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  
•       •       •

28175 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 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 The law is good, the metric used to enforce the law was outdated.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*
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report