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  
•       •       •

28169 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 11:15:17 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to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.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.
 
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