio could use that intervention.


I still don't think it'll fly. Pass an amendment. Or sue states for violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens in effect if not by direct action
 
2013-06-25 10:53:24 AM

Cythraul: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

Currently in Raleigh, I feel your pain.


Hiddenite, NC. Group hug.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:31 AM

Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: taxandspend:

[beta.images.theglobeandmail.com image 620x350]

Accidentally Approves


/FTFY


Man writes awkwardly worded song about people getting to know each other instead of judging. Gets branded a racist.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:33 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


More to the point it's not fair that to use data from the 1960's when making the decision whether or not a State needs more oversight. The part of the law that the Court says in Unconstitutional is the part that says which States get Federal oversight, if Congress updates that section the rest of the law is unchanged.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:45 AM
Hey, uh, random parameter in the URL?
 
2013-06-25 10:53:45 AM

Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x272]


The racial makeup of the county was 89.80% White, 7.40% Black

I'm sure everything is A-ok down in Shelby County, Alabama in terms of race and voting.
 
2013-06-25 10:53:54 AM

DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.


What justices still need to write an opinion? You should be able to make a pretty good guess this late in the term.
 
2013-06-25 10:54:10 AM

skullkrusher: Or sue states for violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens in effect if not by direct action


You can still do this. The whole point of pre-clearence though is that this takes a lot of time. It can take years to litigate a case. Meanwhile, elections are ongoing and people are disenfranchised.
 
2013-06-25 10:54:29 AM
They should just get to the gay stuff already.
 
2013-06-25 10:54:51 AM
Preclearance has a rejection rate of 0.16%. FISA has a rejection rate of 0.03% and is considered a "rubber stamp."
 
2013-06-25 10:54:57 AM

Voiceofreason01: More to the point it's not fair that to use data from the 1960's when making the decision whether or not a State needs more oversight.


Who says? You? Congress has the power to do this, and they decided that historical patterns of Jim Crow and segregation were still relevant.
 
2013-06-25 10:55:12 AM

Mrtraveler01: FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.

I think it should've been expanded to cover the entire country.


I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.
 
2013-06-25 10:55:14 AM

BalugaJoe: They should just get to the gay stuff already.


Tomorrow!
 
2013-06-25 10:55:34 AM
Ginsburg: "Throwing out preclearance... is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
 
2013-06-25 10:55:48 AM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: Or sue states for violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens in effect if not by direct action

You can still do this. The whole point of pre-clearence though is that this takes a lot of time. It can take years to litigate a case. Meanwhile, elections are ongoing and people are disenfranchised.


I don't think the Feds have  the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant. This is probably another example of bad for the country but still the right decision (like Citizens United). Of course, IANAL but I have my GED on the wall
 
2013-06-25 10:56:03 AM

Carth: DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.

What justices still need to write an opinion? You should be able to make a pretty good guess this late in the term.


SCOTUSblog is guessing Roberts wrote Perry and Kennedy wrote Windsor. Scalia picked up the last one which apparently revolves around whether an attorney's advice is property.
 
2013-06-25 10:56:26 AM

runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.


On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?
 
2013-06-25 10:56:53 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: taxandspend:

[beta.images.theglobeandmail.com image 620x350]

Accidentally Approves


/FTFY

Man writes awkwardly worded song about people getting to know each other instead of judging. Gets accidentally branded a racist.


/FTFY2
 
2013-06-25 10:57:11 AM

skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have  the Constitutional authority for such oversight.


Have you read the 15th amendment? It's not long, and it gives them the explicit right to do such oversight.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:36 AM
Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!
 
2013-06-25 10:57:46 AM
key phrase: "it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists."

it can be argued that racial discrimination never existed... anywhere...  you're not going to win that argument... but it could certainly be argued... could also argue that man was created by god in his image and that evolution is just a theory... oh wait... those are still being 'argued'.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:49 AM
It's a well thought out, educated ruling, and it completely lacks common sense.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:51 AM

Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x272]


You are completely detached from reality.
 
2013-06-25 10:57:54 AM

DamnYankees: Who says? You? Congress has the power to do this, and they decided that historical patterns of Jim Crow and segregation were still relevant.


And if a state legislature decided that historical rates of HIV infection among homosexuals justified a sodomy ban?
 
2013-06-25 10:58:14 AM
Well, it's not like people are still trying to make it difficult for some segments of the population to vote, amirite?
 
2013-06-25 10:58:30 AM

DamnYankees: runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.

On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?


Racists are a suspect class, so laws applying to them must pass strict scrutiny.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:50 AM
Ahhh, so it only takes 150 years after The War of Northern Aggression to get the occupying Federals out of our affairs and finally start to wrap up Reconstruction.  A pox on you scalawags and carpetbaggers.
 
2013-06-25 10:58:59 AM

kronicfeld: And if a state legislature decided that historical rates of HIV infection among homosexuals justified a sodomy ban?


Homosexuals are a protected class and require strict scrutiny. I wasn't aware "political entity as defined by geographic region in which its boundaries are located" had the same level of protection. Can you cite where that's true?
 
2013-06-25 10:59:01 AM

Cythraul: BalugaJoe: They should just get to the gay stuff already.

Tomorrow!


Maybe.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:01 AM

DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Although Ralph Waldo wasn't using it sarcastically as I am.

How long was it between the passage of the 14th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference? 100 years? That's how long the VRA should be in effect.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:09 AM
Basically, these southern states have to trust the government to provide fairness and equality - the same government that has an IRS wing that targets groups discriminately and monitors their phone calls unconstitutionally.  I definitely lean left, but this year my federal overseers continue to be a complete WTF?
If it were all part of a plan, the next logical step is to give these states to Mexico, but then change their minds and come back... WITH Mexico!  Arriba!
 
2013-06-25 10:59:13 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Well, it's not like people are still trying to make it difficult for some segments of the population to vote, amirite?


Oh, I'd say three-fifths of the population at most will face some difficulty voting as a result.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:35 AM

Serious Black: Racists are a suspect class, so laws applying to them must pass strict scrutiny.


This does seem to be their logic.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:36 AM

DamnYankees: runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.

On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?


sure, until the flooding spreads to other areas. PA, WI, and AZ have more restrictions than Alabama. The law is good, the metric used to enforce the law was outdated.
 
2013-06-25 10:59:48 AM

qorkfiend: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.


I've been seriously discussing the matter with my wife for a number of years now.

Wage inequality, worsening education, inadequate healthcare, an obesity epidemic, major privacy concerns, due process violations, a crumbling infrastructure, plutocratic control of local, state (ALEC) and federal governments, a broken patent system, lots of basically mindless church-controlled zombies in the boonies, and a stupid/ambivalent voting bloc.

This of course is at odds with my general feeling that this country is pretty damn great, with amazing natural resources, lots of generally very nice people, and a strong culture of innovation and productivity that I doubt exists anywhere in the world.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:11 AM

Speaker2Animals: How long was it between the passage of the 14th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference?


100 is actually exactly right. 1865 to 1965.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:22 AM
Southerners gotta stop complaining about being called backwards rednecks. Constantly doing all they can to reinforce the stereotype.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:25 AM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have  the Constitutional authority for such oversight.

Have you read the 15th amendment? It's not long, and it gives them the explicit right to do such oversight.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


well I'll be... IANAL, as I said.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:42 AM

what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.


Well, yes they can. The whole deal with this rule is that they have to clear it BEFOREHAND. Any jurisdiction can pass laws that are later declared unconstitutional, but in the meanwhile can affect real voting numbers. the results might get thrown out if they're caught, but many elections are decided when one party concedes, in which case a count is highly unlikely. They might feel that the risk is worth it.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:44 AM

sandmanahoy: Hey, uh, random parameter in the URL?


Never mind that. It's for the IRS.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:49 AM
Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:51 AM

sentex: It's up to these State to now show it is not needed.

Let them try.


This.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:01 AM
Speaker2Animals:How long was it between the passage of the 14th 15th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference? 100 years? That's how long the VRA should be in effect.

FTFM. Stupid mistake.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:12 AM
It is not going to make any difference. They are not going to be competitive states in general elections to begin with, and in local elections, it will be more of the same. The same loonies that gets elected today will get elected.

Moral of the story, if you are anything but white-straight-christian-male get the hell out of those states ASAP.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:12 AM
I'll be writing my congresswoman, Molly Hatchet.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:16 AM

xanadian: Cythraul: BalugaJoe: They should just get to the gay stuff already.

Tomorrow!

Maybe.


Maybe? They are two of the last of the three cases to be announced, and tomorrow's the last day of their term.. before they go on vacation, or something.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:26 AM

what_now: sure, until the flooding spreads to other areas. PA, WI, and AZ have more restrictions than Alabama. The law is good, the metric used to enforce the law was outdated.


And what would your reaction be if the USSC said "FEMA is not allowed to operate anymore because they give more resources to places Congress determines it floods more, and we disagree since we think using historical flooding patterns is a bad way to determine that".

That would be an insane ruling and would never happen.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:29 AM
Tells you how far to the left that the Supreme Court has moved when they're fighting over the interpretation of a "Voting Rights Act", implying that the average citizen deserves a vote, or rights.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:39 AM

Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.


He's right, the south is totally different now.

www.metrocookinghouston.com
 
2013-06-25 11:01:43 AM

belhade: Southerners gotta stop complaining about being called backwards rednecks. Constantly doing all they can to reinforce the stereotype.


Southerners stop complaining?! But, if they did that, they may have to do something with all that free time, like get off their asses and contribute something to society.
 
2013-06-25 11:02:22 AM
If you can show a photo ID to buy beer or rent a movie, you can show photo ID to vote for President of the United States. Stop whining.

Unlike liberals, the South has changed since 1965. But, continue on with your stereotyping. That's only wrong when it's anyone other than Southerners. Then, it's a federal hate crime thingy, or something.
 
2013-06-25 11:02:25 AM

djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.


As is your right.

No one has the right to deny that to you under any circumstances.  YOU are the government, enshrined in the first sentence of our constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.
 
2013-06-25 11:02:48 AM
FREEBIRD AT LAST, FREEBIRD AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY...
 
2013-06-25 11:02:52 AM

what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.


YOU GET OUTTA HERE WITH YOUR LOGIC AND REASON THIS IS AN OUTRAGE GET IT?
 
2013-06-25 11:03:15 AM
Bunch of renegers.
 
2013-06-25 11:03:44 AM

thetubameister: u do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.


I get a feeling some red states will legalize methamphetamine before they legalize pot.
 
2013-06-25 11:03:55 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.

My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.


Idbeokaywiththat.jpg
 
2013-06-25 11:04:09 AM

what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.


Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:11 AM

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.

No registration card?


Nope, Wisconsin passed a Voter ID law, which got whacked by the Democrats next chance they had.  Just show up with a piece of mail from the area, claim to be that person, and there you go.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:25 AM

DamnYankees: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

Then appeal to Congress to do that. The court is simply substituting its judgment for Congress's here. It's the height of judicial activism.


Perhaps it's because separate treatment isn't equal.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:25 AM

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware "political entity as defined by geographic region in which its boundaries are located" had the same level of protection. Can you cite where that's true?


Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009). An Act's disparate geographic coverage must be sufficiently related to its target problems.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:34 AM
This is such a stupid ruling.  The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not "this map needs to be updated, because we think it has too many conservative states".  That's not a ruling, that's legislating.
 
2013-06-25 11:04:35 AM
That'll teach black people to think they have rights in this country.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:22 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: More to the point it's not fair that to use data from the 1960's when making the decision whether or not a State needs more oversight.

Who says? You? Congress has the power to do this, and they decided that historical patterns of Jim Crow and segregation were still relevant.


Says Scotus. If Congress thinks that there are still inequalities that need to be addressed the can create a new, more targeted, formula for determining which States need Federal Scrutiny(as you pointed out the Voting Rights Act had a lot of support when it was renewed)
 
2013-06-25 11:05:51 AM

kbronsito: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

Since when does the south has a problem with having one set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another?


Since your states owned people... and then denied them their rights to vote.  Different behaviors net different treatment.

"Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation..."
 
2013-06-25 11:05:52 AM

spiderpaz: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

He's right, the south is totally different now.

[www.metrocookinghouston.com image 321x421]


Is there any proof that she still holds bigotted beliefs. I know she did at one time, but if someone overcomes such things, that is to be lauded.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:52 AM
From another thread:

This is why the idea of a living constitution is terrible

SCOTUS just subverted democracy

"Times have changed" is a shiatty way to rule.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:57 AM

DamnYankees: What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y?


You think that's a great path to head down, saying that congress can pass laws that only apply in certain states or certain congressional districts? You don't think that might possibly be a terrible precedent to set that could be readily abused in the future? What other laws can they write that only apply to particular places? Where is the line drawn here? Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others? IANAL, but it seems like a dangerous road to go down to me.
 
2013-06-25 11:06:08 AM

DamnYankees: what_now: sure, until the flooding spreads to other areas. PA, WI, and AZ have more restrictions than Alabama. The law is good, the metric used to enforce the law was outdated.

And what would your reaction be if the USSC said "FEMA is not allowed to operate anymore because they give more resources to places Congress determines it floods more, and we disagree since we think using historical flooding patterns is a bad way to determine that".

That would be an insane ruling and would never happen.


Yeah, the two aren't comparable. Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania? How about Arizona? Congress needs to fix the law.
 
2013-06-25 11:06:58 AM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: I wasn't aware "political entity as defined by geographic region in which its boundaries are located" had the same level of protection. Can you cite where that's true?

Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009). An Act's disparate geographic coverage must be sufficiently related to its target problems.


That's not strict scrutiny and they didn't overturn the law. I don't know what you think you're citing.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:11 AM
Well, it certainly won't be Neil Young.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:23 AM

bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions


They seriously expect this Congress to actually pass any kind of legislation?  They can barely agree on motions to adjourn.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:28 AM

what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.


While I generally agree with this, I do think it would be nice if there were some sort of national rule that any changes to election laws cannot go into effect for, say, 18 months or the next biennial national election, whichever is longer. There needs to be time built into the process for such changes to be challenged.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:41 AM
Apply preclearance to all states. Duh.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:43 AM
happy with the result:
www.mainjustice.com
 
2013-06-25 11:07:46 AM

thetubameister: djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.

As is your right.

No one has the right to deny that to you under any circumstances.  YOU are the government, enshrined in the first sentence of our constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.


Sure, you have a constitutional right to vote.  Once.  If you're a citizen.  Show that you're a citizen and that you live where you want to vote, and, no problem.  We'll even give you the ID for free.  Somehow this is seen as infringing on them.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:47 AM

Voiceofreason01: Says Scotus.


Indeed. Maybe we should just get rid of representative government altogether then; let the 9 members of the court just decide what they think is required. No need for voting or anything like that.
 
2013-06-25 11:07:49 AM

bdub77: Wage inequality, worsening education, inadequate healthcare, an obesity epidemic, major privacy concerns, due process violations, a crumbling infrastructure, plutocratic control of local, state (ALEC) and federal governments, a broken patent system, lots of basically mindless church-controlled zombies in the boonies, and a stupid/ambivalent voting bloc.


So... where are you going to go?
 
2013-06-25 11:08:06 AM
Next on the SCOTUS greatest hits, non-corporation people are declared 3/5ths of a vote.

Seriously... fark these guys.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:08 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: spiderpaz: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

He's right, the south is totally different now.

[www.metrocookinghouston.com image 321x421]

Is there any proof that she still holds bigotted beliefs. I know she did at one time, but if someone overcomes such things, that is to be lauded.


Isn't she being sued by her employee for referring to her black staff as n*9gers?  I don't think that was 20 years ago, I think that was more recent.  In her deposition, she only *admitted* to using it "in the past", but that's probably bullsh*t.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:18 AM

spiderpaz: This is such a stupid ruling.  The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not "this map needs to be updated, because we think it has too many conservative states".  That's not a ruling, that's legislating.


mind blowing ain't it?  Their whole rationale for unconstitutionality is "we don't agree with congress."
 
2013-06-25 11:08:19 AM

DamnYankees: what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.

Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.


Is that what happened in Pennsylvania?

No. The unconstitutional law was struck down before the vote. Without the precondition clause.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:52 AM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Cythraul: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

Currently in Raleigh, I feel your pain.

Hiddenite, NC. Group hug.


Asheville, NC - here's to more shiatty leadership.
 
2013-06-25 11:08:54 AM

El_Perro: 98-0 in Senate
390-33 in House
. . .
5-4 in Supreme Court, too bad.


Boy those anti-judicial activism Republicans are going to PISSED!

Right?
 
2013-06-25 11:09:48 AM

what_now: Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania?


It doesn't matter what I think. There's lots of laws I disagree with, but I'd never say the court should strike them down on that basis.

How is this not clear? Congress determined they thought it was necessary. The court basically just said "eh, we don't agree" and overturned the law. Are you defending a system of judicial review where if the court just thinks Congress made a bad policy decision they can overturn the law? That's what you're arguing.
 
2013-06-25 11:09:57 AM

djh0101010: thetubameister: djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.

As is your right.

No one has the right to deny that to you under any circumstances.  YOU are the government, enshrined in the first sentence of our constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.

Sure, you have a constitutional right to vote.  Once.  If you're a citizen.  Show that you're a citizen and that you live where you want to vote, and, no problem.  We'll even give you the ID for free.  Somehow this is seen as infringing on them.


That should solve any effort to infringe upon peoples rights. But if you make it so you can get said ID's at the welfare office, someone will flip their wig.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:00 AM

runin800m: DamnYankees: What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y?

You think that's a great path to head down, saying that congress can pass laws that only apply in certain states or certain congressional districts? You don't think that might possibly be a terrible precedent to set that could be readily abused in the future? What other laws can they write that only apply to particular places? Where is the line drawn here? Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others? IANAL, but it seems like a dangerous road to go down to me.


They already can do that. Some laws only have to pass rational basis review. Some laws have to pass heightened or strict scrutiny. Laws that have to pass those increased bars either do not equally protect a suspect or quasi-suspect class, or they impinge upon a right. Is a collection of states a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Is discrimination a right? I think the answer is no in both cases.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:11 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


your aware of the south's..shall we say troubles?

//and by troubles I mean the Souths historical attempts to only allow white protestant Christians to vote.  The latest iteration is the voter ID laws. Heck there is a provision in the the Arkansas Constitution that says an atheist cannot hold any public office and cannot be considered a competent witness in any Court in the state.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:24 AM

enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!


upload.wikimedia.org
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:10:36 AM
I don't know about you, but to me it looks like we're awfully close to the point where everything needs to be reset and restarted.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:47 AM

runin800m: DamnYankees: What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y?

You think that's a great path to head down, saying that congress can pass laws that only apply in certain states or certain congressional districts? You don't think that might possibly be a terrible precedent to set that could be readily abused in the future? What other laws can they write that only apply to particular places? Where is the line drawn here? Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others? IANAL, but it seems like a dangerous road to go down to me.


To go down? Hasn't it  been the law for about 50 years.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:47 AM
To be fair, I always thought that part of the law was a bit ... punitive.

I mean, I understand why the conditions at the time and why it was written that way, but it's singling out specific states and regions for additional federal scrutiny--implying that are unable to run their own house, while at the same time giving the rest autonomy.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:05 AM
Yay for states rights. Now outlaw the goddamn black vote.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:11 AM

cman: From another thread:

This is why the idea of a living constitution is terrible

SCOTUS just subverted democracy

"Times have changed" is a shiatty way to rule.


It's only a dead constitution if it fits your agenda.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:11:12 AM

Lionel Mandrake: El_Perro: 98-0 in Senate
390-33 in House
. . .
5-4 in Supreme Court, too bad.

Boy those anti-judicial activism Republicans are going to PISSED!

Right?


It's only judicial activism if you don't like the decision.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:17 AM

DamnYankees: what_now: Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania?

It doesn't matter what I think. There's lots of laws I disagree with, but I'd never say the court should strike them down on that basis.

How is this not clear? Congress determined they thought it was necessary. The court basically just said "eh, we don't agree" and overturned the law. Are you defending a system of judicial review where if the court just thinks Congress made a bad policy decision they can overturn the law? That's what you're arguing.


Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:34 AM
Hey if you can't win honestly, cheat your ass off.

Gerrymandering, poll taxes, literacy tests, reduced/relocated polling locations For The Win!

/meet the new south, same as the old south.
 
2013-06-25 11:11:39 AM
So, as I understand it, the key to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.  Well and good. Lets get congress busy on an updated VRA without section 4 at all, let's just make it apply generally to the whole US.  In this day and age when the worst attempts at rigging the ballot box this time around were in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennslyvania, just putting the Southern States under the microscope doesn;t really make sense any more anyway
 
2013-06-25 11:12:04 AM
Yeah, the NSA scandal is no big deal, but this is. Okay.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:15 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Says Scotus.

Indeed. Maybe we should just get rid of representative government altogether then; let the 9 members of the court just decide what they think is required. No need for voting or anything like that.


Most people don't vote anyway and everyone loves complaining and hates Congress. You might be on to something with this idea if you flesh it out a bit more.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:29 AM

Cythraul: xanadian: Cythraul: BalugaJoe: They should just get to the gay stuff already.

Tomorrow!

Maybe.

Maybe? They are two of the last of the three cases to be announced, and tomorrow's the last day of their term.. before they go on vacation, or something.


You know, I've been wondering how they determine which opinions are given out first.  Is there some kind of algorithm used to determine that the Prop 8/DOMA rulings are coming out dead last, amidst a spate of other rulings?  Is it alphabetical?  Or is SCOTUS like watching a bad Lifetime movie?
 
2013-06-25 11:12:37 AM
Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:46 AM

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.

Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.

Is that what happened in Pennsylvania?

No. The unconstitutional law was struck down before the vote. Without the precondition clause.


If you are referring to Pa. voter ID law, it wasn't struck down, its implementation was just delayed until after the 2012 election. Which kind of accentuates the point I was making in my earlier post.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:47 AM
This law set up two classes of states. The racist states and the non racist states. You can't possibly think this was a good policy.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:53 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Says Scotus.

Indeed. Maybe we should just get rid of representative government altogether then; let the 9 members of the court just decide what they think is required. No need for voting or anything like that.


Because Congress or the State Governments never trample over individual rights? I don't always agree with The Court's decisions but I can usually follow their logic and most of the time the outrage that these kinds of decisions get is totally out of proportion to the scope of the decision.

/you think there's butthurt about today's decision, just wait until tomorrow.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:56 AM
FINALLY the SCOTUS is opening the doors to privatize our elections process by removing all the pesky "fairness" that was in the way.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:03 AM

what_now: Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.


Holy crap. You either don't understand what courts do, or...well, no. That's the only explanation I can think of. You don't understand what courts do.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:10 AM

barneyfifesbullet: Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.


No it won't.  This will enable even greater racial gerrymandering.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:37 AM

DamnYankees: That's not strict scrutiny and they didn't overturn the law. I don't know what you think you're citing.


I didn't say it was strict scrutiny. I just figured I'd point to the opinion which the majority spent most of its opinion citing favorably in support of its decision, since it was rather clear that you had not read it yourself.
 
2013-06-25 11:13:41 AM

spiderpaz: globalwarmingpraiser: spiderpaz: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

He's right, the south is totally different now.

[www.metrocookinghouston.com image 321x421]

Is there any proof that she still holds bigotted beliefs. I know she did at one time, but if someone overcomes such things, that is to be lauded.

Isn't she being sued by her employee for referring to her black staff as n*9gers?  I don't think that was 20 years ago, I think that was more recent.  In her deposition, she only *admitted* to using it "in the past", but that's probably bullsh*t.


I was under the impression that this was from a case that was several years ago. I could be wrong though. Wait this is FARK. YOU HATE OLD DIABETICS DON'T YOU. In seriousness if this was due to diabetic issues when she wasn't controlled then it is excusable. I have seen some of the nicest people turn into crazy as hell types if their blood sugar dropped to low.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:13:58 AM

toby8915: happy with the result:
[www.mainjustice.com image 366x344]


every time someone uses this situation to prove a point god kills a puppy.

Seriously... that's the only OMG LIBBURUUL voting suppression argument you have.  There are a half dozen in examples of Republican voting suppression shenanigans in Florida alone... and that's only since 2000.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:02 AM

Voiceofreason01: Because Congress or the State Governments never trample over individual rights?


What individual right was being trampled in this case? The right of politicians to change election laws without pre-clearance?
 
2013-06-25 11:14:08 AM
If we had a Democratic Congress, they'd pass something that covers all states.

Probably as an amendment to the Defense budget, but they'd pass something that covers all states.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:24 AM

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania?

It doesn't matter what I think. There's lots of laws I disagree with, but I'd never say the court should strike them down on that basis.

How is this not clear? Congress determined they thought it was necessary. The court basically just said "eh, we don't agree" and overturned the law. Are you defending a system of judicial review where if the court just thinks Congress made a bad policy decision they can overturn the law? That's what you're arguing.

Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.


No, they decide whether Congress made an unconstitutional policy decision. Congress is perfectly free to make stupid policy decisions all they want.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:33 AM

taxandspend: [beta.images.theglobeandmail.com image 620x350]

Approves


www.pitch.com

Did an infinitely better, less clumsy, more nuanced, more thought-provoking and more entertaining meditation on southern racial politics through the prism of the Skynyrd experience.
 
2013-06-25 11:14:48 AM
I don't think this is a big deal, I mean, its not like one political party is actively trying to suppress minority votes, right?
 
2013-06-25 11:14:49 AM

kronicfeld: I just figured I'd point to the opinion which the majority spent most of its opinion citing favorably in support of its decision, since it was rather clear that you had not read it yourself.


That's fine. They cited an opinion written by themselves, basically. I don't agree with it, that's not surprising.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:15:04 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.


Which means the Kock brothers (sic) won't get representation at all.

*rimshot*
 
2013-06-25 11:15:17 AM

Magorn: So, as I understand it, the key to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.  Well and good. Lets get congress busy on an updated VRA without section 4 at all, let's just make it apply generally to the whole US.  In this day and age when the worst attempts at rigging the ballot box this time around were in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennslyvania, just putting the Southern States under the microscope doesn;t really make sense any more anyway


Exactly. Pennsylvania's law was pretty terrible, and it shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt any more than Alabama should because of slavery, which nobody currently alive participated in.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:17 AM

BravadoGT: Should have been 9-0.


Not a chance.  The racists I mean liberals need to keep the race issue alive so they can remain relevant.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:35 AM

DamnYankees: runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.

On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?


In this case, it is more like congress passing a law to prevent flooding and only making it applicable to coastal states.  The problem is, just as much (if not more) flooding is occurring inland due to rivers overflowing.  There is no longer a connection between who you are applying the law to (coastal states) and trying to solve the problem (flooding).

The VRA used a formula to determine whether or not pre-clearance was required.  It basically relied on whether or not you had a certain level of voter registration among minorities.  The problem is that this metric no longer correlates with whether or not minorities are being discriminated against.  There were more successful challenges to voting rules brought in areas which were exempted by the formula than in areas covered by it.  The formula is no longer a valid indication of where the worst discrimination is occurring, just like being in a state next to the ocean is not necessarily the best indication of where flooding will occur.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:37 AM

DamnYankees: That's fine. They cited an opinion written by themselves, basically.


As opposed an opinion written by whom? God? Starfleet Command?
 
2013-06-25 11:15:43 AM
Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.
 
2013-06-25 11:15:54 AM

Hobodeluxe: Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.

Jim Crow is back baby!!


What I thought of first.

Next will be a Constutional Amendment forbidding Federalizing the National Guard without two-thirds approve of both Houses of Congress.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:02 AM

DamnYankees: what_now: Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.

Holy crap. You either don't understand what courts do, or...well, no. That's the only explanation I can think of. You don't understand what courts do.


The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?
 
2013-06-25 11:16:38 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Because Congress or the State Governments never trample over individual rights?

What individual right was being trampled in this case? The right of politicians to change election laws without pre-clearance?


The right of racists to make sure Blah people don't vote.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:51 AM

elchip: barneyfifesbullet: Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.

No it won't.  This will enable even greater racial gerrymandering.


Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-25 11:16:51 AM
To the echo chamber's credit, I haven't yet seen anyone here say that this is worse than Dred Scott.
 
2013-06-25 11:16:55 AM

Magorn: So, as I understand it, the key to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.  Well and good. Lets get congress busy on an updated VRA without section 4 at all, let's just make it apply generally to the whole US.  In this day and age when the worst attempts at rigging the ballot box this time around were in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennslyvania, just putting the Southern States under the microscope doesn;t really make sense any more anyway


The one in PA was so bad that a GOP congresscritter basically admitted it was a concerted effort to suppress the vote of certain demographics.  It got struck down before the election, though.  How about a new law, or even an amendment to make it painfully simple:  One citizen of age, one vote.  Polling places must be scaled across the board to the size of the electorate.  24 hour voting cycle.  Could even require ID so long as the state would provide one free of charge, though even that adds an inconvenience and gets a bit sketchy.

This is 2013, we have robots on Mars, there is NO reason we can't have an across the board, absolutely fair and impartial system that assures EVERYONE who is eligible the right to easily vote, and instant counts by computer.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:00 AM

OtherLittleGuy: Hobodeluxe: Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.

Jim Crow is back baby!!

What I thought of first.

Next will be a Constutional Amendment forbidding Federalizing the National Guard without two-thirds approve of both Houses of Congress.


Would slow down the war machine......
 
2013-06-25 11:17:07 AM

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.

Holy crap. You either don't understand what courts do, or...well, no. That's the only explanation I can think of. You don't understand what courts do.

The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?


You conflated "bad" with "unconstitutional". Unconstitutional laws can be plenty good, and constitutional laws can be ridiculously moronic.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:07 AM
Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:12 AM

bulldg4life: Cythraul: They will tomorrow!

James!: Tomorrow.

My point is more that Scalia punted on the issue of gay marriage last week when he said that the court can't make moral judgments on the state of the country. But, right here, we are judging how far the country has progressed.


Scalia makes moral judgments all the time.  The difference is he applies his religious morality and claims he is just following the text.  When Scalia talks complains about morality he is talking about morality in the sense that philosophers use the term morality.. ( i.e most people agree is wrong to hack apart children when they act up).  Scalia does not like that morality..but has no bones about applying the "moral tenets" of his rather conservative religious views.  That is why his concept of orginalism is bankrupt.  It is why textualism is bankrupt those who follow that philosphy claim they are only following the text, what they are really doing is using the text to justify their socio-economic-morality views.  Hence the thing Scalia supposedly abhors.  Watch the Schadenfreude on the Windsor case.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:41 AM
The voting mess in this country is why I unregistered to vote. there's no point to voting anymore.  I wish there was because I died a little inside when I unregistered.

There are people who are registered and DON'T VOTE.  No sir, I unregistered.
If you go to the county clerk and ask, you'll probably get the same confused looks that I got.
They didn't have a form. I was asked to write it down on a piece of yellow pad paper.

/Voting is for suckers and squares.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:17:53 AM

R.A.Danny: Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.


They have to stop felating their corporate buddies and get to work.  So, in other words, it doesn't happen.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:57 AM

Cataholic: In this case, it is more like congress passing a law to prevent flooding and only making it applicable to coastal states.  The problem is, just as much (if not more) flooding is occurring inland due to rivers overflowing.  There is no longer a connection between who you are applying the law to (coastal states) and trying to solve the problem (flooding).


Ok. On what possible basis would this law be unconstitutional?

Cataholic: The problem is that this metric no longer correlates with whether or not minorities are being discriminated against.


According to who? The court all the sudden claims expertise in this matter? Congress determined it did sufficiently to warrant the law. Overturning that decision is an astonishing act of activism by the court.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:13 AM

spiderpaz: globalwarmingpraiser: spiderpaz: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

He's right, the south is totally different now.

[www.metrocookinghouston.com image 321x421]

Is there any proof that she still holds bigotted beliefs. I know she did at one time, but if someone overcomes such things, that is to be lauded.

Isn't she being sued by her employee for referring to her black staff as n*9gers?  I don't think that was 20 years ago, I think that was more recent.  In her deposition, she only *admitted* to using it "in the past", but that's probably bullsh*t.


No, her brother is being sued and as an ancillary party and corporate representative she is being deposed in that action.  And you know the great thing about filing a lawsuit is that you do not have to provide any proof of the behavior you are accusing someone of in the complaint other than your own belief.  So hypothetically, a person could file a complaint against anyone they choose...let's say you...and allege all sorts of inappropriate and vile conduct.  You would then be required to answer that complaint and deny those allegations, no matter how preposterous.  And the great thing is that practically anything you allege in a legal complaint is immune from liability stemming from defamation, slander, etc.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:22 AM
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.


www.heygidday.biz

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:31 AM

Serious Black: what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania?

It doesn't matter what I think. There's lots of laws I disagree with, but I'd never say the court should strike them down on that basis.

How is this not clear? Congress determined they thought it was necessary. The court basically just said "eh, we don't agree" and overturned the law. Are you defending a system of judicial review where if the court just thinks Congress made a bad policy decision they can overturn the law? That's what you're arguing.

Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.

No, they decide whether Congress made an unconstitutional policy decision. Congress is perfectly free to make stupid policy decisions all they want.


Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:42 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.


www.vibe.com
"Tax-dodging deadbeats are people, my friend."
 
2013-06-25 11:18:54 AM

what_now: The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?


Then why did you earlier say they overturn laws that are bad policy. Are you aware that "bad policy" and "unconstitutional" are two different things?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:19:07 AM

what_now: The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?


felate corporate buddies.  Wait.. isn't that what Congress does?
 
2013-06-25 11:19:29 AM
Roberts said that formula from 1972 was outdated and unworkable.

Also, they took "All in the Family" off the air(waves)
 
2013-06-25 11:19:49 AM

Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.


Here is one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/robert-ehrlich-paul-schuric k- voter-suppression_n_1131852.html

The guy was found guilty and sent to prison.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:06 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Yay for states rights. Now outlaw the goddamn black vote.


Look!  A racist!!  I found one!!!
 
2013-06-25 11:20:08 AM

MBooda: Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?


Are the 200-year old origins of gerrymandering relevant to the issue at hand?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:20:09 AM

trappedspirit: Roberts said that formula from 1972 was outdated and unworkable.

Also, they took "All in the Family" off the air(waves)


Now I *Really* farking hate Roberts.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:23 AM

what_now: Serious Black: what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: Do you really think that democracy is at risk in Virginia and not Pennsylvania?

It doesn't matter what I think. There's lots of laws I disagree with, but I'd never say the court should strike them down on that basis.

How is this not clear? Congress determined they thought it was necessary. The court basically just said "eh, we don't agree" and overturned the law. Are you defending a system of judicial review where if the court just thinks Congress made a bad policy decision they can overturn the law? That's what you're arguing.

Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.

No, they decide whether Congress made an unconstitutional policy decision. Congress is perfectly free to make stupid policy decisions all they want.

Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.


A group of jurisdictions is a suspect class that deserves strict scrutiny now?
 
2013-06-25 11:20:27 AM
Serious Black:They already can do that. Some laws only have to pass rational basis review. Some laws have to pass heightened or strict scrutiny. Laws that have to pass those increased bars either do not equally protect a suspect or quasi-suspect class, or they impinge upon a right. Is a collection of states a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Is discrimination a right? I think the answer is no in both cases.

So, if a state or collection of states isn't a suspect class could they then decide to levy a tax only on some states and not on others? Would they only need to pass rational review basis and have some argument that they should tax those states more because they have a fatter population and are costing the federal government more than other states or something like that?

I don't know who said anything about a right to discriminate. It wasn't me. Wouldn't it be easier to simply apply the law to every state or to come up with some metric that after a state or district crossed they would then be subject to that part of the act, that way it applies to everyone equally rather than just naming particular places years ago and sticking with them?
 
2013-06-25 11:20:31 AM

what_now: And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.


How so? What part of the constitutional says you can't treat certain states differently?

Also, just you know, the VRA isn't a state-by-state law. It's jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Some states are covered in their entirety, some not at all, and some have the law applicable in certain districts and not others based on empirical, historical patters. So the law doesn't even treat 'states' differently. But I'm sure you knew that.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:40 AM

This text is now purple: bdub77: Wage inequality, worsening education, inadequate healthcare, an obesity epidemic, major privacy concerns, due process violations, a crumbling infrastructure, plutocratic control of local, state (ALEC) and federal governments, a broken patent system, lots of basically mindless church-controlled zombies in the boonies, and a stupid/ambivalent voting bloc.

So... where are you going to go?


Great question. Canada seems like it would be a mess if the US did implode. Probably the EU. My wife has Polish citizenship as do the kids through her, so I might be able to get citizenship through her, so I suppose Warsaw would be an option, although I'm not sure I'd really want to live there.

I really liked my time spent in Switzerland and Germany. I'd like to check out UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia too. Certain parts of China are pretty cool, Shanghai especially.

I've always wanted to visit New Zealand.

I suppose if I wanted to stay in the US, there's always Hawaii. If some sort of civil war erupted in the states, Hawaii probably wouldn't get the worst of it because of its geographic location. Who really knows.

This is mostly speculative at this point. I've not made any plans for another country, I don't think we're in danger of imminent collapse or anything, just a slow retreat from the glory days.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:49 AM
Why all the outrage! You guys were sucking SCOTUS cock when they gave you healthcare did you really think they cared about about people? Too funny
 
2013-06-25 11:21:22 AM

DamnYankees: what_now: The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?

Then why did you earlier say they overturn laws that are bad policy. Are you aware that "bad policy" and "unconstitutional" are two different things?


Well I'm a little busy right now, ACTUALLY ensuring a fair election, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
2013-06-25 11:21:22 AM

Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.


Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent Democrats from voting.  It's the only play they have left since the "old white vote" is decreasing as a percentage of the total each year:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/the-republicans-keep-down-t he -vote-strategy.html
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:21:26 AM

elchip: MBooda: Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?

Are the 200-year old origins of gerrymandering relevant to the issue at hand?


Gerrymandering is illegal but when is the last time you've seen a state get dinged for it?

Naw... anything that helps their corporate buddies gets ignored.  Rule of law... what's that?
 
2013-06-25 11:21:27 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Because Congress or the State Governments never trample over individual rights?

What individual right was being trampled in this case? The right of politicians to change election laws without pre-clearance?


The Court doesn't just deal with individual rights, they also have to be concerned with the rights of the States. Besides, who do you think pays for all of that?
 
2013-06-25 11:21:28 AM

what_now: Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.


That's not the ruling.  They ruled the criteria for the distinction between  the "two classes" (those that require scrutiny and those that don't) needs to be updated.

Despite the fact the states requiring scrutiny renewed the criteria themselves in the Senate.
 
2013-06-25 11:21:30 AM

FLMountainMan: New York City, meanwhile, is the second-most segregated city in the country, has the greatest income divide, has cops regularly gunning down minorities regularly, yet its media outlets are proclaiming this Supreme Court decision as some sort of racial apocalypse.


Ehh... might be because I'm white and live in Queens, but I don't think "segregation" in NYC works the same as it does elsewhere. People may live in relatively homogenous communities, but for the most part everyone interacts with everyone else on the subways, buses, on the streets, at work, while shopping.  Granted, I may be somewhat myopic on the matter, as I live in what is thought to be the most ethnically diverse urban area in the world.
 
2013-06-25 11:21:55 AM

elchip: MBooda: Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?

Are the 200-year old origins of gerrymandering relevant to the issue at hand?


You're the one who brought up the term. Too late to be picky.
 
2013-06-25 11:22:17 AM

UNC_Samurai: To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.

Pretty much this.

It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.


Actually, no, it does change everything associated with the VRA.

With no formula to determine how the VRA is applied, states can (and will) come up with all sorts of ways to limit voter access, and there won't be any prior approval required for any of them.

Sure, voters and groups can ask for injunctions; anyone here think those will be forthcoming in red states when the red courts are the ones being asked? That means legal battles, expensive, long drawn out legal battles, ultimately ending up back in front of the Supreme Court; except this time, instead of one legal battle, there will be dozens of them from individual states. Meanwhile, these state enacted suppression efforts are in effect for multiple election cycles before a court rules the law must be changed. Yeah, the VRA is dead until Congress agrees on a new formula (which isn't likely for the forseeable future).
 
2013-06-25 11:22:18 AM

runin800m: So, if a state or collection of states isn't a suspect class could they then decide to levy a tax only on some states and not on others?


I don't see why not. All else being equal, sure. You'd need some sort of reason why they couldn't. You think it would be illegal for the government to have a tax on people living in coastal states in order to fund the coast guard? It might be bad policy, but I don't see where in the constitution that could be seen as illegal.
 
2013-06-25 11:22:22 AM
Zeno-25:

[www.heygidday.biz image 548x411]

Through tectonic upheaval
.
 
2013-06-25 11:22:33 AM
Ohio will be interesting in some upcoming elections.
 
2013-06-25 11:23:10 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


But North Dakota doesn't have the deep history of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that that the south has.
 
2013-06-25 11:23:21 AM

bdub77: qorkfiend: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.

I've been seriously discussing the matter with my wife for a number of years now.

Wage inequality, worsening education, inadequate healthcare, an obesity epidemic, major privacy concerns, due process violations, a crumbling infrastructure, plutocratic control of local, state (ALEC) and federal governments, a broken patent system, lots of basically mindless church-controlled zombies in the boonies, and a stupid/ambivalent voting bloc.

This of course is at odds with my general feeling that this country is pretty damn great, with amazing natural resources, lots of generally very nice people, and a strong culture of innovation and productivity that I doubt exists anywhere in the world.


Yeah, all of that. It rather limits the choices to heavily industrialized, "first world" nations, basically Western Europe, the Old Commonwealth, and Scandinavia.

Maybe it's a case of the grass being greener.
 
2013-06-25 11:23:33 AM

Voiceofreason01: The Court doesn't just deal with individual rights, they also have to be concerned with the rights of the States.


What rights of the states do you think trumps the 15th amendment, then? Stop speaking so broadly, lets get specific. What rights of a political entity trumps the 15th amendment?
 
2013-06-25 11:23:49 AM
I guess this means that since I live in a heavily minority and Democratic leaning district in my town in Alabama and had to wait in a long line for 2+ hours to vote for POTUS last time (while my friends in heavily white, wealthy, and Republican districts had barely any lines in their voting locations); that next time I will be waiting in a 5+ hour long line to vote.

Thanks SCOTUS.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:03 AM

Private_Citizen: Hey if you can't win honestly, cheat your ass off.

Gerrymandering, poll taxes, literacy tests, reduced/relocated polling locations For The Win!

/meet the new south, same as the old south.


100% This.

After the 2008 elections the Republicans lost their minds. Not sure if it was the fact they lost the White House, or the fact they lost it to a black man. They had two choices, try and expand  their base by appealing to blacks and Hispanics or try and change the game. They went with the latter. It's disgusting the tactics they have tried. While this ruling is not a deal breaker, it does embolden them to keep on the path they are on. It's a big loss for the country.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:05 AM
www.politifake.org


Voted six times for Obama in one election

patdollard.com


dancingczars.files.wordpress.com

www.survivalandbeyond.net
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-06-25 11:24:22 AM

djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.


Dependent on the state, I guess. In MA, I don't need to show ID, but I have to indentify myself so the senior citizens manning the books can find my name and address in the book before and after I vote.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:29 AM

Full Metal Retard: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x272]

You are completely detached from reality.


No, racial discrimination still exists in the good ole US of A and until I'm convinced otherwise, I want every law that protects those who may be discriminated against.
The tricky and part I have no answer for is, How does one argue that racial discrimination no longer exists?
If that's detached from reality, I'll stay in Fantasy Land.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:39 AM
For those of you not understanding, the pre-clearance made it so that certain places with a history of discrimination had to get voter law changes pre-approved. Without this, they can change voter laws a month before voting, move locations, change numbers of voting machines, whatever... then good luck people trying to sue, see if they can get through the legal system in time to unfark the voting laws before November. It's a greenlight from the supreme court to rig elections...
 
2013-06-25 11:24:41 AM

Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.


But the feds CAN still take them to court to get them overturned, just like they did with Ohio this year.  So while it's not wonderful it's not a total disaster either
 
2013-06-25 11:24:43 AM

what_now: It is not SCOTUS's place to decide which states Re racist. Congress should make EVERY state require federal approval before changing voting laws.

Do you really think Arizona and Wisconsin are immune to voting shenanigans? That's absurd.


Bingo.
 
2013-06-25 11:24:43 AM

MBooda: You're the one who brought up the term. Too late to be picky.


I was replying to someone who referenced precincts where the Democratic candidate gets 100% of the vote.  This is partially the result of gerrymandering minorities (who overwhelmingly vote Democratic) into segregated districts so as to make other races non-competitive in favor of Republicans.

And yes, it works the other way in blue states.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:01 AM

what_now: Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.


It's not unconstitutional, it was created via a constitutional amendment, therefore it is constitutional, by definition.  You lost the farking war, get over it.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:01 AM

DarnoKonrad: what_now: Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.

That's not the ruling.  They ruled the criteria for the distinction between  the "two classes" (those that require scrutiny and those that don't) needs to be updated.

Despite the fact the states requiring scrutiny renewed the criteria themselves in the Senate.


I understand that. But how do we add states- or jurisdictions- to the list?

I support a national VRA, not one that bases oversight on a 50 year old problem.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:04 AM
EyeballKid:

www.raizlabs.com
Has socialized medicine and now better voting rights than a red-stater.

img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-06-25 11:25:07 AM
SCOTUS:  Racism is no longer the problem it once was.

Fark: FFFFFFUUUUUUU!
 
2013-06-25 11:25:23 AM

Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.


The problems are things such as limited voting booths/polling locations in high population density areas which result in rediculously long lines that discourage voting compared to places where the voting infrastructure more easily meets the needs of the local population. We still saw problems like this in 2012.

Of course, I don't recall if they were in the south or not. I remember a story like this in Pa., so this isn't really a comment about the voting rights act focusing on certain states, but rather a statement about the inequality of the election system that causes a situation that discourages voters in certain areas... areas often likely to be highly populated with minorities.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:23 AM

MBooda: elchip: barneyfifesbullet: Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.

No it won't.  This will enable even greater racial gerrymandering.

Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?
[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x524]


"They did it first!!" is pretty lame.
 
2013-06-25 11:25:43 AM
http://www.fark.com/goto/7813730/http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politic s/scotus-voting-rights/index.html?ooohthatsmell

wut
 
2013-06-25 11:26:49 AM
"racial stereotypes and discrimination don't exist anymore. people only think it does because colored people are all so whiny and entitled... can i still say uppity?" -justice alito
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:26:53 AM

Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.


Maybe if they can get through the lines..

msnbctv.files.wordpress.com

Seriously.. if you really believe that then you must be living in a major bubble of only information you want to hear.  I'd like to see ONE example brought forward of a minority voters voting a half dozen times... just ONE.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:10 AM

hasty ambush: [www.politifake.org image 640x456]


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


[dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 640x553]

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]
[images.sodahead.com image 261x350]


420,953 (68.84%) Cuyahoga county citizens voted for Obama in 2012.  Your claims are demonstrably false.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:18 AM

wjllope: A high school gym coach? We could do worse


We did, a community organizer
 
2013-06-25 11:27:26 AM

Some Bass Playing Guy: djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.

Dependent on the state, I guess. In MA, I don't need to show ID, but I have to indentify myself so the senior citizens manning the books can find my name and address in the book before and after I vote.


I am not a senior citizen. :(
 
2013-06-25 11:27:31 AM

what_now: This law set up two classes of states. The racist states and the non racist states. You can't possibly think this was a good policy.


it is when there exist a good enough reason to do so.  Even today's opinion by Roberts made that clear.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:35 AM

FLMountainMan: New York City, meanwhile, is the second-most segregated city in the country, has the greatest income divide, has cops regularly gunning down minorities regularly, yet its media outlets are proclaiming this Supreme Court decision as some sort of racial apocalypse.


FYI, New York County, Kings County and Bronx County are (or well, were) covered by the voting rights act.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:35 AM

Serious Black: SCOTUSblog is guessing Roberts wrote Perry and Kennedy wrote Windsor. Scalia picked up the last one which apparently revolves around whether an attorney's advice is property.


Does that mean that in Texas you can shoot your attorney for giving you bad advice?
 
2013-06-25 11:27:42 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: The Court doesn't just deal with individual rights, they also have to be concerned with the rights of the States.

What rights of the states do you think trumps the 15th amendment, then? Stop speaking so broadly, lets get specific. What rights of a political entity trumps the 15th amendment?


Well look at those goal posts move. Lets turn this around a little: You tell me how you know that the States affected will discriminate now that they have slightly less scrutiny of their voting laws AND why the handful of States that had to have their voting laws preapproved need more scrutiny than anywhere else. Remember that it's still illegal to discriminate against voters because of race and show your work.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:45 AM
Finally the courts are recognizing the undue influence that minorities hold over the election process.
 
2013-06-25 11:27:49 AM

FlashHarry: well, it's not like the south was ever in play for democrats anyway.


You seem ignorant of history.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:09 AM
All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.

Ginsberg dissent, pg. 44 (starts at pg. 32). Link, PDF
 
2013-06-25 11:28:26 AM

vernonFL: Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.

Here is one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/robert-ehrlich-paul-schuric k- voter-suppression_n_1131852.html

The guy was found guilty and sent to prison.


And how does this relate in any way to the court ruling? A lone bad apple, and there are plenty of Democrats doing it, has nothing to do with the ruling. The ruling means certain parts of the country will be allowed to make their own rules and have them challenged if need be, like everywhere else.

It quite simply, makes things fair.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:28 AM

UNC_Samurai: To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.

Pretty much this.

It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.


You don't think the troglodytes we have in Raleigh will use this to make sure NC is never in play for Democrats in Presidential elections ever again? Same for FL and VA?

/Lives in the 12th district
//can be seen as the only white guy in the very long voter line
 
2013-06-25 11:28:33 AM

dv-ous: Does that mean that in Texas you can shoot your attorney for giving you bad advice?


Only if he tries to run away with it at night.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:42 AM

runin800m: Serious Black:They already can do that. Some laws only have to pass rational basis review. Some laws have to pass heightened or strict scrutiny. Laws that have to pass those increased bars either do not equally protect a suspect or quasi-suspect class, or they impinge upon a right. Is a collection of states a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Is discrimination a right? I think the answer is no in both cases.

So, if a state or collection of states isn't a suspect class could they then decide to levy a tax only on some states and not on others? Would they only need to pass rational review basis and have some argument that they should tax those states more because they have a fatter population and are costing the federal government more than other states or something like that?


We do this kind of stuff all the time. We just spent billions of dollars on a group of states hammered by Hurricane Sandy. Was that spending program unconstitutional even though it directly gave money to states in group A (affected by the hurricane) and effectively took that money from states in group B (not affected by the hurricane). As long as there were a rational reason to support why states in group A should be taxed and states in group B shouldn't, yeah, I'd have to admit that it would pass rational basis review.

I don't know who said anything about a right to discriminate. It wasn't me. Wouldn't it be easier to simply apply the law to every state or to come up with some metric that after a state or district crossed they would then be subject to that part of the act, that way it applies to everyone equally rather than just naming particular places years ago and sticking with them?

Sure, that would be a LOT easier, but I highly doubt Congress will be taking up fixing this act any time soon. Enforcing preclearance on every jurisdiction would require a lot more funding to DOJ, and it would basically federalize voting laws. I can't imagine any Republican would ever support such a policy. And you can forget them coming up with a more modern formula for what jurisdictions are covered and what jurisdictions aren't.
 
2013-06-25 11:28:44 AM
This means slavery is legal again
 
2013-06-25 11:28:53 AM

spiderpaz: what_now: Yes. And creating two classes o states meets the definition of unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional, it was created via a constitutional amendment, therefore it is constitutional, by definition.  You lost the farking war, get over it.


I did? I'm a socialist from Massachusetts? What war did I lose?
 
2013-06-25 11:29:28 AM
Now the question is... will Congress do anything to make a law?

/my guess is...
//no.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:15 AM

drew46n2: Discrimination don't exist round these parts no more, yessir! What, that stars and bars on our state flag? Sheeeeeeet son, that's about HERITAGE. Now go ahead an pay this here heritage tax and the vote booth's over yonder.


Right after the pollsters move the booths across the street, which is also a 12 lane interstate and everything must take a detour, an hour before the poll opens. For safety reasons, y'all.

FTA: That could include something as simple as moving a polling place temporarily across the street.
 
2013-06-25 11:30:29 AM

Voiceofreason01: Well look at those goal posts move. Lets turn this around a little: You tell me how you know that the States affected will discriminate now that they have slightly less scrutiny of their voting laws AND why the handful of States that had to have their voting laws preapproved need more scrutiny than anywhere else. Remember that it's still illegal to discriminate against voters because of race and show your work.


I don't think you understand how courts work. The law existed - Congress passed it. If you agree with the court that it needs to be struck down, you need to cite something in the constitutional which makes the law unconstitutional. You can't just say "I'm going to assume this is unconstitutional unless you can explain to me why its a good law". That's perverse. My opinion on the policy of the VRA is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the court was right to overturn a duly passed law of Congress. Presumably they needed to cite something in the constitution which would justify doing such a thing. Do you know what that would be, or do you have an argument for why you would strike it down? You sure don't seem to. You'd rather re-litigate whether the law is good policy, something I have no interest in arguing and which has nothing to do with the thread.
 
2013-06-25 11:31:12 AM
Everybody relax. I'm pretty sure a Southern rock band can't be president.
 
2013-06-25 11:31:18 AM
xaf.xanga.com
 
2013-06-25 11:31:32 AM
All that amnesty ain't going to be worth a shiat now
 
2013-06-25 11:31:40 AM

Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.


\citationneeded.jpg
\\imagined problem is imaginary
 
2013-06-25 11:31:48 AM

elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]


You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.
 
2013-06-25 11:32:22 AM

lenfromak: A gym teacher couldn't be any worse than a senile old movie actor.


Or a senator with who only voted "present"....
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:33:10 AM

jaybeezey: lenfromak: A gym teacher couldn't be any worse than a senile old movie actor.

Or a senator with who only voted "present"....


One can't argue with someone that uses the same appeal to ignorance over and over and over.
 
2013-06-25 11:33:13 AM

trotsky: elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]

You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.


To be fair it is wrong to blame the sins of the father on the son
 
2013-06-25 11:33:24 AM

trotsky: elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]

You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.


I'm willing to bet whatever way the SCOTUS rules on gay marriage it won't be nearly as broad and far reaching as Roe V Wade was in 73.
 
2013-06-25 11:33:51 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Well look at those goal posts move. Lets turn this around a little: You tell me how you know that the States affected will discriminate now that they have slightly less scrutiny of their voting laws AND why the handful of States that had to have their voting laws preapproved need more scrutiny than anywhere else. Remember that it's still illegal to discriminate against voters because of race and show your work.

I don't think you understand how courts work. The law existed - Congress passed it. If you agree with the court that it needs to be struck down, you need to cite something in the constitutional which makes the law unconstitutional. You can't just say "I'm going to assume this is unconstitutional unless you can explain to me why its a good law". That's perverse. My opinion on the policy of the VRA is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the court was right to overturn a duly passed law of Congress. Presumably they needed to cite something in the constitution which would justify doing such a thing. Do you know what that would be, or do you have an argument for why you would strike it down? You sure don't seem to. You'd rather re-litigate whether the law is good policy, something I have no interest in arguing and which has nothing to do with the thread.


When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying. But having not read the entire opinion, I believe this is a case of rational basis review. You're right there that the presumption there is constitutionality unless you prove it is bad.
 
2013-06-25 11:34:26 AM
DamnYankees:
I don't think you understand how courts work. The law existed - Congress passed it. If you agree with the court that it needs to be struck down, you need to cite something in the constitutional which makes the law unconstitutional. You can't just say "I'm going to assume this is unconstitutional unless you can explain to me why its a good law". That's perverse. My opinion on the policy of the VRA is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the court was right to overturn a duly passed law of Congress. Presumably they needed to cite something in the constitution which would justify doing such a thing. Do you know what that would be, or do you have an argument for why you would strike it down? You sure don't seem to. You'd rather re-litigate whether the law is good policy, something I have no interest in arguing and which has nothing to do with the thread.

If only the Court told us why they struck down the law instead of keeping it a closely guarded secret....oh wait
 
2013-06-25 11:35:08 AM

pionar: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

But North Dakota doesn't have the deep history of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that that the south has.


And Pennsylvania has the deepest history of abolitionism. That doesn't mean it's incapable of passing discriminatory voting laws.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:35:20 AM

cman: trotsky: elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]

You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.

To be fair it is wrong to blame the sins of the father on the son


1980 is beginning of the Corporate Era in terms of corporate influence on Congress.  Big money lobbying built starting about 1973.  In other words you're right.  Look at a graph of any U.S. trends and it always goes to shiat at 1980.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:27 AM

Serious Black: DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Well look at those goal posts move. Lets turn this around a little: You tell me how you know that the States affected will discriminate now that they have slightly less scrutiny of their voting laws AND why the handful of States that had to have their voting laws preapproved need more scrutiny than anywhere else. Remember that it's still illegal to discriminate against voters because of race and show your work.

I don't think you understand how courts work. The law existed - Congress passed it. If you agree with the court that it needs to be struck down, you need to cite something in the constitutional which makes the law unconstitutional. You can't just say "I'm going to assume this is unconstitutional unless you can explain to me why its a good law". That's perverse. My opinion on the policy of the VRA is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the court was right to overturn a duly passed law of Congress. Presumably they needed to cite something in the constitution which would justify doing such a thing. Do you know what that would be, or do you have an argument for why you would strike it down? You sure don't seem to. You'd rather re-litigate whether the law is good policy, something I have no interest in arguing and which has nothing to do with the thread.

When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying. But having not read the entire opinion, I believe this is a case of rational basis review. You're right there that the presumption there is constitutionality unless you prove it is bad.


except strict scrutiny is doesn't really apply in this case it is more about state sovereignty trying to make equal protection arguments don't really square with what was going on in this case.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:43 AM

Serious Black: When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying.


This is true, but I'm pretty sure they didn't apply SS, and it'd be perverse if they did IMO.

Voiceofreason01: If only the Court told us why they struck down the law instead of keeping it a closely guarded secret....oh wait


I'm asking you. I know the courts opinion, I'm looking for yours. If you don't want to give it, we should stop talking.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:49 AM

MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


I'm kinda wanting to hear Lauper cover Freebird.
 
2013-06-25 11:36:42 AM

barneyfifesbullet: If you can show a photo ID to buy beer or rent a movie, you can show photo ID to vote for President of the United States. Stop whining.


So, voting is the same as buying beer or renting a video down there. Glad you Rebs take it so seriously. Kind of explains a lot of the smelly detritus you send to Congress.
 
2013-06-25 11:36:44 AM

Oxygen_Thief: When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying. But having not read the entire opinion, I believe this is a case of rational basis review. You're right there that the presumption there is constitutionality unless you prove it is bad.


actually i did a control f search and strict scrutiny is no where in the opinon
 
2013-06-25 11:37:11 AM

doubled99: This means slavery is legal again


This is worse than Dred Scott!

*looks around for kroncifeld*
 
2013-06-25 11:37:47 AM
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.
 
2013-06-25 11:37:49 AM

hasty ambush: [www.politifake.org image 640x456]


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


[dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 640x553]

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]
[images.sodahead.com image 261x350]


An entire stream of bullshiat!  Well done!
 
2013-06-25 11:38:34 AM
Some of these guys want to retire, and they can't do it until the GOP get back in office.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:51 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Oxygen_Thief: When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying. But having not read the entire opinion, I believe this is a case of rational basis review. You're right there that the presumption there is constitutionality unless you prove it is bad.

actually i did a control f search and strict scrutiny is no where in the opinon


neither is rational basis these are equal protection terms don't apply here.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:55 AM
As someone who has lived in the South. Uh, no. Pretty much any law they want to pass should have to go through the Feds first. The Feds still pass some retarded laws, but at least the most derptastic laws spewed out from assheads in the South could be delayed.
 
2013-06-25 11:39:14 AM

Great_Milenko: Well, they don't call 'em the slave states for nothing.

This is a bigger threat to democracy than the NSA distraction.


Right? Because now blacks and mexicans won't be able to vote ever again. YEEHAW!

unless of course they have a drivers license or state ID, which any idiot with $18 get. This is only a problem for those who are dumber than idiots (i don't want them voting anyway) and people who are so old that they didn't have ID's back then (i don't want them voting anyway).

All of the hand wringing is unneeded. Besides, didn't the courts just say that states can't ask for more than the feds when it comes to voting?
 
2013-06-25 11:39:53 AM

DamnYankees: Serious Black: When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying.

This is true, but I'm pretty sure they didn't apply SS, and it'd be perverse if they did IMO.


Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?
 
2013-06-25 11:40:05 AM

DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.


The idea that SCOTUS can rule based upon how times change is complete bullshiat.

Subversion of Democracy is what this is.
 
2013-06-25 11:40:29 AM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Because Congress or the State Governments never trample over individual rights?

What individual right was being trampled in this case? The right of politicians to change election laws without pre-clearance?


You know, there is an amendment specifically stating that States have rights unto themselves.
 
2013-06-25 11:40:32 AM
This quote from the decision is amazing:

"Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, "[v]oter turnout and registration rates" in covered jurisdictions "now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4's coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. "

This is exactly as Ginsburg said - the majority is basically making the argument "why are you still holding up that umbrella? You're not getting wet, clearly there's no need for it".
 
2013-06-25 11:40:39 AM
More legal minded farkers:

If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?
 
2013-06-25 11:40:47 AM

Lionel Mandrake: MBooda: elchip: barneyfifesbullet: Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.

No it won't.  This will enable even greater racial gerrymandering.

Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?
[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x524]

"They did it first!!" is pretty lame.


First nothing.  They do it all the time.  I've lived in the South and the North and in between. Suggesting that the VRA should apply only to fifteen southern states is ludicrously hypocritical.  There are major areas of New Jersey which are more racially polarized than any part of Georgia. Institutionalized racism is a way of life in South Boston and Charlestown, has been for decades.
 
2013-06-25 11:40:50 AM
So, create a new set of state oversight rules and apply them to all states...


Not seeing the problems with this ruling exactly.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:00 AM

Serious Black: DamnYankees: Serious Black: When it comes to heightened or strict scrutiny, that's kind of what the courts are saying.

This is true, but I'm pretty sure they didn't apply SS, and it'd be perverse if they did IMO.

Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?


your arguing the wrong amendments I just thought I should point this out.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:13 AM
FLMountainMan:

New York City, meanwhile, is the second-most segregated city in the country, has the greatest income divide, has cops regularly gunning down minorities regularly, yet its media outlets are proclaiming this Supreme Court decision as some sort of racial apocalypse.

You do realize that Manhattan and Brooklyn were both covered under Section 4 of the voting rights act due to past discrimination, right? Jesus Christ we are a country of illiterate idiots.  /facepalm
 
2013-06-25 11:41:19 AM

DamnYankees: This quote from the decision is amazing:

"Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, "[v]oter turnout and registration rates" in covered jurisdictions "now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4's coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. "

This is exactly as Ginsburg said - the majority is basically making the argument "why are you still holding up that umbrella? You're not getting wet, clearly there's no need for it".


Chesterton's fence strikes again.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:23 AM
Forget it, people, Tuesday's gone.
 
2013-06-25 11:41:40 AM

what_now: It is not SCOTUS's place to decide which states Re racist. Congress should make EVERY state require federal approval before changing voting laws.

Do you really think Arizona and Wisconsin are immune to voting shenanigans? That's absurd.


Damn Yankees does, yes. He seems to be pants-wettingly afraid of and bigoted against the South.
 
2013-06-25 11:42:01 AM

Serious Black: Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?


They didn't even say that. The court never says they are using rational basis. They don't say its an equal protection case at all. Seriously, I'm reading this thing now and I can't find where the court makes a constitutional argument for why they are overturning this. The entire opinion is just "we don't think the metric is good anymore, therefore overturned".
 
2013-06-25 11:42:48 AM

This text is now purple: You know, there is an amendment specifically stating that States have rights unto themselves.


There's also the 15th amendment, which would obviously trump any such right of a state.
 
2013-06-25 11:42:49 AM

DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude


The rest of the law is still entirely in force. The ruling does away with some states having their laws preapproved by Feds and others not. The voting laws that were unconstitutional yesterday are still unconstitutional today.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:01 AM

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?


other than the sheer dysfunction of the last 5 years?  No, but the conservatives know nothing is going to change anytime soon.  The Gerrymandering alone will ensure that.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:14 AM
ACTIVIST JUDGES!!

No seriously. What the fark.

Guess I will go read the decision now.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:32 AM

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?


The Tea Party?
 
2013-06-25 11:43:35 AM

DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.



Damn liberal judicial activism is destroying the Constitution though.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:55 AM

xanadian: Cythraul: xanadian: Cythraul: BalugaJoe: They should just get to the gay stuff already.

Tomorrow!

Maybe.

Maybe? They are two of the last of the three cases to be announced, and tomorrow's the last day of their term.. before they go on vacation, or something.

You know, I've been wondering how they determine which opinions are given out first.  Is there some kind of algorithm used to determine that the Prop 8/DOMA rulings are coming out dead last, amidst a spate of other rulings?  Is it alphabetical?  Or is SCOTUS like watching a bad Lifetime movie?


I think they secretly like engineering drama.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:10 AM

Carth: If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?


There is not, but since the court has given absolutely no basis on which to make a new formula, it's basically impossible to know if a new one would be constitutional. This all goes back to the basic point though, that the court has absolutely no basis nor expertise for deciding that formula X is better than Y. If something is unconstitutional, that's fine. But better or worse has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:17 AM

sammyk: UNC_Samurai: To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.

Pretty much this.

It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.

You don't think the troglodytes we have in Raleigh will use this to make sure NC is never in play for Democrats in Presidential elections ever again? Same for FL and VA?

/Lives in the 12th district
//can be seen as the only white guy in the very long voter line


Well they've already gerrymandered the House districts in NC so David Price is my Representative, even though I'm in NE Raleigh and he is in Chapel Hill. Raleigh used to be in one voter district for the House; now it's in 4. Next step is to gerrymander the local districts down to individual streets and neighborhoods, mixing pieces of south and SE Raleigh with big chunks of north and west Raleigh so the minority vote gets diluted even further. I'm sure Art Pope and his cronies in the Legislative Bldg are popping champagne corks about now.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:22 AM

Speaker2Animals: barneyfifesbullet: If you can show a photo ID to buy beer or rent a movie, you can show photo ID to vote for President of the United States. Stop whining.

So, voting is the same as buying beer or renting a video down there. Glad you Rebs take it so seriously. Kind of explains a lot of the smelly detritus you send to Congress.


No, voting is far more important.  So, if you gotta show ID for little things.....

/Protip that you should have learned in grade school: pointing out two things have a point in common is not equating those things.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:44 AM
hasty ambush: www.survivalandbeyond.net

Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 2012 election results;Registered voters 927,996Votes Cast 617,141Votes for Barack Obama 420,953Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475
Teatards generally lack several basic intellectual tools that would otherwise distinguish them from monkeys. This is why I no longer view them as even fully human, and I am a farking Republican.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:54 AM

DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.


Great. Now prepare to wait for 20 hours in line trying to vote in any minority neighborhood in a red state. If your vote gets counted, that is.
 
2013-06-25 11:45:21 AM

DamnYankees: Carth: If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?

There is not, but since the court has given absolutely no basis on which to make a new formula, it's basically impossible to know if a new one would be constitutional. This all goes back to the basic point though, that the court has absolutely no basis nor expertise for deciding that formula X is better than Y. If something is unconstitutional, that's fine. But better or worse has nothing to do with it.


assuming you could even get one passed in congress..just imagine that fight.
 
2013-06-25 11:45:51 AM
If I understand the ruling correctly, the list of requiring preclearance is held to be invalid, essentially because there is no provision for updating the data on which that list is based.

And, well, yeah. They really do need to start taking more recent data into account.
 
2013-06-25 11:46:31 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

The rest of the law is still entirely in force. The ruling does away with some states having their laws preapproved by Feds and others not. The voting laws that were unconstitutional yesterday are still unconstitutional today.



That's not true, but you're missing the point.  Congress has the power, period.  SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.  This is simply abuse of power in the service of ideology.  Worse than "legislating from the bench."
 
2013-06-25 11:47:01 AM

kronicfeld: Preclearance has a rejection rate of 0.16%. FISA has a rejection rate of 0.03% and is considered a "rubber stamp."


It depends on who is running DOJ at the time the request is made.  Right now, it is kind of an inert organization.  It has not always been this way (Google the rise and fall of Cynthia McKinney).
 
2013-06-25 11:47:12 AM

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?


No, and they say as much on the last page of the Opinion.  If people would read the whole opinion beore posting, things would be much more clear:

"We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an "extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.""
 
2013-06-25 11:47:21 AM

Millennium: If I understand the ruling correctly, the list of requiring preclearance is held to be invalid, essentially because there is no provision for updating the data on which that list is based.

And, well, yeah. They really do need to start taking more recent data into account.


On what basis can a court declare a law unconstitutional because "the underlying data the Congress used to determine the application was out of date". Does this apply to all laws? Can I sue under any law assuming that the data the Congress used in making the law is from before 1970?
 
2013-06-25 11:47:40 AM

Seems like mr. hasty was a bit hasty with his ambush.


AGAIN.


Also Mr. thunderpipes.


It didn't help you last election, it won't help you in the next.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
Voter ID will guarantee a Rmoney win in PA.

~NOT~

 
2013-06-25 11:47:52 AM

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

If the primary complaint SCOTUS had was the formula  used is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law with a slightly different formula (maybe one that includes all previous areas and some new ones)?


That's basically what the SCOTUS ruling wants; Congress needs to implement a new formula to reauthorize the VRA.

Now, do you reallly think any formula is going to come out of THIS Congress?
 
2013-06-25 11:48:24 AM

CliChe Guevara: Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 2012 election results;Registered voters 927,996Votes Cast 617,141Votes for Barack Obama 420,953Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475
Teatards generally lack several basic intellectual tools that would otherwise distinguish them from monkeys. This is why I no longer view them as even fully human, and I am a farking Republican.


Well, it's not like there's ever been a voting scandal in a presidential election in Cuyahoga County...hey, Ken Blackwell, where are you going, man?
 
2013-06-25 11:48:28 AM

djh0101010: Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.

No registration card?

Nope, Wisconsin passed a Voter ID law, which got whacked by the Democrats next chance they had.  Just show up with a piece of mail from the area, claim to be that person, and there you go.



I'm guessing you've never voted in the US.

When you walk into the polling place to vote, there is a moderately long (presidential election year) or very short (off-year) line in front of some elderly volunteers behind a desk. They have a list of people who can vote there.

If you walk into "any polling place" and give your name, those volunteers will carefully explain that your name is not on their list and that you need to vote in the specific polling place that serves the area you live in. They will spend some time with you to explain the situation and to help you figure out where you should be voting.

When you get to the specific polling place you're supposed to vote in, they will ask you for some form of identification; however, they will work with you if you don't have a driver's license. You may have to sign an affidavit and/or show your voter registration certificate, for example (different states have different rules on this). Sometimes there are questions about what forms of ID are acceptable. When this happens, they'll call over a supervisor. The ones I've seen try to work with you, but there are rules.

As gets pointed out in every thread about this, we require specific forms of identification in other situations. The person behind the desk can tell you to go away if you don't have a driver's license or birth certificate (many elderly have neither). The reason may be that the cost of letting people freely and anonymously buy certain drugs or weapons is considered unacceptable, for example.

Given the costs and benefits of someone sneaking in to vote more than once v. people being denied the right to vote, I'm pretty much fine with how things are done today.
 
2013-06-25 11:48:37 AM

DarnoKonrad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

The rest of the law is still entirely in force. The ruling does away with some states having their laws preapproved by Feds and others not. The voting laws that were unconstitutional yesterday are still unconstitutional today.


That's not true, but you're missing the point.  Congress has the power, period.  SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.  This is simply abuse of power in the service of ideology.  Worse than "legislating from the bench."


jeez dude. Congress DOES have the authority, as you pointed out. However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional. It applies a test based on things that were in place 60 years ago. You may disagree with the decision but it is not an abuse of authority.
 
2013-06-25 11:48:43 AM

DarnoKonrad: Congress has the power, period. SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.


You're taking the position that Congress has plenary, uncheckable power?
 
2013-06-25 11:48:49 AM
I'm glad they left section 5 in place.  My plan to require certain jurisdictions get pre-approval before enacting new gun-control laws is still a possibility!
 
2013-06-25 11:49:24 AM

DamnYankees: the court has absolutely no basis nor expertise for deciding that formula X is better than Y.


Bingo.  It's flatly not their job.  Even if we agreed the criteria congress came up with was shiat, it doesn't matter; the power to come up with the criteria is explicitly delegated to congress per the 15th Amendment.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:34 AM

DamnYankees: Serious Black: Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?

They didn't even say that. The court never says they are using rational basis. They don't say its an equal protection case at all. Seriously, I'm reading this thing now and I can't find where the court makes a constitutional argument for why they are overturning this. The entire opinion is just "we don't think the metric is good anymore, therefore overturned".


I see several mentions of equal sovereignty, which I suppose is like equal protection. But yeah, everything I've read is Alito basically saying historical evidence that once was rational is no longer usable.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:45 AM

skullkrusher: However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional.


We're aware. That's what the thread is about. The point we're all making is that such rejection was based on incredible judicial arrogance and without any constitutional authority.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:51 AM

kronicfeld: To the echo chamber's credit, I haven't yet seen anyone here say that this is worse than Dred Scott.


This is worse than Dred Scott!

thumbs.anyclip.com
 
2013-06-25 11:50:10 AM
DamnYankees:
I'm asking you. I know the courts opinion, I'm looking for yours. If you don't want to give it, we should stop talking.

I haven't even finished reading the opinion yet. What would my opinion prove anyway? All I've gotten from you is knee jerk outrage simply because you disagree with the opinion of the court(which you pretty clearly haven't read) and as nearly as I can tell the reason you don't like the opinion isn't because you think that people will be discriminated against but because you don't like The South. Get past your own biases before you start accusing other people of it.
 
2013-06-25 11:50:21 AM
Sounds like SCOTUS wants to have a little experiment to find out if certain stereotypes about certain states are still true.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:05 AM

Serious Black: I see several mentions of equal sovereignty, which I suppose is like equal protection. But yeah, everything I've read is Alito basically saying historical evidence that once was rational is no longer usable.


I think all the references to "equal sovereignty" is citing a case these same justices wrote 4 years ago. That phrase is nowhere in the constitution. They basically made it up.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:12 AM
hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

www.survivalandbeyond.net

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM
 
2013-06-25 11:51:20 AM

skullkrusher: DarnoKonrad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

The rest of the law is still entirely in force. The ruling does away with some states having their laws preapproved by Feds and others not. The voting laws that were unconstitutional yesterday are still unconstitutional today.


That's not true, but you're missing the point.  Congress has the power, period.  SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.  This is simply abuse of power in the service of ideology.  Worse than "legislating from the bench."

jeez dude. Congress DOES have the authority, as you pointed out. However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional. It applies a test based on things that were in place 60 years ago. You may disagree with the decision but it is not an abuse of authority.


Hey dude, you look dry. You can put down your umbrella now. Oh, never mind the fact that I'm soaking wet from the rain, you still won't get dry.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:23 AM

Swoop1809: Look for even more fun voting laws coming from Red states in the next election.


Hey, why not reinstate intelligence tests before a person is issued a voting certificate?  That worked out pretty well in the past, right?
 
2013-06-25 11:51:51 AM

cman: The idea that SCOTUS can rule based upon how times change is complete bullshiat.


The only thing that changed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board was time.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:14 AM

Voiceofreason01: the reason you don't like the opinion isn't because you think that people will be discriminated against but because you don't like The South.


I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from. My outrage here is entirely based on legal norms and the utter hypocrisy of the court in applying its own stated standards.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:37 AM

InmanRoshi: drew46n2: Is this about Paula Deen?

The Supreme Court just ruled that Paula Deen doesn't actually exist.


But I thought corporations were people.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:49 AM

kronicfeld: DarnoKonrad: Congress has the power, period. SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.

You're taking the position that Congress has plenary, uncheckable power?


In this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:50 AM

Zeno-25: The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

[www.heygidday.biz image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.


If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:08 AM

This text is now purple: cman: The idea that SCOTUS can rule based upon how times change is complete bullshiat.

The only thing that changed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board was time.


Yes, but I don't think the legal reasoning in Broad v. Board was "the times have changed". The reasoning was "we were wrong last time". That's very different from what's happening here.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:33 AM

DamnYankees: Serious Black: Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?

They didn't even say that. The court never says they are using rational basis. They don't say its an equal protection case at all. Seriously, I'm reading this thing now and I can't find where the court makes a constitutional argument for why they are overturning this. The entire opinion is just "we don't think the metric is good anymore, therefore overturned".


That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation.  By virtue of completely ignoring all new data in their renewal of the law each time, the Congress was not in fact acting rationally.  They were acting, quite literally, irrationally in ignoring all the new data they themselves (or their agents) had gathered.

It's rare to see such a stark insult: the Court is saying Congress acting even more irrationally than the lowest possible standard of legislation allows.  I think that's why you're missing it (and I truly don't mean this as an insult): you're looking for a 'higher' explanation of unconstitutionality, whereas the Court is saying it's so simple that it fails even rational basis analysis.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:38 AM

Serious Black: DamnYankees: Serious Black: Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?

They didn't even say that. The court never says they are using rational basis. They don't say its an equal protection case at all. Seriously, I'm reading this thing now and I can't find where the court makes a constitutional argument for why they are overturning this. The entire opinion is just "we don't think the metric is good anymore, therefore overturned".

I see several mentions of equal sovereignty, which I suppose is like equal protection. But yeah, everything I've read is Alito basically saying historical evidence that once was rational is no longer usable.


The thing is strict scrutiny and rational basis are specific names for specific tests that are applied to 5th or 14th amendment equal protection analysis they don't really correlate to the issue here that is why if you say strict scrutiny or rational basis it does not make sense in the context of the opinion.  Equal protection does not = equal sovereignty.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:29 AM

IlGreven: Zeno-25: The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

[www.heygidday.biz image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.


Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:31 AM

DarnoKonrad: kronicfeld: DarnoKonrad: Congress has the power, period. SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.

You're taking the position that Congress has plenary, uncheckable power?

In this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.


This is actually a great analogy. Imagine if we had the same tax brackets for 50 years. Then someone sued saying their taxes were too high. This is essentially the court saying "the current tax brackets were made a long time ago, and we think society has changed alot since then, so we're striking down the income tax until the Congress figures out some new rates".
 
2013-06-25 11:54:47 AM
So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?
 
2013-06-25 11:54:54 AM

bulldg4life: Cythraul: They will tomorrow!

James!: Tomorrow.

My point is more that Scalia punted on the issue of gay marriage last week when he said that the court can't make moral judgments on the state of the country. But, right here, we are judging how far the country has progressed.


It's almost like there's a double standard.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:09 AM
So, who wants to bet Mr.Hasty won't be back to defend his Ambush?
 
2013-06-25 11:55:11 AM
If anyone disagrees with this ruling and then DOESN'T VOTE in 2014, you are a moran. The reason Congress is such a mess is because so many voters stupidly sat out 2010, even after watching the Tea Party go on for two years.

If everyone who can vote actually does, then the Tea Party won't be able to use this to their advantage, because I suspect they will. 2014 is going to be a very important election, and sitting on the sidelines isn't an option. You have no excuse. Vote, because the Tea Party is not down just yet, and if you ignore it like you did in 2010, it will come back.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:26 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


More like both sides, but I digress.
 
2013-06-25 11:56:50 AM
Bottles of Jack and a fistful of cocaine for everyone!!
 
2013-06-25 11:57:06 AM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: You know, there is an amendment specifically stating that States have rights unto themselves.

There's also the 15th amendment, which would obviously trump any such right of a state.


What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:38 AM

abb3w: So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?


theoretically but it would be so watered down so as to be ineffective or the current court would find a way to kill it in my opinion.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:48 AM

The Muthaship: SCOTUS:  Racism is no longer the problem it once was.

Fark: FFFFFFUUUUUUU!


When Nelson Mandela passes in a few days, we should just send them a link to the resulting FARK thread...
 
2013-06-25 11:57:51 AM
pre or post fiery plane crash?
 
2013-06-25 11:57:56 AM

mattharvest: That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation


I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware how rational basis works? Laws are NEVER overturned by the court for being 'irrational', since its a standard practice of the court to decide that once it is determined that rational basis is the applicable standard of review, Congress' action is deemed to have been rational. The court basically does this because they (rightly) have figured that they have no better basis than Congress to decide whether or not a law is rational. The court is simply substituting their own judgment, saying that a law passed 98-0 was 'irrational'. You can't get more arrogant and activist than that.

Also, this is not an equal protection case, so the entire rational basis test doesn't even apply. So this is all besides the point.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:24 AM

mattharvest: DamnYankees: Serious Black: Yeah, this is quite obviously an equal protection case subjected to rational basis. Apparently Congress had no rational basis for damn near unanimously reapproving the preclearance formula 7 years ago?

They didn't even say that. The court never says they are using rational basis. They don't say its an equal protection case at all. Seriously, I'm reading this thing now and I can't find where the court makes a constitutional argument for why they are overturning this. The entire opinion is just "we don't think the metric is good anymore, therefore overturned".

That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation.  By virtue of completely ignoring all new data in their renewal of the law each time, the Congress was not in fact acting rationally.  They were acting, quite literally, irrationally in ignoring all the new data they themselves (or their agents) had gathered.

It's rare to see such a stark insult: the Court is saying Congress acting even more irrationally than the lowest possible standard of legislation allows.  I think that's why you're missing it (and I truly don't mean this as an insult): you're looking for a 'higher' explanation of unconstitutionality, whereas the Court is saying it's so simple that it fails even rational basis analysis.


Chesterton's fence looked like it had no rational basis either.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:34 AM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional.

We're aware. That's what the thread is about. The point we're all making is that such rejection was based on incredible judicial arrogance and without any constitutional authority.


read the decision. They reference the equal sovereignty of the states. I don't find it arrogant at all to say that this formula based on voting conditions and turnout 60 years ago is no longer an acceptable means for treating the states unequally.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:41 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


I love that ending; "THINK PEOPLE!"

/We are, which is why we aren't dipshiat teahadists.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:43 AM

D135: Bottles of Jack and a fistful of cocaine for everyone!!


I'd vote for Romney if I got a bottle of Jack and a fistful of cocaine.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:45 AM

DamnYankees: On what basis can a court declare a law unconstitutional because "the underlying data the Congress used to determine the application was out of date". Does this apply to all laws? Can I sue under any law assuming that the data the Congress used in making the law is from before 1970?


If the entire justification for the law - as is the case here - is the data underlying the formula, then yes.  Can you identify such a law so we can look at the congressional record and compare their data against their formulae?

DarnoKonrad: n this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.


No, it's not.  Your analogy is false and dangerous.  All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny, i.e. they must be a rational means of implementing some valid government interest.  This is an absurdly low standard, but it is (as the Court ruled today) possible to fail it.  If you legislate in such a way that the law is not rationally related to the underlying government interest, then it fails.  This is a long-standing principle, longer even than Intermediate or Strict scrutiny.

The Supreme Court cannot 'make up new shiat', nor did it do so today: whether or not you agree with the need for Section 4, the practical reality is that Congress went out of its way to collect a huge amount of data on the valid government interest at hand, and then proceeded to completely ignore it in simply re-using an old formula instead of properly crafting the new one.  As such, the Court said "That was irrational.  You fail the lowest standard of review, and proceed no further.  You can try again at writing a new formula."

If the  actual support for the law is so universal, Congress should have no trouble drafting a new formula that reflects all their data and then passing it.  If they act rationally, there will be no problem.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:51 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


Try arguing with them sometime. You could be like my mom and every time you're losing an argument call me a complicit baby murderer.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:55 AM

djh0101010: Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.



Maybe because we don't need one, and the claim that voter fraud is a big problem on a national scale is a lie used to disenfranchise minorities.

That might have something to do with it.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:06 AM

This text is now purple: What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.


The opposite is true. They explicitly can. The court today said they can. They just need to do it differently. Today the court just decided they didn't like the method of discrimination. Another, more 'current' method would be fine.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:31 AM

Serious Black: skullkrusher: DarnoKonrad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

The rest of the law is still entirely in force. The ruling does away with some states having their laws preapproved by Feds and others not. The voting laws that were unconstitutional yesterday are still unconstitutional today.


That's not true, but you're missing the point.  Congress has the power, period.  SCOTUS has no legal rationale for interjecting their opinion on what the criteria should be.  This is simply abuse of power in the service of ideology.  Worse than "legislating from the bench."

jeez dude. Congress DOES have the authority, as you pointed out. However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional. It applies a test based on things that were in place 60 years ago. You may disagree with the decision but it is not an abuse of authority.

Hey dude, you look dry. You can put down your umbrella now. Oh, never mind the fact that I'm soaking wet from the rain, you still won't get dry.


I forgot my umbrella today :(

/wtf?
 
2013-06-25 11:59:46 AM

abb3w: So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?


The folks at SCOTUSblog think that the court would strike that as being unjustifiable. I think they would strike it because fark voting rights.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:47 AM
cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2013-06-25 12:00:02 PM
Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(
 
2013-06-25 12:00:06 PM

mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,


This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.
 
2013-06-25 12:00:22 PM

Ricardo Klement: IlGreven: Zeno-25: The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

[www.heygidday.biz image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.

Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.


Well, then, it proves the SCOTUS has completely abandoned the 10th amendment.
 
2013-06-25 12:00:59 PM

DamnYankees: I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from.


Maybe considered implied by your Fark handle?

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy.


Aside from the fact that Tea Partiers likely still won't see any problem with the results.
 
2013-06-25 12:02:50 PM
This country is farked.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:04 PM

IlGreven: Ricardo Klement: IlGreven: Zeno-25: The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

[www.heygidday.biz image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.

Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.

Well, then, it proves the SCOTUS has completely abandoned the 10th amendment.


besides citing the tenth amendment when overruling the statute.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:06 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: This text is now purple: You know, there is an amendment specifically stating that States have rights unto themselves.

There's also the 15th amendment, which would obviously trump any such right of a state.

What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.


I'd love to see somebody sue Uncle Sam for explicitly spending money in states hit by Hurricane Sandy as a violation of equal protection/sovereignty/whatever the fark SCOTUS wants to call it.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:28 PM

mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,


Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:34 PM

abb3w: DamnYankees: I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

Maybe considered implied by your Fark handle?

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy.

Aside from the fact that Tea Partiers likely still won't see any problem with the results.


Ha, my Fark handle is about baseball.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:44 PM

Person: As someone who has lived in the South. Uh, no. Pretty much any law they want to pass should have to go through the Feds first. The Feds still pass some retarded laws, but at least the most derptastic laws spewed out from assheads in the South could be delayed.


Uh North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin and Missouri would like to have a word w/ you
 
2013-06-25 12:03:47 PM
Is there any state where this could realistically make a difference? The only states that would try to keep blacks from voting on an organized level are thoroughly red and elect nothing but Republicans to every House and Senate seat anyway, with a possible exception for House seats from central Atlanta or Memphis.
 
2013-06-25 12:04:04 PM

elchip: hasty ambush: [www.politifake.org image 640x456]


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


[dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 640x553]

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]
[images.sodahead.com image 261x350]

420,953 (68.84%) Cuyahoga county citizens voted for Obama in 2012.  Your claims are demonstrably false.


The truth of the claim is that there are precincts within the county that voted 100% for Obama.  At first that could raise some eyebrows, until you realize that could be read as "Three people voted at this elementary school, all of them voted for Obama".

Yawn.
 
2013-06-25 12:04:24 PM

skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant


Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?
 
2013-06-25 12:04:39 PM

YixilTesiphon: pionar: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

But North Dakota doesn't have the deep history of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that that the south has.

And Pennsylvania has the deepest history of abolitionism. That doesn't mean it's incapable of passing discriminatory voting laws.


Certainly Pennsylvania has the capability to pass discriminatory laws, what it doesn't have is a history of passing discriminatory laws. Just like I have the capability of starting a crack habit, I don't have a history of abusing crack.

If you've got a son who's a crack addict and one who isn't and you end up missing $100 which one do you suspect first?
 
2013-06-25 12:05:20 PM

DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


Don't go to law school. Being able to argue these things knowledgeably in FARK threads isn't worth the trade-off of spending three years surrounded by law students to end up graduating into a shiatty job market with six figures of student loan debt.
 
2013-06-25 12:06:21 PM

DamnYankees: abb3w: DamnYankees: I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

Maybe considered implied by your Fark handle?

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy.

Aside from the fact that Tea Partiers likely still won't see any problem with the results.

Ha, my Fark handle is about baseball.


Hmm.  My guess was you were a big fan of Broadway musicals.
 
2013-06-25 12:07:40 PM
 
2013-06-25 12:08:07 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.


Don't worry about it.  I'm sure if it's close enough the Supreme Court will award enough extra electoral votes to the Republican candidate to fix any problems.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:17 PM

hasty ambush: [www.politifake.org image 640x456]



I saw that Cuyahoga county one and thought "there's no way that's true." You know what? It isn't. From Cuyahoga County's board of elections:

Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM) . . . . 447,273 69.32
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP) . . . . 190,660 29.55

Look at that, Obama only got 69% of the vote, and only 70% of the county voted.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:58 PM
Can gay illegal immigrants smoke marijuana in voting booths yet?  It's 2013, people.
 
2013-06-25 12:09:40 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant

Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?


actually, I made it clear that I am not an authority. Which is why I qualified it with "think" and took the correction under advisement. What part of English and reading the thread is tripping you up?
 
2013-06-25 12:09:50 PM
Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-25 12:09:57 PM

cman: DarnoKonrad: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

.Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.

The idea that SCOTUS can rule based upon how times change is complete bullshiat.

Subversion of Democracy is what this is.


This this THIS.  Of course, times change...maybe lifetime appointments are necessary for Supreme Court members anymore.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:11 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me: The Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Voting Rights Act Decision


"Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court's opinion today."

Heyo
 
2013-06-25 12:10:35 PM

hasty ambush: [www.politifake.org image 640x456]


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


[dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 640x553]

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]
[images.sodahead.com image 261x350]


10/10

You actually got about 5 separate people to spend their time looking up the actual election results.  Well done.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:38 PM
www.urbanromanceonline.com

Willing to go through the trouble of marching and protesting... not willing to go through the trouble of getting a valid ID.

Its almost like a lack of education is a factor here.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:45 PM

DamnYankees: mattharvest: That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation

I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware how rational basis works? Laws are NEVER overturned by the court for being 'irrational', since its a standard practice of the court to decide that once it is determined that rational basis is the applicable standard of review, Congress' action is deemed to have been rational. The court basically does this because they (rightly) have figured that they have no better basis than Congress to decide whether or not a law is rational. The court is simply substituting their own judgment, saying that a law passed 98-0 was 'irrational'. You can't get more arrogant and activist than that.

Also, this is not an equal protection case, so the entire rational basis test doesn't even apply. So this is all besides the point.


To be clear, you  did mean to be rude.  That's okay, but accept what you're doing.

Just because the Courts have so-far presumed Congress to have acted rationally does not, in any way, bind them to always doing so.  Far from it, it shows how little they think of Congress' deliberations here.

I think the problem is you're expecting them to hew closely to the often cited (but not truly permanent) levels of scrutiny we all learn in law school.  Here, though, Roberts points out that the Voter Rights Act was always viewed as something of a different beast.

"As we explained in upholding the law, "exceptional conditions can justify legislative
measures not otherwise appropriate.""


Roberts then explains the standard of review here a bit vaguely but perhaps as well as possible given that the legislation occupies a literally unique position:

"The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, "the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs." Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 203."

He then makes it immediately clear that this is all in the framework of the 15th Amendment and Equal Protection through the next several paragraphs.

In discussing the previous challenges to the Act, he reiterates this:

"Sections 4 and 5 were intended to be temporary; they were set to expire after five years. See §4(a), id., at 438;  Northwest Austin, supra, at 199. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, we upheld the 1965 Act against constitutional challenge, explaining that it was justified to address "voting discrimination where it persists on a pervasive scale." 383 U. S., at 308."

He repeatedly explains this special circumstance.  I thin kit's quite clear that while this falls under Equal Protection, he was arguing that this didn't fit neatly into any one framework for analysis.

His reasoning (and thus that of the Court) is that since those special circumstances are no longer reflected in the Congress' rationalization for the extraordinary violation of state sovereignty, they cannot be used to justify that violation.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:05 PM

zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]


Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.
 
2013-06-25 12:12:47 PM

DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.
 
2013-06-25 12:14:33 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: That's fine. They cited an opinion written by themselves, basically.

As opposed an opinion written by whom? God? Starfleet Command?


phillbarron.files.wordpress.com
What does God need with a Supreme Court decision?
 
2013-06-25 12:15:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.


Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.
 
2013-06-25 12:17:43 PM

mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.


"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:01 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


Ginsburg's dissent says it better than I can, so I'm not going to trade petty insults and text walls with you.  This is massive overreach, illogical, and ultimately damaging to civil rights and the rule of law.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:27 PM

Nabb1: zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]

Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.


Korematsu was an awful ruling, too; however the conviction was overturned. Dred Scott was thrown out on the grounds that slaves were property and therefore didn't have the right to sue.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:54 PM

djh0101010: We'll even give you the ID for free.


On alternating third Thursdays of the month at an office hundreds of miles from where you live that's open for an hour.*

*Transportation not included, Additional fees may apply.  Offer void without required documentation.  Required documentation subject to change without notice.  Improper exclusion from voting may not be remedied after the fact.  It's got Paul Anka's guarantee (guarantee void in Tennessee).
 
2013-06-25 12:19:11 PM

mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.


I'd say let's use one of these maps and formulas to provide a rational basis behind the preclearance list. I especially like the last map.
 
2013-06-25 12:20:23 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: I wasn't aware "political entity as defined by geographic region in which its boundaries are located" had the same level of protection. Can you cite where that's true?

Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009). An Act's disparate geographic coverage must be sufficiently related to its target problems.


And sadly, what with how bad the midwest is about protecting voting rights, it cannot be said today that the south needs special targeting.

Pass the law for the whole nation.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:20 PM

Nabb1: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.


its been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...
 
2013-06-25 12:21:31 PM

zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]


This in no way even comes close

All they did was effectively force a release on somebody who been locked up for 30+ years.  The ones that have been squeaky clean the whole time don't need to be lumped in w/ the ones still doing it.  Also there are several areas in the north trying to just as shady (if not worse) and need to get put on a new naughty list
 
2013-06-25 12:21:46 PM
can someone explain it to me in layman's term what exactly the article or specifically what the SC is saying because I do not understand such lawyer speak.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:53 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.   That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


I have a farm where I herd sheep. A bunch of wolves storm my pasture and kill some of my sheep, so I build a fence to keep my sheep safe. Fifty years later, I don't have very many wolf attacks on my sheep. Should I pull the fence down because my sheep are safe?
 
2013-06-25 12:22:41 PM
Voting schmoting.

[First Triple-George, now the federal government] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Who are you gonna vote for?  The candidate that butt-farks us the least?
 
2013-06-25 12:23:19 PM
This is how Republicans will retain power. Gerrymandering. Disenfranchising voters. Voter Fraud.


Screw having decent ideas when you can just cheat.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:17 PM

d23: Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.

Maybe if they can get through the lines..

[msnbctv.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]

Seriously.. if you really believe that then you must be living in a major bubble of only information you want to hear.  I'd like to see ONE example brought forward of a minority voters voting a half dozen times... just ONE.


I don't think he can hear you over the sound of derp thundering.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:45 PM

zetar: Nabb1: zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]

Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.

Korematsu was an awful ruling, too; however the conviction was overturned. Dred Scott was thrown out on the grounds that slaves were property and therefore didn't have the right to sue.


What conviction?  Fred Koramatsu was a Japanese American who challenged his internment in a camp during WWII.  Yes, I have come across the Dred Scott case.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:45 PM

Bendal: sammyk: UNC_Samurai: To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.

Pretty much this.

It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.

You don't think the troglodytes we have in Raleigh will use this to make sure NC is never in play for Democrats in Presidential elections ever again? Same for FL and VA?

/Lives in the 12th district
//can be seen as the only white guy in the very long voter line

Well they've already gerrymandered the House districts in NC so David Price is my Representative, even though I'm in NE Raleigh and he is in Chapel Hill. Raleigh used to be in one voter district for the House; now it's in 4. Next step is to gerrymander the local districts down to individual streets and neighborhoods, mixing pieces of south and SE Raleigh with big chunks of north and west Raleigh so the minority vote gets diluted even further. I'm sure Art Pope and his cronies in the Legislative Bldg are popping champagne corks about now.


I'm sure they already have some very innovative cost saving measures already packaged up in a bill ready to go.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:24 PM

d23: Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.

Maybe if they can get through the lines..

[msnbctv.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]

Seriously.. if you really believe that then you must be living in a major bubble of only information you want to hear.  I'd like to see ONE example brought forward of a minority voters voting a half dozen times... just ONE.


Not Quite 6 times but, voter fraud is voter fraud.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:28 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


Interestingly, when Congress last reauthorized the VRA, there was an amendment that would have modified the preclearance formula by adding jurisdictions with less than 50% turnout in the previous three presidential elections. It crashed. Hard.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:38 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.

Ginsberg dissent, pg. 44 (starts at pg. 32). Link, PDF


B-but the Supreme Court just assured me that racism in the USA was OVER!
 
2013-06-25 12:25:38 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.   That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.

I have a farm where I herd sheep. A bunch of wolves storm my pasture and kill some of my sheep, so I build a fence to keep my sheep safe. Fifty years later, I don't have very many wolf attacks on my sheep. Should I pull the fence down because my sheep are safe?


depends. Do you keep the fence up because of what the wolf population was in your area 60 years ago or do you apply more modern criteria?
 
2013-06-25 12:25:41 PM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


Just for fun:

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT
Stewart Alexander/Alex Mendoza (SOC) . 220 .03
Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson . . . . 621 .10
Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer (CON). . . . 534 .08
Gary Johnson/James P. Gray (LIB). . . 3,448 .54
Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM) . . . . 447,254 69.42
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP) . . . . 190,656 29.59
Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala (GRE) . . . 1,564 .24
Susan Daniels/Jerry Veneskey . . . . 0
Nelson Keyton/Jay Jennelle . . . . 0
Jill Reed/Tom Cary . . . . . . . 7 0.00
Platt Robertson/Scott Fall. . . . . 0
Randall Terry/Cathy Lewis . . . . . 3 0.00
Mike Vargo/Jeff Angeletti . . . . . 1 0.00

Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1,772
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 3,403
 
2013-06-25 12:25:46 PM

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy. Imagine if we had the same tax brackets for 50 years. Then someone sued saying their taxes were too high. This is essentially the court saying "the current tax brackets were made a long time ago, and we think society has changed alot since then, so we're striking down the income tax until the Congress figures out some new rates".


This happened with the telephone tax -- the courts agreed that the Spanish-American war had been paid for, so the tax had to go away.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:55 PM

mattharvest: That's what Congress did: ignored current data.


No, that's what five Justices on SCOTUS did.

All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory. Ginsberg's dissent, pg. 44

31 proposals were blocked by DOJ alone since the VRA was reauthorized in 2006. Between 1999 and 2005, 153 changes were withdrawn when DOJ asked questions about them. Link

The problem hasn't disappeared. It's still alive and well today.
 
2013-06-25 12:26:22 PM

Alonjar: [www.urbanromanceonline.com image 300x225]

Willing to go through the trouble of marching and protesting... not willing to go through the trouble of getting a valid ID.

Its almost like a lack of education is a factor here.


poll tax.


Also it didn't help you in PA during the last election.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
 
2013-06-25 12:27:42 PM

Nabb1: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.


Yes it does, and despite assertions here, it absolutely is not limited to solely Equal Protection cases.  Even if it were (which I'll address in a moment), the Court made quite clear that this was an Equal Protection case by repeatedly and excessively linking back to its earlier Equal Protection analyses of this law and these issues.

As for Rational Basis, when it began with  McCullough it was quite clearly not an equal protection case, but rather about whether Congress could validly describe itself as following the limits of its power in passing particular laws.  However, to be even more clear, look at the first case that actually used the term: US v. Carolene Products Co.  That case wasn't about equal protection at all, but rather due process.  The court made quite clear that since the Congress had relied on actual evidence of the public health issue, the Congress hadn't acted arbitrarily or irrationally.  We see all this in the famous Footnote Four, which explicitly put rational basis as a test for  economic issues.

I see no support for the claim that I've used Rational Basis incorrectly here.
 
2013-06-25 12:27:49 PM

Great_Milenko: Well, they don't call 'em the slave states for nothing.

This is a bigger threat to democracy than the NSA distraction.


Good thing we don't live in a democracy.
 
2013-06-25 12:28:23 PM
It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Many of us do not, due to personal experience with those governments.
 
2013-06-25 12:29:00 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,

Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.

Interestingly, when Congress last reauthorized the VRA, there was an amendment that would have modified the preclearance formula by adding jurisdictions with less than 50% turnout in the previous three presidential elections. It crashed. Hard.


Oh, and apparently, the District Court in DC saw this formula and suggested that the more recent data was irrelevant in its earlier opinion on Shelby v. Holder.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:44 PM

MonoChango: d23: Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.

Maybe if they can get through the lines..

[msnbctv.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]

Seriously.. if you really believe that then you must be living in a major bubble of only information you want to hear.  I'd like to see ONE example brought forward of a minority voters voting a half dozen times... just ONE.

Not Quite 6 times but, voter fraud is voter fraud.


Two white guys, two white women.

And it was falsifying a petition used to get a candidate on the ballot.

So: no minority, and not voting multiple times.

Try again.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:49 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: This doesn't really change anything, the rest of the law is still in effect. It just means that there's going to be a protracted legal battle after changes to state laws rather than before.


Which will no doubt be just long enough for red states to rig a few elections to show those uppity browns and darkies that democracy means rich people choose which white man rules over them.

There should be blood in the streets after this ruling. Conservatives should face the Bastille.
 
2013-06-25 12:31:43 PM

Oxygen_Thief: ts been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...


Since it's plainly not true that Rational Basis is only for Equal Protection cases, I hardly think I'm the one who needs more study.

I've already cited the cases that - quite literally from the beginning of Rational Basis caselaw - applied it to all laws and not just Equal Protection.  I eagerly await someone explaining why, despite that, we should only apply Rational Basis to Equal Protection cases.

Even if they could do that, there is no possible way to say that would be binding on the Supreme Court, since by definition those standards were written by the Supreme Court and could be changed simply by using a different standard.
 
2013-06-25 12:31:51 PM

Serious Black: abb3w: So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?

The folks at SCOTUSblog think that the court would strike that as being unjustifiable. I think they would strike it because fark voting rights.


They would strike it because there's 220 years of states being able to set their own electoral methods.
 
2013-06-25 12:32:16 PM

February 25, 1870
First African American Senator

Photograph of Senator Hiram Revels

On February 25, 1870, visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi
Political party Republican


The first African Americans to serve in the United States Congress were Republicans during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. After slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights, freedmen gained political representation in the Southern United States for the first time. The Compromise of 1877 initiated the period that followed, known as Redemption among white Southerners. White Democrats regained political power in state legislatures across the South and worked to restore white supremacy. Democrat state legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890-1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s. As a result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement over Democrat opposition
 
2013-06-25 12:33:19 PM

Serious Black: Oh, and apparently, the District Court in DC saw this formula and suggested that the more recent data was irrelevant in its earlier opinion on Shelby v. Holder.


So you're saying that it's okay for a District Court to 'legislate' about whether or not the data need by included, but not the Supreme Court?

Either a court - supreme or otherwise - can make a decision about whether or not data need be included, or they can't.  So either the District Court and Supreme Court were both able to do so (with one simply overruling the other), or neither was and it's irrelevant what the District Court thought about that data.
 
2013-06-25 12:33:36 PM
Some people lost a fundraising line today.  That's about it.
 
2013-06-25 12:34:53 PM

CliChe Guevara: hasty ambush: [www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 2012 election results;Registered voters 927,996Votes Cast 617,141Votes for Barack Obama 420,953Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475
Teatards generally lack several basic intellectual tools that would otherwise distinguish them from monkeys. This is why I no longer view them as even fully human, and I am a farking Republican.



This is now the 5th distinct thread in which I've noticed  hasty ambush posting something that is flat-out (and very easily show to be) simply untrue.  I have no idea how much misinformation he's spewed that I didn't notice.  I think it's safe to say you should pretty much just assume anything  hasty ambush posts is a lie, at least until/unless you take the time to check the facts for yourself.
 
2013-06-25 12:34:58 PM

Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?


Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:21 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


So the voting rights act should be expanded, not reduced.  Add some new entries to the list of states or counties that need oversight.
 
2013-06-25 12:37:03 PM

DamnYankees: Speaker2Animals: How long was it between the passage of the 14th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference?

100 is actually exactly right. 1865 to 1965.


Meanwhile, in Philly...

thespeechatimeforchoosing.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-25 12:37:15 PM

Nabb1: zetar: Nabb1: zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]

Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.

Korematsu was an awful ruling, too; however the conviction was overturned. Dred Scott was thrown out on the grounds that slaves were property and therefore didn't have the right to sue.

What conviction?  Fred Koramatsu was a Japanese American who challenged his internment in a camp during WWII.  Yes, I have come across the Dred Scott case.


Fred Korematsu (note correct spelling) was a fugitive because he refused to go to an internment camp. He was caught and convicted. His conviction was overturned later. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Korematsu
 
2013-06-25 12:38:01 PM

Lexx: Sure, you can make an ID card required.  You just have to make sure it's free and readily available.


I hear 2 main arguments over this in my state:

1)  Black people are too farking lazy to bother actually getting the free voters ID card

2)  ... well good, if you're that lazy then you don't deserve to vote.

Nobody has suggested that black people aren't lazy from either side of the debate.

/Racist much?
//Doesn't matter, had sex
 
2013-06-25 12:38:21 PM

DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.


It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.
 
2013-06-25 12:40:00 PM

mattharvest: Serious Black: Oh, and apparently, the District Court in DC saw this formula and suggested that the more recent data was irrelevant in its earlier opinion on Shelby v. Holder.

So you're saying that it's okay for a District Court to 'legislate' about whether or not the data need by included, but not the Supreme Court?

Either a court - supreme or otherwise - can make a decision about whether or not data need be included, or they can't.  So either the District Court and Supreme Court were both able to do so (with one simply overruling the other), or neither was and it's irrelevant what the District Court thought about that data.


I was specifically talking about the turnout data in that case. That was what was stated in the NY Times article with all the maps I posted previously.

And as others have noted, Justice Ginsburg recounted several laws that were struck down as a part of the preclearance system dating from just prior to the VRA getting reauthorized to 15 years prior to that. Beyond that, consider the differences between these two maps:

graphics8.nytimes.com

graphics8.nytimes.com

The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?
 
2013-06-25 12:41:05 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.


ITS A CONSPIRACY!
 
2013-06-25 12:41:49 PM

Serious Black: There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?


I don't know if I made this clear earlier: I'm  not saying discrimination isn't a problem, and I'm  not saying that we shouldn't have a formula. I think the data that exists absolutely justifies such a thing.

I don't think it justified the old formula, because literally the old formula wasn't derived from it.  We need a formula that specifically references and reflects that new data, to be as precise and tight a fit as possible.
 
2013-06-25 12:41:51 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.



Oh yea, I agree.  There won't be new criteria.  The voting rights act is effectively dead.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:22 PM

Serious Black: I'd say let's use one of these maps and formulas to provide a rational basis behind the preclearance list. I especially like the last map.


graphics8.nytimes.com

"It may be argued that Virginia and perhaps South Carolina should not be covered, but the rest of the covered states in the Deep South top the list of the most prejudiced states by anti-black stereotyping," http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262954">the professors found.

I see the NYTimes has no idea what South Carolina looks like, or how to tell it apart from North Carolina.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:45 PM

CliChe Guevara: hasty ambush: [www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 2012 election results;Registered voters 927,996Votes Cast 617,141Votes for Barack Obama 420,953Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475
Teatards generally lack several basic intellectual tools that would otherwise distinguish them from monkeys. This is why I no longer view them as even fully human, and I am a farking Republican.


Or as we've learn from John Oliver, "we can just ignore them."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 12:44:36 PM

ciberido: d23


how is that derp?  If you have real evidence show it.  Otherwise the claim is simply a lie.
 
2013-06-25 12:45:54 PM

DamnYankees: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

Then appeal to Congress to do that. The court is simply substituting its judgment for Congress's here. It's the height of judicial activism.


To be fair, that's their job. To be active judges. Except for Clarence Thomas. He just sits by Scallias feet curled up in a ball, gently purring.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:23 PM
Your current president just wants to get lucky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6PEboTpcfI
 
2013-06-25 12:47:46 PM

bdub77: This of course is at odds with my general feeling that this country is pretty damn great, with amazing natural resources, lots of generally very nice people, and a strong culture of innovation and productivity that I doubt exists anywhere in the world.


Americans are farking lazy and stupid, while Germany and Japan produce all of the useful innovation.  The Japanese die from overwork because they voluntarily work themselves to death; Puerto Ricans hold the highest respect for the working-class farmer who will always be poor but provides the foundation for society by providing basic resources like <b>food</b> for everyone; while Americans hold contempt for the rich whilst simultaneously talking about dead-end lazy burger-flippers who will never amount to anything--and then define "success" as finding a job where you sit at a job and do as little as possible for as much pay as you can get.

Innovation and productivity.  Hilarious.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:24 PM

mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: ts been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...

Since it's plainly not true that Rational Basis is only for Equal Protection cases, I hardly think I'm the one who needs more study.

I've already cited the cases that - quite literally from the beginning of Rational Basis caselaw - applied it to all laws and not just Equal Protection.  I eagerly await someone explaining why, despite that, we should only apply Rational Basis to Equal Protection cases.

Even if they could do that, there is no possible way to say that would be binding on the Supreme Court, since by definition those standards were written by the Supreme Court and could be changed simply by using a different standard.


Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government.  Whereas here we are talking about the relationship here between the state governments and the federal governments which would implicate different areas of the constitution which implicate other amendments and provisions of the Constitution.  Namely the tenth.  This particular case is governed by that relationship along with the 15th.  I think that is the difference.  Conflating that with equal protection analysis is a disservice. Rational basis and Rational law may have the word rational in both of the terms, but they are not the same thing.  Rational basis implies that one day strict scrutiny could be applied (the same sex marriage cases are a great example of this) whereas here the constitutionality of they law hinges solely upon the relationship between the state and federal governments.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:25 PM

cman: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.

ITS A CONSPIRACY!


It's not a conspiracy. It's out in the farking open. They're not even hiding it. Greg Abbot is already talking about passing a voter ID law in Texas during the lull between this decision and the amendment to Section 4.

How soon everyone forgets the last election, when states like Pennsylvania and Ohio tried to suppress votes by couching them as fraud-fighting measures, despite the fact that voter fraud is so statistically insignificant as to be a myth.

If you think for a minute that Texas and Alabama are suddenly not racist, you're wrong. They've gotten better at hiding it, and this is a license to disenfranchise minority voters.

Remember all the GOP whining that high minority turnout lost them the 2012 election? This is their insurance policy to make sure that never happens again.

White people -- if you can't win fairly, rig the game so your own assumed superiority doesn't get challenged.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:37 PM
can Scalia die already?
 
2013-06-25 12:49:16 PM

Raharu: Also it didn't help you in PA during the last election.


?  What didnt help who?  Why are you assuming I'm on some kind of political side?

Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me.  I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law.   Sounds like a  very reasonable use of tax dollars.  Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.
 
2013-06-25 12:50:32 PM

OnlyM3: February 25, 1870
First African American Senator

Photograph of Senator Hiram Revels

On February 25, 1870, visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi
Political party Republican

The first African Americans to serve in the United States Congress were Republicans during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. After slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights, freedmen gained political representation in the Southern United States for the first time. The Compromise of 1877 initiated the period that followed, known as Redemption among white Southerners. White Democrats regained political power in state legislatures across the South and worked to restore white supremacy. Democrat state legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890-1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s.


Hmmm...what happened in the 1960s? Won't you share with us?

Just in case you don't get around to it, I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party's strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.


Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in many regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.


Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Lee Atwater, aide to Ronald Reagan, campaign manager for George H.W. Bush and Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."
 
2013-06-25 12:50:38 PM
Good luck getting a new Section 4 that covers every state through the House.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:20 PM
www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-06-25 12:51:37 PM

mattharvest: Serious Black: There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

I don't know if I made this clear earlier: I'm  not saying discrimination isn't a problem, and I'm  not saying that we shouldn't have a formula. I think the data that exists absolutely justifies such a thing.

I don't think it justified the old formula, because literally the old formula wasn't derived from it.  We need a formula that specifically references and reflects that new data, to be as precise and tight a fit as possible.


I wasn't trying to direct my combativeness at you. And while I agree with you that an updated formula would be better than what was in Section 4 given what's happened in the last few years with blatant voter suppression efforts (I'm looking at you, Mr. Turzai), I agree with the lower court decisions that Congress did have a rational basis for just extending the old formula. The Constitution bans unconstitutional laws. It does not ban stupid laws.
 
2013-06-25 12:53:10 PM

Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?


How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?
 
2013-06-25 12:54:16 PM

DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.


Yeah, sadly I bet this is a probable outcome. Le sigh
 
2013-06-25 12:56:00 PM

Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!


They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.
 
2013-06-25 12:56:35 PM

bluefoxicy: Americans are farking lazy and stupid, while Germany and Japan produce all of the useful innovation.  The Japanese die from overwork because they voluntarily work themselves to death; Puerto Ricans hold the highest respect for the working-class farmer who will always be poor but provides the foundation for society by providing basic resources like <b>food</b> for everyone; while Americans hold contempt for the rich whilst simultaneously talking about dead-end lazy burger-flippers who will never amount to anything--and then define "success" as finding a job where you sit at a job and do as little as possible for as much pay as you can get.

Innovation and productivity.  Hilarious.


I think you're projecting.  Also, over engineering != good engineering.

As fun as it is to paint everybody on earth with a wide brush... the fact is, everybody everywhere is the same.  You have a 1% elite portion of the population who are "movers and shakers", people who do the actual innovating, 19% of the population that supports those elites by handling middle management and organizing of society, and then the rest are all the mouth breathers who troop along like lemmings doing whatever task is dropped in front of them like good little cogs, whether they realize it or not as they feed the giant machine.

Your physical location has no bearing on this, every society works the same.

/Please note that the above has  nothing to do with income or wealth, I'm entirely discussing productivity.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:00 PM

Alonjar: Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me. I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law. Sounds like a very reasonable use of tax dollars. Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.


If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not that simple, if it were why would you even need an ID?  For some people acquiring several pieces of information to qualify for the free picture ID is very difficult.  My parents are fairly affluent, and it was a pain in the ass for both of them.  My father never had a birth certificate, luckily he was in the army.  My mother had to travel a couple hundred miles get hers.   Old people, cripples, poor people, people who aren't too smart, people with alternative lifestyles. .. .they're going to be disenfranchised, and that's a pretty shiatty thing to do to stop fraud there's no proof is occurring.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:04 PM

flondrix: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

So the voting rights act should be expanded, not reduced.  Add some new entries to the list of states or counties that need oversight.


That's  possible and has been done  under Section 3 of  the VRA, which allows States or even local districts to be added to the pre-clearance list based on current conditions.  Even the States "liberated" by this ruling could be added back in.

Problem is, each entity has to be considered individually, with attendant time-consuming litigation.  Damn that Due Process nonsense!
 
2013-06-25 12:57:30 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?


http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/June/13-crt-705.html
 
2013-06-25 12:58:06 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?


Ten years of an unblemished record and approval from the DC District Court.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:49 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!

They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.


From what I saw on SCOTUSblog this morning, Roberts would be reading the Prop 8 opinion and Kennedy the DOMA decision...so at least neither one is Scalia or Alito.
 
2013-06-25 12:59:23 PM

YixilTesiphon: pionar: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Lexx: Basically, the deep south can now enact laws which restrict voter eligibility, and they don't have to clear these laws before-hand with the feds.

But North Dakota could pass the same law and not have to clear it with the feds before hand. I understand the reason but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.

But North Dakota doesn't have the deep history of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that that the south has.

And Pennsylvania has the deepest history of abolitionism. That doesn't mean it's incapable of passing discriminatory voting laws.


True, but because of that history, it's much much less likely to try it than a southern state.  If the law is unnecessary, why does the Justice Dept. have to invoke it roughly every four months?
 
2013-06-25 01:00:37 PM
I don't understand this ruling, but as long as Obama is unhappy with it I am all for it and very happy. Don't you farking libs worry. Another Republican president will never be elected in this country no matter how bad things get. Every black and Hispanic will vote Democrat no matter what.

Yea for Democracy!!

I can't wait to see how bad things get. I want to see riots and blood in the street, like Greece, only worse.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:17 PM

Kentucky Fried Children: DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.

Yeah, sadly I bet this is a probable outcome. Le sigh


Nah, DOMA's toast.  At a very minimum, Justice Kennedy will be persuaded by the federalist angle.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:50 PM

UNC_Samurai: It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.


"After the fact" may well be after the newly elected politicians (elected without your vote) have been sworn in and begun serving.  So, the red staters could rig the 2016 election, say, and then the "feds" responsible for fixing the voting rights problem would be the very same politicians who benefited from it.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:27 PM

fireclown: MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.

I'm kinda wanting to hear Lauper cover Freebird.


I'm seeing her in concert Friday night. Maybe she'll take requests.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:44 PM

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant

Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?

actually, I made it clear that I am not an authority. Which is why I qualified it with "think" and took the correction under advisement. What part of English and reading the thread is tripping you up?


I am not an expert by any extent myself. I have actually read the document however, and remembered to do a little a Google research on the phrase "guarantee a republican form of government". The document is not long (one of its greatest virtues) and is easily available for reading. Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.
 
2013-06-25 01:04:36 PM

DarnoKonrad: Alonjar: Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me. I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law. Sounds like a very reasonable use of tax dollars. Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.

If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not that simple, if it were why would you even need an ID?  For some people acquiring several pieces of information to qualify for the free picture ID is very difficult.  My parents are fairly affluent, and it was a pain in the ass for both of them.  My father never had a birth certificate, luckily he was in the army.  My mother had to travel a couple hundred miles get hers.   Old people, cripples, poor people, people who aren't too smart, people with alternative lifestyles. .. .they're going to be disenfranchised, and that's a pretty shiatty thing to do to stop fraud there's no proof is occurring.


Of course its that simple.  DNA registration from birth, yo!
 
2013-06-25 01:04:47 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!

They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.


So it's like the Academy Awards when someone gets a pity Oscar because they were cheated the previous year?
 
2013-06-25 01:05:37 PM

flondrix: UNC_Samurai: It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.

"After the fact" may well be after the newly elected politicians (elected without your vote) have been sworn in and begun serving.  So, the red staters could rig the 2016 election, say, and then the "feds" responsible for fixing the voting rights problem would be the very same politicians who benefited from it.


2010 already rigged it.  The state legislatures are firmly in GOP control and they drew the districts for the next 10 years.  With the Voting Rights Act being gutted, this is a disaster for any minority groups in this country.
 
2013-06-25 01:07:26 PM
hasty ambush:


Registered voters 927,996
Votes Cast 617,141
Votes for Barack Obama 420,953
Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475

What a gulli-bull.
 
2013-06-25 01:08:05 PM

Serious Black: How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?

Ten years of an unblemished record and approval from the DC District Court.


Ah, that sounds more like "graduated out" than "bailed out".  Anyway, according to that map, a jurisdiction in Colorado has cleaned up its act.  Which one would that be?
And there are so many scattered throughout New England!  I had no idea it was so much of an issue there.
 
2013-06-25 01:09:10 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government


I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.
 
2013-06-25 01:09:46 PM
Nah. Hank III/Shooter '16!!
 
2013-06-25 01:10:23 PM

pacified: can Scalia die already?


THIS please.  That lard ass can't have too many more years left in his condition.  Lets see if we can get him some gift cards to Jack In The Box or something to just hurry up the process.
 
2013-06-25 01:10:54 PM
Vice President: David Allan Coe

Secretary of Huntin n Fishin: Ted Nugent

Secretary of NASCAR: Bobby Labonte.
 
2013-06-25 01:13:20 PM

d23: I don't know about you, but to me it looks like we're awfully close to the point where everything needs to be reset and restarted.


agree.  hit the re-boot.
 
2013-06-25 01:15:02 PM

mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government

I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.


well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.
 
2013-06-25 01:15:56 PM
Came for fark liberal idiocy, left satisfied.

All the USSC ruled was that you have to update your statistics once every 40 years.

Liberals just hate being forced to show their work. Same with the affirmative action ruling.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:02 PM
Maybe we could get two birds with one stone if we got donations together to hire Paula Deen as Scalia's personal chef for a while.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:39 PM

Carth: is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law


Republicans.
 
2013-06-25 01:17:01 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.

I'd say let's use one of these maps and formulas to provide a rational basis behind the preclearance list. I especially like the last map.


Nice set of maps - thanks!
 
2013-06-25 01:17:53 PM

Oxygen_Thief: mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government

I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.

well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.


at least in this case.
 
2013-06-25 01:18:04 PM

MyRandomName: Came for fark liberal idiocy, left satisfied.

All the USSC ruled was that you have to update your statistics once every 40 years.

Liberals just hate being forced to show their work. Same with the affirmative action ruling.


The cynic in me thinks that the amendment to the VRA reauthorization that would have done just that was deliberately tanked to destroy the VRA.
 
2013-06-25 01:18:36 PM

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.

Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.

Is that what happened in Pennsylvania?

No. The unconstitutional law was struck down before the vote. Without the precondition clause.


PA did overturn it, but it was a close thing, and it led to great deals of confusion in the voting public.

The PA gov't was taking out ads on buses/billboards/etc telling people that they would need a Voter ID to vote, guess what didn't go away when the law was ruled unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:37 PM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM



They lied? No wai!

I asked my father in law with all his fw:adnauseum emails why every one of those emails had lies in them. Religion, politics, aclu, acorn, snopes is run by libby libs...  every single one had an obfuscation of truth or just straight out lies.
He had no answer other than 'I get my news from many sources.' Which I know he doesn't.
Tell me , dad, why would you get your news from liars? And then send it on? Isn't that a lie of commission? Well, at least you'll have something to tell the father at confessional.

That's when he gets mad.
 
2013-06-25 01:21:29 PM

DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


That's not quite true.  Rational basis scrutiny is not just applied to equal protection cases - it is used in certain due process cases, and sometimes in other contexts as well.  Carolene Products (which basically set forth the framework for rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny) dealt with New Deal econimc legislation that had nothing to do with equal protection.  Hell, rational basis analysis (though not framed as such) can be traced as far back as McCulloch ("If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance"), which certainly had nothing to do with equal protection.
 
2013-06-25 01:22:13 PM

flondrix: And there are so many scattered throughout New England!  I had no idea it was so much of an issue there.


Oh, you didn't know the Act affected New England? Why it sure did. Past tense-because if you can go a stretch of 10 years without, you know, trying to screw over any minorities, it turns out that you get out of the whole Section 4/Section 5 thing pretty easily.

Maine had 18 towns that fell under pre-approval status, all of which got this "bailout," as it's called, in 1976. Three Connecticut towns got the bailout in 1984.

And yes, even Massachusetts had towns covered by the formula: Amherst, Ayer, Belchertown, Bourne, Harvard, Sandwich, Shirley, Sunderland, and Wrentham. They all got the bailout in 1983.

The last remaining New England laggards were 10 small New Hampshire towns: Antrim, Benton, Boscawen, Millsfield, Newington, Pinkham's Grant, Rindge, Stewartstown, Stratford, and Unity. Link
 
2013-06-25 01:22:30 PM
As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.
 
2013-06-25 01:23:59 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant

Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?



Rock, rock on, man!

/NOT sarcasm
 
2013-06-25 01:24:01 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.


Great idea! Since retired seniors don't pay payroll taxes and represent the largest section of those that pay no net income tax they'd be the largest group to lose the right to vote. Once the large numbers of seniors lose their right to vote progressive change will be much easier to accomplish. The GOP would be completely marginalized and the conservative movement utterly hamstrung since a big section of their base would lose the right to vote.
 
2013-06-25 01:24:41 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-25 01:26:14 PM

Oxygen_Thief: well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.


No, you didn't.  You didn't explain any such thing.  You cannot cite a single case,  ever, that supports your claims.  I have cited the two literally defining cases on this issue, both of which stand for my proposition and in direct disagreement with your baseless claims.

Don't couch your laziness in not wanting to do research; you're the one making the claim (that the standard is limited to a certain subset of cases), and you're the one with the burden of argument.  You're not meeting any burden, and you're trying to pretend you're doing it out of principle.  If your argument was so sound, you'd be readily able to find the cases you need.

You're confused by the fact that rational basis is the starting point for Equal Protection cases involving non-suspect classifications, and as a result you're bizarrely claiming then that a law that doesn't violate Equal Protection would somehow not have to past rational basis.

That doesn't change the fact that it's the standard the Court has also applied in non-Equal Protection cases.
 
2013-06-25 01:27:00 PM
If I can try to find one silver lining from this ruling it might be that the ruling will help ensure that the small, reasonable voice within the Republican party arguing that the best strategy is to embrace demographic trends will roundly ignored and RINOed out of existence over the next few years.  The party will then cement itself, even more openly, as the party of discrimination and white privilege, but will then be completely irrelevant after the next census.  Then we can have debates between Democrats and reasonable conservatives/centrists, and actually get some shia done.

Will be a tough ride until then.
 
2013-06-25 01:28:34 PM

Somacandra: As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.


Stairway to Heaven, too. I haven't called it by its correct title in years- it's always DJTakeAshiatSong.
 
2013-06-25 01:29:12 PM

BinderWoman: I'm seeing her in concert Friday night. Maybe she'll take requests.


If she does, throw out 'then came the last days of may" by BOC.  I think she could do well with it.

That said, SLAVERY!
 
2013-06-25 01:30:53 PM
Within two hours of the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act, Greg Abbott, the attorney general for the state of Texas, announced that a voter identification law that was blocked last year by the Justice Department would go into effect. Link
 
2013-06-25 01:32:41 PM
People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.
 
2013-06-25 01:36:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Within two hours of the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act, Greg Abbott, the attorney general for the state of Texas, announced that a voter identification law that was blocked last year by the Justice Department would go into effect. Link


*libertarians applauding this further deprivation of liberty*
 
2013-06-25 01:37:11 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


Dropping a "n" bomb on someone who is black is gonna be seen as racist. That might not be your intent, but that is what it is.
 
2013-06-25 01:38:46 PM
So the local radio station here in my part of Texas is reporting that the Texas AG just ordered the voter ID law to go into effect immediately as a result of the ruling.  So Texas is now a voter ID state as of today apparently...   And I should add that I support the voter ID law.

/Yay!
 
2013-06-25 01:38:55 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


The idea that you'd use the n-word in the same breath as calling other people 'assholes' and implying they're either racists or complicit in racism is baffling.  You've done nothing to have the right to use a phrase like that while criticizing others' on their views on race.

Did you read the opinion?  Do you have a clue how the arguments proceeded?  Do you know anything here of substance?  Do you have anything to offer except vitriol?
 
2013-06-25 01:38:56 PM

cman: rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

Dropping a "n" bomb on someone who is black is gonna be seen as racist. That might not be your intent, but that is what it is.


I thought he was talking about Thomas's frequent nagging.
 
2013-06-25 01:39:33 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


Dude, seriously? I don't agree with his opinion in this case in the slightest, but there's no excuse for dropping racial epithets. None.
 
2013-06-25 01:40:12 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.


I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.
 
2013-06-25 01:42:31 PM

Maul555: So the local radio station here in my part of Texas is reporting that the Texas AG just ordered the voter ID law to go into effect immediately as a result of the ruling.  So Texas is now a voter ID state as of today apparently...   And I should add that I support the voter ID law.

/Yay!


North Carolina too:

http://www.wral.com/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving-ahead-with-rulin g/ 12591669/
 
2013-06-25 01:42:38 PM

TheMysticS: Somacandra: As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.

Stairway to Heaven, too. I haven't called it by its correct title in years- it's always DJTakeAshiatSong.


I always used the version of Do You Feel Like I Do from Frampton Comes Alive when I needed some bathroom time. That or Close to the Edge.
 
2013-06-25 01:48:23 PM
Describing the ruling as a "setback,"

Well now son, that depends.  You see if you are a racist fark, a member of the KKK (but I repeat myself) or any other white supremacist organization and you live in a red state south of the Mason Dixon then, this is just leveling out the scale a tad.

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to the current conditions," said Chief Justice John Roberts,Lisa Franks who wrote the court's decision for the majority. Unicorn and Rainbow club.

Congress, you mean the Criminal Class?   FWIW, Congress can't pass a turd.
You folks are so screwed.  The line at the bus station should be/ought to be huge tomorrow
 
2013-06-25 01:51:33 PM
Interesting - it may not be re-established, at best, until 2021.  That's a long time.
 
2013-06-25 01:51:41 PM

CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.


Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?
 
2013-06-25 01:56:39 PM

basemetal: [wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 625x417]


The "artist" misspelled "unemployed".
 
2013-06-25 01:58:14 PM

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?


Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:02 PM

MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


Pure garbage-juice.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:30 PM

Thrag: Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

Great idea! Since retired seniors don't pay payroll taxes and represent the largest section of those that pay no net income tax they'd be the largest group to lose the right to vote. Once the large numbers of seniors lose their right to vote progressive change will be much easier to accomplish. The GOP would be completely marginalized and the conservative movement utterly hamstrung since a big section of their base would lose the right to vote.


Meanwhile, most immigrants do pay taxes.  Even illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes.  Should we give them the vote?
 
2013-06-25 02:06:55 PM

Somacandra: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.


It does.  As shown on one of the maps earlier, a bunch of counties all over the north used to be subject to oversight, but cleaned up their act and qualified to be taken off of the list.  There is no reason the south could not do likewise.
 
2013-06-25 02:22:10 PM

UNC_Samurai: It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.


Except that the court challenges can be longer than the terms of the federal legislators, which means you can tip the scales even farther.

We really need a better voting practices, probably in the form of an amendment, but there are so many things wrong with our system you could never fix all the problems- racial and economic discrimination, disenfranchisement of felons (which, because our court systems are biased amplify racism and economic discrimination, aside from the fact that it probably plays a role in our prison state mentality), lobbying reform, the way we over-represent tiny states voting power in the number of House Reps and Electoral College votes relative to their actual population, wildly different rules to get on the ballot from state to state, campaign finance reform...
 
2013-06-25 02:25:15 PM

flondrix: Somacandra: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.

It does.  As shown on one of the maps earlier, a bunch of counties all over the north used to be subject to oversight, but cleaned up their act and qualified to be taken off of the list.  There is no reason the south could not do likewise.


Sure there is. They may be incapable of stopping the racists from passing discriminatory bills.
 
2013-06-25 02:31:17 PM
Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(

We don't really need that either.
 
2013-06-25 02:41:24 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.


Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?
 
2013-06-25 02:43:35 PM

runin800m: Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others?


Section 8, clause 1:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "uniform" part mentions "duties, imposts and excises" but not "taxes".  Meaningless to the average guy, but lawyers love to play games with such things.
 
2013-06-25 02:57:56 PM

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.

Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?


I gave two options - one that you were putting agenda before facts OR that you were intellectually lazy. You have not addressed number 2 at all.
 
2013-06-25 03:00:51 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.

Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?

I gave two options - one that you were putting agenda before facts OR that you were intellectually lazy. You have not addressed number 2 at all.


I've been addressing number 2 for a number of posts now.
 
2013-06-25 03:01:15 PM

doubled99: Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(

We don't really need that either.


Yeah, I don't listen to hip-hop anyway.
 
2013-06-25 03:03:46 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.
 
2013-06-25 03:05:48 PM

Nabb1: rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


can't stuff that genie back in the bottle
 
2013-06-25 03:07:23 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: runin800m: Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others?

Section 8, clause 1:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "uniform" part mentions "duties, imposts and excises" but not "taxes".  Meaningless to the average guy, but lawyers love to play games with such things.


At the time of the writing, Congress only had the power to tax citizens directly, or generally via import/export taxes. States did not pay direct taxes, as they were not citizens.
 
2013-06-25 03:07:53 PM

MonoChango: d23: Thunderpipes: Can any Farker here point out a single recent example of minority voter suppression? Only cases I can think of are all against white folks.

Making stuff up to rig elections in your favor is silly.

There is no minority voter problems, has not been for decades. Quite the opposite in fact, as they can vote 6 times if they wish and get a slap on the wrist.

Maybe if they can get through the lines..

[msnbctv.files.wordpress.com image 400x280]

Seriously.. if you really believe that then you must be living in a major bubble of only information you want to hear.  I'd like to see ONE example brought forward of a minority voters voting a half dozen times... just ONE.

Not Quite 6 times but, voter fraud is voter fraud.


You really want to cite Faux News as a source?!?

Can I make citations using Calvin & Hobbes?
 
2013-06-25 03:15:42 PM
this ruling is the very definition of judicial activism.
 
2013-06-25 03:18:48 PM
Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress. Just saw a clip of McConnell speaking about the ruling, and while he made vague statements about the US being very "different" than it was in the 60s, he didn't sound as though he actually wanted the court to rule this way.

The last iteration of the law passed without any real controversy; there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again.
 
2013-06-25 03:21:02 PM

Biological Ali: Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress. Just saw a clip of McConnell speaking about the ruling, and while he made vague statements about the US being very "different" than it was in the 60s, he didn't sound as though he actually wanted the court to rule this way.

The last iteration of the law passed without any real controversy; there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again.


Yeah, but that was with a status quo of many jurisdictions that had to seek preclearance. Now the status quo is nobody has to seek preclearance. You think any Republican is going to volunteer his district/state as racist and needing preclearance?
 
2013-06-25 03:25:09 PM

Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:02 PM

R.A.Danny: Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.


If there was a fire in the Capitol Building, and there weren't enough senators there to override a filibuster, they'll all burn to death.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:35 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.


it doesn't scream "I'm a reasonable individual", however.
 
2013-06-25 03:31:13 PM
Nabb1:
But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


What, that I, along with many other black people don't believe that this Thomas character wouldn't be fit to shine Thurgood Marshall's shoes?
Got news for ya - he isn't.

As for emotions - you dare to look into my father's eyes and tell him the things he did for me and later generations don't matter.