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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 637 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report