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 12:03:47 PM
Is there any state where this could realistically make a difference? The only states that would try to keep blacks from voting on an organized level are thoroughly red and elect nothing but Republicans to every House and Senate seat anyway, with a possible exception for House seats from central Atlanta or Memphis.
 
2013-06-25 12:04:04 PM

elchip: 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.


The truth of the claim is that there are precincts within the county that voted 100% for Obama.  At first that could raise some eyebrows, until you realize that could be read as "Three people voted at this elementary school, all of them voted for Obama".

Yawn.
 
2013-06-25 12:04:24 PM

skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant


Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?
 
2013-06-25 12:04:39 PM

YixilTesiphon: 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.


Certainly Pennsylvania has the capability to pass discriminatory laws, what it doesn't have is a history of passing discriminatory laws. Just like I have the capability of starting a crack habit, I don't have a history of abusing crack.

If you've got a son who's a crack addict and one who isn't and you end up missing $100 which one do you suspect first?
 
2013-06-25 12:05:20 PM

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

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


Don't go to law school. Being able to argue these things knowledgeably in FARK threads isn't worth the trade-off of spending three years surrounded by law students to end up graduating into a shiatty job market with six figures of student loan debt.
 
2013-06-25 12:06:21 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


Hmm.  My guess was you were a big fan of Broadway musicals.
 
2013-06-25 12:07:40 PM
 
2013-06-25 12:08:07 PM

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


Don't worry about it.  I'm sure if it's close enough the Supreme Court will award enough extra electoral votes to the Republican candidate to fix any problems.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:17 PM

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



I saw that Cuyahoga county one and thought "there's no way that's true." You know what? It isn't. From Cuyahoga County's board of elections:

Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM) . . . . 447,273 69.32
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP) . . . . 190,660 29.55

Look at that, Obama only got 69% of the vote, and only 70% of the county voted.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:58 PM
Can gay illegal immigrants smoke marijuana in voting booths yet?  It's 2013, people.
 
2013-06-25 12:09:40 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant

Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?


actually, I made it clear that I am not an authority. Which is why I qualified it with "think" and took the correction under advisement. What part of English and reading the thread is tripping you up?
 
2013-06-25 12:09:50 PM
Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-25 12:09:57 PM

cman: 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.


This this THIS.  Of course, times change...maybe lifetime appointments are necessary for Supreme Court members anymore.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:11 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me: The Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Voting Rights Act Decision


"Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court's opinion today."

Heyo
 
2013-06-25 12:10:35 PM

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]


10/10

You actually got about 5 separate people to spend their time looking up the actual election results.  Well done.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:38 PM
www.urbanromanceonline.com

Willing to go through the trouble of marching and protesting... not willing to go through the trouble of getting a valid ID.

Its almost like a lack of education is a factor here.
 
2013-06-25 12:10:45 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


To be clear, you  did mean to be rude.  That's okay, but accept what you're doing.

Just because the Courts have so-far presumed Congress to have acted rationally does not, in any way, bind them to always doing so.  Far from it, it shows how little they think of Congress' deliberations here.

I think the problem is you're expecting them to hew closely to the often cited (but not truly permanent) levels of scrutiny we all learn in law school.  Here, though, Roberts points out that the Voter Rights Act was always viewed as something of a different beast.

"As we explained in upholding the law, "exceptional conditions can justify legislative
measures not otherwise appropriate.""


Roberts then explains the standard of review here a bit vaguely but perhaps as well as possible given that the legislation occupies a literally unique position:

"The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, "the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs." Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 203."

He then makes it immediately clear that this is all in the framework of the 15th Amendment and Equal Protection through the next several paragraphs.

In discussing the previous challenges to the Act, he reiterates this:

"Sections 4 and 5 were intended to be temporary; they were set to expire after five years. See §4(a), id., at 438;  Northwest Austin, supra, at 199. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, we upheld the 1965 Act against constitutional challenge, explaining that it was justified to address "voting discrimination where it persists on a pervasive scale." 383 U. S., at 308."

He repeatedly explains this special circumstance.  I thin kit's quite clear that while this falls under Equal Protection, he was arguing that this didn't fit neatly into any one framework for analysis.

His reasoning (and thus that of the Court) is that since those special circumstances are no longer reflected in the Congress' rationalization for the extraordinary violation of state sovereignty, they cannot be used to justify that violation.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:05 PM

zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]


Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.
 
2013-06-25 12:12:47 PM

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

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.
 
2013-06-25 12:14:33 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: That's fine. They cited an opinion written by themselves, basically.

As opposed an opinion written by whom? God? Starfleet Command?


phillbarron.files.wordpress.com
What does God need with a Supreme Court decision?
 
2013-06-25 12:15:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: 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.


Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.
 
2013-06-25 12:17:43 PM

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

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.


"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:01 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


Ginsburg's dissent says it better than I can, so I'm not going to trade petty insults and text walls with you.  This is massive overreach, illogical, and ultimately damaging to civil rights and the rule of law.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:27 PM

Nabb1: zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]

Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.


Korematsu was an awful ruling, too; however the conviction was overturned. Dred Scott was thrown out on the grounds that slaves were property and therefore didn't have the right to sue.
 
2013-06-25 12:18:54 PM

djh0101010: We'll even give you the ID for free.


On alternating third Thursdays of the month at an office hundreds of miles from where you live that's open for an hour.*

*Transportation not included, Additional fees may apply.  Offer void without required documentation.  Required documentation subject to change without notice.  Improper exclusion from voting may not be remedied after the fact.  It's got Paul Anka's guarantee (guarantee void in Tennessee).
 
2013-06-25 12:19:11 PM

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

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.


I'd say let's use one of these maps and formulas to provide a rational basis behind the preclearance list. I especially like the last map.
 
2013-06-25 12:20:23 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: I wasn't aware "political entity as defined by geographic region in which its boundaries are located" had the same level of protection. Can you cite where that's true?

Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009). An Act's disparate geographic coverage must be sufficiently related to its target problems.


And sadly, what with how bad the midwest is about protecting voting rights, it cannot be said today that the south needs special targeting.

Pass the law for the whole nation.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:20 PM

Nabb1: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.


its been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...
 
2013-06-25 12:21:31 PM

zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]


This in no way even comes close

All they did was effectively force a release on somebody who been locked up for 30+ years.  The ones that have been squeaky clean the whole time don't need to be lumped in w/ the ones still doing it.  Also there are several areas in the north trying to just as shady (if not worse) and need to get put on a new naughty list
 
2013-06-25 12:21:46 PM
can someone explain it to me in layman's term what exactly the article or specifically what the SC is saying because I do not understand such lawyer speak.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:53 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.   That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


I have a farm where I herd sheep. A bunch of wolves storm my pasture and kill some of my sheep, so I build a fence to keep my sheep safe. Fifty years later, I don't have very many wolf attacks on my sheep. Should I pull the fence down because my sheep are safe?
 
2013-06-25 12:22:41 PM
Voting schmoting.

[First Triple-George, now the federal government] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Who are you gonna vote for?  The candidate that butt-farks us the least?
 
2013-06-25 12:23:19 PM
This is how Republicans will retain power. Gerrymandering. Disenfranchising voters. Voter Fraud.


Screw having decent ideas when you can just cheat.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:17 PM

d23: 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 image 400x280]

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.


I don't think he can hear you over the sound of derp thundering.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:45 PM

zetar: Nabb1: zetar: Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283]

Fred Koramatsu would like a word with you.

/Google it, kid.

Korematsu was an awful ruling, too; however the conviction was overturned. Dred Scott was thrown out on the grounds that slaves were property and therefore didn't have the right to sue.


What conviction?  Fred Koramatsu was a Japanese American who challenged his internment in a camp during WWII.  Yes, I have come across the Dred Scott case.
 
2013-06-25 12:24:45 PM

Bendal: 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.


I'm sure they already have some very innovative cost saving measures already packaged up in a bill ready to go.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:24 PM

d23: 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 image 400x280]

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.


Not Quite 6 times but, voter fraud is voter fraud.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:28 PM

mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.


Interestingly, when Congress last reauthorized the VRA, there was an amendment that would have modified the preclearance formula by adding jurisdictions with less than 50% turnout in the previous three presidential elections. It crashed. Hard.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:38 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 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


B-but the Supreme Court just assured me that racism in the USA was OVER!
 
2013-06-25 12:25:38 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.   That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.

I have a farm where I herd sheep. A bunch of wolves storm my pasture and kill some of my sheep, so I build a fence to keep my sheep safe. Fifty years later, I don't have very many wolf attacks on my sheep. Should I pull the fence down because my sheep are safe?


depends. Do you keep the fence up because of what the wolf population was in your area 60 years ago or do you apply more modern criteria?
 
2013-06-25 12:25:41 PM

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


Just for fun:

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT
Stewart Alexander/Alex Mendoza (SOC) . 220 .03
Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson . . . . 621 .10
Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer (CON). . . . 534 .08
Gary Johnson/James P. Gray (LIB). . . 3,448 .54
Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM) . . . . 447,254 69.42
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP) . . . . 190,656 29.59
Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala (GRE) . . . 1,564 .24
Susan Daniels/Jerry Veneskey . . . . 0
Nelson Keyton/Jay Jennelle . . . . 0
Jill Reed/Tom Cary . . . . . . . 7 0.00
Platt Robertson/Scott Fall. . . . . 0
Randall Terry/Cathy Lewis . . . . . 3 0.00
Mike Vargo/Jeff Angeletti . . . . . 1 0.00

Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1,772
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 3,403
 
2013-06-25 12:25:46 PM

DamnYankees: 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".


This happened with the telephone tax -- the courts agreed that the Spanish-American war had been paid for, so the tax had to go away.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:55 PM

mattharvest: That's what Congress did: ignored current data.


No, that's what five Justices on SCOTUS did.

All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory. Ginsberg's dissent, pg. 44

31 proposals were blocked by DOJ alone since the VRA was reauthorized in 2006. Between 1999 and 2005, 153 changes were withdrawn when DOJ asked questions about them. Link

The problem hasn't disappeared. It's still alive and well today.
 
2013-06-25 12:26:22 PM

Alonjar: [www.urbanromanceonline.com image 300x225]

Willing to go through the trouble of marching and protesting... not willing to go through the trouble of getting a valid ID.

Its almost like a lack of education is a factor here.


poll tax.


Also it didn't help you in PA during the last election.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
 
2013-06-25 12:27:42 PM

Nabb1: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

"Rational basis" scrutiny is a legal term of art that has a very specific meaning.  Maybe you should go to law school.


Yes it does, and despite assertions here, it absolutely is not limited to solely Equal Protection cases.  Even if it were (which I'll address in a moment), the Court made quite clear that this was an Equal Protection case by repeatedly and excessively linking back to its earlier Equal Protection analyses of this law and these issues.

As for Rational Basis, when it began with  McCullough it was quite clearly not an equal protection case, but rather about whether Congress could validly describe itself as following the limits of its power in passing particular laws.  However, to be even more clear, look at the first case that actually used the term: US v. Carolene Products Co.  That case wasn't about equal protection at all, but rather due process.  The court made quite clear that since the Congress had relied on actual evidence of the public health issue, the Congress hadn't acted arbitrarily or irrationally.  We see all this in the famous Footnote Four, which explicitly put rational basis as a test for  economic issues.

I see no support for the claim that I've used Rational Basis incorrectly here.
 
2013-06-25 12:27:49 PM

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

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


Good thing we don't live in a democracy.
 
2013-06-25 12:28:23 PM
It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Many of us do not, due to personal experience with those governments.
 
2013-06-25 12:29:00 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not the argument being presented.  I am baffled at how poor the reading comprehension here is.

The Court isn't, and hasn't, said that you cannot have such a formula for pre-approval.  It's saying the formula must reflect current data  as well as past data.  You can include past discrimination in your analysis, but you cannot simply ignore current data on voters and their actions.  That's what Congress did: ignored current data.  That's the entire problem presented by the Court.

If Congress gave us a new formula tomorrow, everything would be fine.  If they even acknowledged the need to use current data, they might even be able to use the actual old formula.

Interestingly, when Congress last reauthorized the VRA, there was an amendment that would have modified the preclearance formula by adding jurisdictions with less than 50% turnout in the previous three presidential elections. It crashed. Hard.


Oh, and apparently, the District Court in DC saw this formula and suggested that the more recent data was irrelevant in its earlier opinion on Shelby v. Holder.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:44 PM

MonoChango: d23: 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 image 400x280]

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.

Not Quite 6 times but, voter fraud is voter fraud.


Two white guys, two white women.

And it was falsifying a petition used to get a candidate on the ballot.

So: no minority, and not voting multiple times.

Try again.
 
2013-06-25 12:30:49 PM

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.


Which will no doubt be just long enough for red states to rig a few elections to show those uppity browns and darkies that democracy means rich people choose which white man rules over them.

There should be blood in the streets after this ruling. Conservatives should face the Bastille.
 
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