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 11:49:45 AM

skullkrusher: However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional.


We're aware. That's what the thread is about. The point we're all making is that such rejection was based on incredible judicial arrogance and without any constitutional authority.
 
2013-06-25 11:49:51 AM

kronicfeld: To the echo chamber's credit, I haven't yet seen anyone here say that this is worse than Dred Scott.


This is worse than Dred Scott!

thumbs.anyclip.com
 
2013-06-25 11:50:10 AM
DamnYankees:
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.

I haven't even finished reading the opinion yet. What would my opinion prove anyway? All I've gotten from you is knee jerk outrage simply because you disagree with the opinion of the court(which you pretty clearly haven't read) and as nearly as I can tell the reason you don't like the opinion isn't because you think that people will be discriminated against but because you don't like The South. Get past your own biases before you start accusing other people of it.
 
2013-06-25 11:50:21 AM
Sounds like SCOTUS wants to have a little experiment to find out if certain stereotypes about certain states are still true.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:05 AM

Serious Black: 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.


I think all the references to "equal sovereignty" is citing a case these same justices wrote 4 years ago. That phrase is nowhere in the constitution. They basically made it up.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:12 AM
hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

www.survivalandbeyond.net

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM
 
2013-06-25 11:51:20 AM

skullkrusher: 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.


Hey dude, you look dry. You can put down your umbrella now. Oh, never mind the fact that I'm soaking wet from the rain, you still won't get dry.
 
2013-06-25 11:51:23 AM

Swoop1809: Look for even more fun voting laws coming from Red states in the next election.


Hey, why not reinstate intelligence tests before a person is issued a voting certificate?  That worked out pretty well in the past, right?
 
2013-06-25 11:51:51 AM

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


The only thing that changed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board was time.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:14 AM

Voiceofreason01: the reason you don't like the opinion isn't because you think that people will be discriminated against but because you don't like The South.


I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from. My outrage here is entirely based on legal norms and the utter hypocrisy of the court in applying its own stated standards.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:37 AM

InmanRoshi: drew46n2: Is this about Paula Deen?

The Supreme Court just ruled that Paula Deen doesn't actually exist.


But I thought corporations were people.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:49 AM

kronicfeld: 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?


In this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.
 
2013-06-25 11:52:50 AM

Zeno-25: 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 image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.


If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:08 AM

This text is now purple: cman: The idea that SCOTUS can rule based upon how times change is complete bullshiat.

The only thing that changed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board was time.


Yes, but I don't think the legal reasoning in Broad v. Board was "the times have changed". The reasoning was "we were wrong last time". That's very different from what's happening here.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:33 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".


That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation.  By virtue of completely ignoring all new data in their renewal of the law each time, the Congress was not in fact acting rationally.  They were acting, quite literally, irrationally in ignoring all the new data they themselves (or their agents) had gathered.

It's rare to see such a stark insult: the Court is saying Congress acting even more irrationally than the lowest possible standard of legislation allows.  I think that's why you're missing it (and I truly don't mean this as an insult): you're looking for a 'higher' explanation of unconstitutionality, whereas the Court is saying it's so simple that it fails even rational basis analysis.
 
2013-06-25 11:53:38 AM

Serious Black: 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.


The thing is strict scrutiny and rational basis are specific names for specific tests that are applied to 5th or 14th amendment equal protection analysis they don't really correlate to the issue here that is why if you say strict scrutiny or rational basis it does not make sense in the context of the opinion.  Equal protection does not = equal sovereignty.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:29 AM

IlGreven: Zeno-25: 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 image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.


Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:31 AM

DarnoKonrad: kronicfeld: 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?

In this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.


This is actually a great analogy. Imagine if we had the same tax brackets for 50 years. Then someone sued saying their taxes were too high. This is essentially the court saying "the current tax brackets were made a long time ago, and we think society has changed alot since then, so we're striking down the income tax until the Congress figures out some new rates".
 
2013-06-25 11:54:47 AM
So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?
 
2013-06-25 11:54:54 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.


It's almost like there's a double standard.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:09 AM
So, who wants to bet Mr.Hasty won't be back to defend his Ambush?
 
2013-06-25 11:55:11 AM
If anyone disagrees with this ruling and then DOESN'T VOTE in 2014, you are a moran. The reason Congress is such a mess is because so many voters stupidly sat out 2010, even after watching the Tea Party go on for two years.

If everyone who can vote actually does, then the Tea Party won't be able to use this to their advantage, because I suspect they will. 2014 is going to be a very important election, and sitting on the sidelines isn't an option. You have no excuse. Vote, because the Tea Party is not down just yet, and if you ignore it like you did in 2010, it will come back.
 
2013-06-25 11:55:26 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


More like both sides, but I digress.
 
2013-06-25 11:56:50 AM
Bottles of Jack and a fistful of cocaine for everyone!!
 
2013-06-25 11:57:06 AM

DamnYankees: 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.


What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:38 AM

abb3w: So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?


theoretically but it would be so watered down so as to be ineffective or the current court would find a way to kill it in my opinion.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:48 AM

The Muthaship: SCOTUS:  Racism is no longer the problem it once was.

Fark: FFFFFFUUUUUUU!


When Nelson Mandela passes in a few days, we should just send them a link to the resulting FARK thread...
 
2013-06-25 11:57:51 AM
pre or post fiery plane crash?
 
2013-06-25 11:57:56 AM

mattharvest: That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation


I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware how rational basis works? Laws are NEVER overturned by the court for being 'irrational', since its a standard practice of the court to decide that once it is determined that rational basis is the applicable standard of review, Congress' action is deemed to have been rational. The court basically does this because they (rightly) have figured that they have no better basis than Congress to decide whether or not a law is rational. The court is simply substituting their own judgment, saying that a law passed 98-0 was 'irrational'. You can't get more arrogant and activist than that.

Also, this is not an equal protection case, so the entire rational basis test doesn't even apply. So this is all besides the point.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:24 AM

mattharvest: 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".

That's just it: they're saying that in order to justify the formula, it must be literally rational, i.e. it must be rationally based on the situation.  By virtue of completely ignoring all new data in their renewal of the law each time, the Congress was not in fact acting rationally.  They were acting, quite literally, irrationally in ignoring all the new data they themselves (or their agents) had gathered.

It's rare to see such a stark insult: the Court is saying Congress acting even more irrationally than the lowest possible standard of legislation allows.  I think that's why you're missing it (and I truly don't mean this as an insult): you're looking for a 'higher' explanation of unconstitutionality, whereas the Court is saying it's so simple that it fails even rational basis analysis.


Chesterton's fence looked like it had no rational basis either.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:34 AM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional.

We're aware. That's what the thread is about. The point we're all making is that such rejection was based on incredible judicial arrogance and without any constitutional authority.


read the decision. They reference the equal sovereignty of the states. I don't find it arrogant at all to say that this formula based on voting conditions and turnout 60 years ago is no longer an acceptable means for treating the states unequally.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:41 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


I love that ending; "THINK PEOPLE!"

/We are, which is why we aren't dipshiat teahadists.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:43 AM

D135: Bottles of Jack and a fistful of cocaine for everyone!!


I'd vote for Romney if I got a bottle of Jack and a fistful of cocaine.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:45 AM

DamnYankees: 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?


If the entire justification for the law - as is the case here - is the data underlying the formula, then yes.  Can you identify such a law so we can look at the congressional record and compare their data against their formulae?

DarnoKonrad: n this case, yes, as that's what the Constitution says.  This is like SCOTUS saying "the income tax isn't fair, so rewrite it."  Despite the fact the 16th Amendment is pretty clear about who can write tax law and how they can do it.  Congress has the power to tax income.  Period.  End of story.  SCOTUS can't just make up new shiat for how it should be  written.  That's not judicial review.  This is abuse of power.  They should all be impeached for this.


No, it's not.  Your analogy is false and dangerous.  All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny, i.e. they must be a rational means of implementing some valid government interest.  This is an absurdly low standard, but it is (as the Court ruled today) possible to fail it.  If you legislate in such a way that the law is not rationally related to the underlying government interest, then it fails.  This is a long-standing principle, longer even than Intermediate or Strict scrutiny.

The Supreme Court cannot 'make up new shiat', nor did it do so today: whether or not you agree with the need for Section 4, the practical reality is that Congress went out of its way to collect a huge amount of data on the valid government interest at hand, and then proceeded to completely ignore it in simply re-using an old formula instead of properly crafting the new one.  As such, the Court said "That was irrational.  You fail the lowest standard of review, and proceed no further.  You can try again at writing a new formula."

If the  actual support for the law is so universal, Congress should have no trouble drafting a new formula that reflects all their data and then passing it.  If they act rationally, there will be no problem.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:51 AM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM


Try arguing with them sometime. You could be like my mom and every time you're losing an argument call me a complicit baby murderer.
 
2013-06-25 11:58:55 AM

djh0101010: 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.



Maybe because we don't need one, and the claim that voter fraud is a big problem on a national scale is a lie used to disenfranchise minorities.

That might have something to do with it.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:06 AM

This text is now purple: What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.


The opposite is true. They explicitly can. The court today said they can. They just need to do it differently. Today the court just decided they didn't like the method of discrimination. Another, more 'current' method would be fine.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:31 AM

Serious Black: skullkrusher: 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.

Hey dude, you look dry. You can put down your umbrella now. Oh, never mind the fact that I'm soaking wet from the rain, you still won't get dry.


I forgot my umbrella today :(

/wtf?
 
2013-06-25 11:59:46 AM

abb3w: So, hypothetically, could Congress pass a law amending Section 4 to "Screw it, pre-clear everyone" and have it survive scrutiny?


The folks at SCOTUSblog think that the court would strike that as being unjustifiable. I think they would strike it because fark voting rights.
 
2013-06-25 11:59:47 AM
cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2013-06-25 12:00:02 PM
Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(
 
2013-06-25 12:00:06 PM

mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,


This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.
 
2013-06-25 12:00:22 PM

Ricardo Klement: IlGreven: Zeno-25: 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 image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.

Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.


Well, then, it proves the SCOTUS has completely abandoned the 10th amendment.
 
2013-06-25 12:00:59 PM

DamnYankees: I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from.


Maybe considered implied by your Fark handle?

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy.


Aside from the fact that Tea Partiers likely still won't see any problem with the results.
 
2013-06-25 12:02:50 PM
This country is farked.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:04 PM

IlGreven: Ricardo Klement: IlGreven: Zeno-25: 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 image 548x411]

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.

If it doesn't apply to all states, it shouldn't apply to any.

/And I guaran-damn-tee that if they tried to get it to apply to all 50 states, the SCOTUS would shoot it down again.

Except that's not what the Court said.  It said you CAN apply it to some states and not others.  You just have to base it on recent data, not 50 year-old data.

Well, then, it proves the SCOTUS has completely abandoned the 10th amendment.


besides citing the tenth amendment when overruling the statute.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:06 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: 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.

What's left is whether the Fed can discriminate between the States. Seems the answer is no.


I'd love to see somebody sue Uncle Sam for explicitly spending money in states hit by Hurricane Sandy as a violation of equal protection/sovereignty/whatever the fark SCOTUS wants to call it.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:28 PM

mattharvest: Rational Basis scrutiny,


Yea, that's the best part.  The conservatives are basically saying, "you're dry under the umbrella, clearly you should be using something else in a rain storm."  That's not rational.  This is purely and openly ideological.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:34 PM

abb3w: DamnYankees: I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

Maybe considered implied by your Fark handle?

DamnYankees: This is actually a great analogy.

Aside from the fact that Tea Partiers likely still won't see any problem with the results.


Ha, my Fark handle is about baseball.
 
2013-06-25 12:03:44 PM

Person: 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.


Uh North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin and Missouri would like to have a word w/ you
 
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