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  
•       •       •

28167 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 12:31:43 PM

Oxygen_Thief: ts been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...


Since it's plainly not true that Rational Basis is only for Equal Protection cases, I hardly think I'm the one who needs more study.

I've already cited the cases that - quite literally from the beginning of Rational Basis caselaw - applied it to all laws and not just Equal Protection.  I eagerly await someone explaining why, despite that, we should only apply Rational Basis to Equal Protection cases.

Even if they could do that, there is no possible way to say that would be binding on the Supreme Court, since by definition those standards were written by the Supreme Court and could be changed simply by using a different standard.
 
2013-06-25 12:31:51 PM

Serious Black: 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.


They would strike it because there's 220 years of states being able to set their own electoral methods.
 
2013-06-25 12:32:16 PM

February 25, 1870
First African American Senator

Photograph of Senator Hiram Revels

On February 25, 1870, visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi
Political party Republican


The first African Americans to serve in the United States Congress were Republicans during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. After slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights, freedmen gained political representation in the Southern United States for the first time. The Compromise of 1877 initiated the period that followed, known as Redemption among white Southerners. White Democrats regained political power in state legislatures across the South and worked to restore white supremacy. Democrat state legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890-1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s. As a result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement over Democrat opposition
 
2013-06-25 12:33:19 PM

Serious Black: 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.


So you're saying that it's okay for a District Court to 'legislate' about whether or not the data need by included, but not the Supreme Court?

Either a court - supreme or otherwise - can make a decision about whether or not data need be included, or they can't.  So either the District Court and Supreme Court were both able to do so (with one simply overruling the other), or neither was and it's irrelevant what the District Court thought about that data.
 
2013-06-25 12:33:36 PM
Some people lost a fundraising line today.  That's about it.
 
2013-06-25 12:34:53 PM

CliChe Guevara: hasty ambush: [www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

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.



This is now the 5th distinct thread in which I've noticed  hasty ambush posting something that is flat-out (and very easily show to be) simply untrue.  I have no idea how much misinformation he's spewed that I didn't notice.  I think it's safe to say you should pretty much just assume anything  hasty ambush posts is a lie, at least until/unless you take the time to check the facts for yourself.
 
2013-06-25 12:34:58 PM

Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?


Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:21 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.


So the voting rights act should be expanded, not reduced.  Add some new entries to the list of states or counties that need oversight.
 
2013-06-25 12:37:03 PM

DamnYankees: Speaker2Animals: How long was it between the passage of the 14th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference?

100 is actually exactly right. 1865 to 1965.


Meanwhile, in Philly...

thespeechatimeforchoosing.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-25 12:37:15 PM

Nabb1: 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.


Fred Korematsu (note correct spelling) was a fugitive because he refused to go to an internment camp. He was caught and convicted. His conviction was overturned later. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Korematsu
 
2013-06-25 12:38:01 PM

Lexx: Sure, you can make an ID card required.  You just have to make sure it's free and readily available.


I hear 2 main arguments over this in my state:

1)  Black people are too farking lazy to bother actually getting the free voters ID card

2)  ... well good, if you're that lazy then you don't deserve to vote.

Nobody has suggested that black people aren't lazy from either side of the debate.

/Racist much?
//Doesn't matter, had sex
 
2013-06-25 12:38:21 PM

DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.


It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.
 
2013-06-25 12:40:00 PM

mattharvest: Serious Black: 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.

So you're saying that it's okay for a District Court to 'legislate' about whether or not the data need by included, but not the Supreme Court?

Either a court - supreme or otherwise - can make a decision about whether or not data need be included, or they can't.  So either the District Court and Supreme Court were both able to do so (with one simply overruling the other), or neither was and it's irrelevant what the District Court thought about that data.


I was specifically talking about the turnout data in that case. That was what was stated in the NY Times article with all the maps I posted previously.

And as others have noted, Justice Ginsburg recounted several laws that were struck down as a part of the preclearance system dating from just prior to the VRA getting reauthorized to 15 years prior to that. Beyond that, consider the differences between these two maps:

graphics8.nytimes.com

graphics8.nytimes.com

The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?
 
2013-06-25 12:41:05 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.


ITS A CONSPIRACY!
 
2013-06-25 12:41:49 PM

Serious Black: There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?


I don't know if I made this clear earlier: I'm  not saying discrimination isn't a problem, and I'm  not saying that we shouldn't have a formula. I think the data that exists absolutely justifies such a thing.

I don't think it justified the old formula, because literally the old formula wasn't derived from it.  We need a formula that specifically references and reflects that new data, to be as precise and tight a fit as possible.
 
2013-06-25 12:41:51 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.



Oh yea, I agree.  There won't be new criteria.  The voting rights act is effectively dead.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:22 PM

Serious Black: 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.


graphics8.nytimes.com

"It may be argued that Virginia and perhaps South Carolina should not be covered, but the rest of the covered states in the Deep South top the list of the most prejudiced states by anti-black stereotyping," http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262954">the professors found.

I see the NYTimes has no idea what South Carolina looks like, or how to tell it apart from North Carolina.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:45 PM

CliChe Guevara: hasty ambush: [www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

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.


Or as we've learn from John Oliver, "we can just ignore them."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 12:44:36 PM

ciberido: d23


how is that derp?  If you have real evidence show it.  Otherwise the claim is simply a lie.
 
2013-06-25 12:45:54 PM

DamnYankees: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

Then appeal to Congress to do that. The court is simply substituting its judgment for Congress's here. It's the height of judicial activism.


To be fair, that's their job. To be active judges. Except for Clarence Thomas. He just sits by Scallias feet curled up in a ball, gently purring.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:23 PM
Your current president just wants to get lucky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6PEboTpcfI
 
2013-06-25 12:47:46 PM

bdub77: This of course is at odds with my general feeling that this country is pretty damn great, with amazing natural resources, lots of generally very nice people, and a strong culture of innovation and productivity that I doubt exists anywhere in the world.


Americans are farking lazy and stupid, while Germany and Japan produce all of the useful innovation.  The Japanese die from overwork because they voluntarily work themselves to death; Puerto Ricans hold the highest respect for the working-class farmer who will always be poor but provides the foundation for society by providing basic resources like <b>food</b> for everyone; while Americans hold contempt for the rich whilst simultaneously talking about dead-end lazy burger-flippers who will never amount to anything--and then define "success" as finding a job where you sit at a job and do as little as possible for as much pay as you can get.

Innovation and productivity.  Hilarious.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:24 PM

mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: ts been said a number of times in this thread but it keeps coming up...

Since it's plainly not true that Rational Basis is only for Equal Protection cases, I hardly think I'm the one who needs more study.

I've already cited the cases that - quite literally from the beginning of Rational Basis caselaw - applied it to all laws and not just Equal Protection.  I eagerly await someone explaining why, despite that, we should only apply Rational Basis to Equal Protection cases.

Even if they could do that, there is no possible way to say that would be binding on the Supreme Court, since by definition those standards were written by the Supreme Court and could be changed simply by using a different standard.


Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government.  Whereas here we are talking about the relationship here between the state governments and the federal governments which would implicate different areas of the constitution which implicate other amendments and provisions of the Constitution.  Namely the tenth.  This particular case is governed by that relationship along with the 15th.  I think that is the difference.  Conflating that with equal protection analysis is a disservice. Rational basis and Rational law may have the word rational in both of the terms, but they are not the same thing.  Rational basis implies that one day strict scrutiny could be applied (the same sex marriage cases are a great example of this) whereas here the constitutionality of they law hinges solely upon the relationship between the state and federal governments.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:25 PM

cman: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: Infernalist: It comes down to one thing: Can we trust the southern state governments to play fair?

Yes?  They did vote for the current formula in 2006.

It's not just southern states. Any state that tried and failed to implement a voter ID law or voter "fraud" protections dreamt up by ALEC and Koch Co. is going to rush and get it implemented before Congress amends Sec. 4. Mark my words.

So much for GOP minority outreach. "Screw 'em if they ain't white, we will just keep them from voting!"

Must be that freedom and personal liberty and responsibility they're always telling me about. Must be nice to be rich and white.

ITS A CONSPIRACY!


It's not a conspiracy. It's out in the farking open. They're not even hiding it. Greg Abbot is already talking about passing a voter ID law in Texas during the lull between this decision and the amendment to Section 4.

How soon everyone forgets the last election, when states like Pennsylvania and Ohio tried to suppress votes by couching them as fraud-fighting measures, despite the fact that voter fraud is so statistically insignificant as to be a myth.

If you think for a minute that Texas and Alabama are suddenly not racist, you're wrong. They've gotten better at hiding it, and this is a license to disenfranchise minority voters.

Remember all the GOP whining that high minority turnout lost them the 2012 election? This is their insurance policy to make sure that never happens again.

White people -- if you can't win fairly, rig the game so your own assumed superiority doesn't get challenged.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:37 PM
can Scalia die already?
 
2013-06-25 12:49:16 PM

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


?  What didnt help who?  Why are you assuming I'm on some kind of political side?

Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me.  I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law.   Sounds like a  very reasonable use of tax dollars.  Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.
 
2013-06-25 12:50:32 PM

OnlyM3: February 25, 1870
First African American Senator

Photograph of Senator Hiram Revels

On February 25, 1870, visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi
Political party Republican

The first African Americans to serve in the United States Congress were Republicans during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. After slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship rights, freedmen gained political representation in the Southern United States for the first time. The Compromise of 1877 initiated the period that followed, known as Redemption among white Southerners. White Democrats regained political power in state legislatures across the South and worked to restore white supremacy. Democrat state legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890-1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s.


Hmmm...what happened in the 1960s? Won't you share with us?

Just in case you don't get around to it, I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party's strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.


Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in many regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.


Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Lee Atwater, aide to Ronald Reagan, campaign manager for George H.W. Bush and Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."
 
2013-06-25 12:50:38 PM
Good luck getting a new Section 4 that covers every state through the House.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:20 PM
www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-06-25 12:51:37 PM

mattharvest: Serious Black: There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

I don't know if I made this clear earlier: I'm  not saying discrimination isn't a problem, and I'm  not saying that we shouldn't have a formula. I think the data that exists absolutely justifies such a thing.

I don't think it justified the old formula, because literally the old formula wasn't derived from it.  We need a formula that specifically references and reflects that new data, to be as precise and tight a fit as possible.


I wasn't trying to direct my combativeness at you. And while I agree with you that an updated formula would be better than what was in Section 4 given what's happened in the last few years with blatant voter suppression efforts (I'm looking at you, Mr. Turzai), I agree with the lower court decisions that Congress did have a rational basis for just extending the old formula. The Constitution bans unconstitutional laws. It does not ban stupid laws.
 
2013-06-25 12:53:10 PM

Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?


How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?
 
2013-06-25 12:54:16 PM

DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.


Yeah, sadly I bet this is a probable outcome. Le sigh
 
2013-06-25 12:56:00 PM

Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!


They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.
 
2013-06-25 12:56:35 PM

bluefoxicy: Americans are farking lazy and stupid, while Germany and Japan produce all of the useful innovation.  The Japanese die from overwork because they voluntarily work themselves to death; Puerto Ricans hold the highest respect for the working-class farmer who will always be poor but provides the foundation for society by providing basic resources like <b>food</b> for everyone; while Americans hold contempt for the rich whilst simultaneously talking about dead-end lazy burger-flippers who will never amount to anything--and then define "success" as finding a job where you sit at a job and do as little as possible for as much pay as you can get.

Innovation and productivity.  Hilarious.


I think you're projecting.  Also, over engineering != good engineering.

As fun as it is to paint everybody on earth with a wide brush... the fact is, everybody everywhere is the same.  You have a 1% elite portion of the population who are "movers and shakers", people who do the actual innovating, 19% of the population that supports those elites by handling middle management and organizing of society, and then the rest are all the mouth breathers who troop along like lemmings doing whatever task is dropped in front of them like good little cogs, whether they realize it or not as they feed the giant machine.

Your physical location has no bearing on this, every society works the same.

/Please note that the above has  nothing to do with income or wealth, I'm entirely discussing productivity.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:00 PM

Alonjar: Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me. I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law. Sounds like a very reasonable use of tax dollars. Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.


If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not that simple, if it were why would you even need an ID?  For some people acquiring several pieces of information to qualify for the free picture ID is very difficult.  My parents are fairly affluent, and it was a pain in the ass for both of them.  My father never had a birth certificate, luckily he was in the army.  My mother had to travel a couple hundred miles get hers.   Old people, cripples, poor people, people who aren't too smart, people with alternative lifestyles. .. .they're going to be disenfranchised, and that's a pretty shiatty thing to do to stop fraud there's no proof is occurring.
 
2013-06-25 12:57:04 PM

flondrix: To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.

So the voting rights act should be expanded, not reduced.  Add some new entries to the list of states or counties that need oversight.


That's  possible and has been done  under Section 3 of  the VRA, which allows States or even local districts to be added to the pre-clearance list based on current conditions.  Even the States "liberated" by this ruling could be added back in.

Problem is, each entity has to be considered individually, with attendant time-consuming litigation.  Damn that Due Process nonsense!
 
2013-06-25 12:57:30 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?


http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/June/13-crt-705.html
 
2013-06-25 12:58:06 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: The bottom map is jurisdictions covered by the VRA (beige ones being those that have bailed out). The top map is jurisdictions with the most lost or settled voter discrimination cases from 1982 to 2005. There's a pretty big overlap there, wouldn't you agree? Is that information not current enough?

How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?


Ten years of an unblemished record and approval from the DC District Court.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:49 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!

They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.


From what I saw on SCOTUSblog this morning, Roberts would be reading the Prop 8 opinion and Kennedy the DOMA decision...so at least neither one is Scalia or Alito.
 
2013-06-25 12:59:23 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.


True, but because of that history, it's much much less likely to try it than a southern state.  If the law is unnecessary, why does the Justice Dept. have to invoke it roughly every four months?
 
2013-06-25 01:00:37 PM
I don't understand this ruling, but as long as Obama is unhappy with it I am all for it and very happy. Don't you farking libs worry. Another Republican president will never be elected in this country no matter how bad things get. Every black and Hispanic will vote Democrat no matter what.

Yea for Democracy!!

I can't wait to see how bad things get. I want to see riots and blood in the street, like Greece, only worse.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:17 PM

Kentucky Fried Children: DamnYankees: Who wants to bet this is what will happen tomorrow?

5 Justice Conservative Majority: Even though Congress duly passed the VRA 7 years ago, in our judgment what they passed is out of date and we need to overturn it.

5 Justice Conservative Majority: We must uphold DOMA because regardless of our personal moral opinions it was a law duly passed by Congress only 17 years ago.

Yeah, sadly I bet this is a probable outcome. Le sigh


Nah, DOMA's toast.  At a very minimum, Justice Kennedy will be persuaded by the federalist angle.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:50 PM

UNC_Samurai: 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.


"After the fact" may well be after the newly elected politicians (elected without your vote) have been sworn in and begun serving.  So, the red staters could rig the 2016 election, say, and then the "feds" responsible for fixing the voting rights problem would be the very same politicians who benefited from it.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:27 PM

fireclown: 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.


I'm seeing her in concert Friday night. Maybe she'll take requests.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:44 PM

skullkrusher: 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?


I am not an expert by any extent myself. I have actually read the document however, and remembered to do a little a Google research on the phrase "guarantee a republican form of government". The document is not long (one of its greatest virtues) and is easily available for reading. Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.
 
2013-06-25 01:04:36 PM

DarnoKonrad: Alonjar: Requiring ID to vote just seems logical to me. I also feel that ID should be provided free of charge, and thus wouldnt violate poll tax law. Sounds like a very reasonable use of tax dollars. Certainly more useful than blowing up mounds of sand in a desert.

If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not that simple, if it were why would you even need an ID?  For some people acquiring several pieces of information to qualify for the free picture ID is very difficult.  My parents are fairly affluent, and it was a pain in the ass for both of them.  My father never had a birth certificate, luckily he was in the army.  My mother had to travel a couple hundred miles get hers.   Old people, cripples, poor people, people who aren't too smart, people with alternative lifestyles. .. .they're going to be disenfranchised, and that's a pretty shiatty thing to do to stop fraud there's no proof is occurring.


Of course its that simple.  DNA registration from birth, yo!
 
2013-06-25 01:04:47 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Cythraul: bulldg4life: Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

BUT GODDAMNIT WE CAN'T DECIDE IF GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

They will tomorrow!

They'll probably allow gays to marry and FOX will claim the ruing on the Voting Rights Act was because gays had to marry.


So it's like the Academy Awards when someone gets a pity Oscar because they were cheated the previous year?
 
2013-06-25 01:05:37 PM

flondrix: UNC_Samurai: 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.

"After the fact" may well be after the newly elected politicians (elected without your vote) have been sworn in and begun serving.  So, the red staters could rig the 2016 election, say, and then the "feds" responsible for fixing the voting rights problem would be the very same politicians who benefited from it.


2010 already rigged it.  The state legislatures are firmly in GOP control and they drew the districts for the next 10 years.  With the Voting Rights Act being gutted, this is a disaster for any minority groups in this country.
 
2013-06-25 01:07:26 PM
hasty ambush:


Registered voters 927,996
Votes Cast 617,141
Votes for Barack Obama 420,953
Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475

What a gulli-bull.
 
2013-06-25 01:08:05 PM

Serious Black: How can a jurisdiction "bail out" of the Voting Rights Act?

Ten years of an unblemished record and approval from the DC District Court.


Ah, that sounds more like "graduated out" than "bailed out".  Anyway, according to that map, a jurisdiction in Colorado has cleaned up its act.  Which one would that be?
And there are so many scattered throughout New England!  I had no idea it was so much of an issue there.
 
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