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 11:24:05 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.
 
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