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  
•       •       •

28173 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 11:35:49 AM  

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

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

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


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

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


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

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


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

doubled99: This means slavery is legal again


This is worse than Dred Scott!

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

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


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

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


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

DamnYankees: This quote from the decision is amazing:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

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


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

No seriously. What the fark.

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

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

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


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

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

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


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.



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

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

Tomorrow!

Maybe.

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

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


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

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


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

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

Pretty much this.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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


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

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


AGAIN.


Also Mr. thunderpipes.


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



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

~NOT~

 
2013-06-25 11:47:52 AM  

Carth: More legal minded farkers:

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

No registration card?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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