If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN) NewsFlash The Supreme Court ensures our next president will be Lynyrd Skynyrd   (cnn.com) divider line 637
    More: NewsFlash, Voting Rights Act, supreme courts  
•       •       •

28173 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

637 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 03:01:15 PM  

doubled99: Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(

We don't really need that either.


Yeah, I don't listen to hip-hop anyway.
 
2013-06-25 03:03:46 PM  

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.
 
2013-06-25 03:05:48 PM  

Nabb1: rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


can't stuff that genie back in the bottle
 
2013-06-25 03:07:23 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: runin800m: Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others?

Section 8, clause 1:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "uniform" part mentions "duties, imposts and excises" but not "taxes".  Meaningless to the average guy, but lawyers love to play games with such things.


At the time of the writing, Congress only had the power to tax citizens directly, or generally via import/export taxes. States did not pay direct taxes, as they were not citizens.
 
2013-06-25 03:07:53 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.


You really want to cite Faux News as a source?!?

Can I make citations using Calvin & Hobbes?
 
2013-06-25 03:15:42 PM  
this ruling is the very definition of judicial activism.
 
2013-06-25 03:18:48 PM  
Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress. Just saw a clip of McConnell speaking about the ruling, and while he made vague statements about the US being very "different" than it was in the 60s, he didn't sound as though he actually wanted the court to rule this way.

The last iteration of the law passed without any real controversy; there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again.
 
2013-06-25 03:21:02 PM  

Biological Ali: Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress. Just saw a clip of McConnell speaking about the ruling, and while he made vague statements about the US being very "different" than it was in the 60s, he didn't sound as though he actually wanted the court to rule this way.

The last iteration of the law passed without any real controversy; there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again.


Yeah, but that was with a status quo of many jurisdictions that had to seek preclearance. Now the status quo is nobody has to seek preclearance. You think any Republican is going to volunteer his district/state as racist and needing preclearance?
 
2013-06-25 03:25:09 PM  

Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:02 PM  

R.A.Danny: Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.


If there was a fire in the Capitol Building, and there weren't enough senators there to override a filibuster, they'll all burn to death.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:35 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.


it doesn't scream "I'm a reasonable individual", however.
 
2013-06-25 03:31:13 PM  
Nabb1:
But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.


What, that I, along with many other black people don't believe that this Thomas character wouldn't be fit to shine Thurgood Marshall's shoes?
Got news for ya - he isn't.

As for emotions - you dare to look into my father's eyes and tell him the things he did for me and later generations don't matter.
 
2013-06-25 03:32:28 PM  

Biological Ali: Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress.


Have you SEEN this Congress? I think they've passed something like 3 substantive bills this entire session.
 
2013-06-25 03:32:35 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.


"Uncle Tom" is what you're looking for.  Tom/Thomas.

/Wow, fark is  really white.....
 
2013-06-25 03:33:01 PM  
Serious Black:
Dude, seriously? I don't agree with his opinion in this case in the slightest, but there's no excuse for dropping racial epithets. None.

That epithet goes WAY beyond this case. You have no idea.

Pay attention.
 
2013-06-25 03:33:14 PM  

Serious Black: Biological Ali: Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress. Just saw a clip of McConnell speaking about the ruling, and while he made vague statements about the US being very "different" than it was in the 60s, he didn't sound as though he actually wanted the court to rule this way.

The last iteration of the law passed without any real controversy; there's no reason why it shouldn't happen again.

Yeah, but that was with a status quo of many jurisdictions that had to seek preclearance. Now the status quo is nobody has to seek preclearance. You think any Republican is going to volunteer his district/state as racist and needing preclearance?


It may have been a status quo, but it passed with overwhelming majorities with I believe even Senators from the specified states voting for it. Granted, the difference here is the age-old status quo vs. new requirements problem of inertia, but the old bill had such broad support that a new version, while by no means guaranteed to pass, isn't necessarily doomed to fail either.
 
2013-06-25 03:34:38 PM  

Alphax: R.A.Danny: Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.

If there was a fire in the Capitol Building, and there weren't enough senators there to override a filibuster, they'll all burn to death.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2013-06-25 03:36:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.

it doesn't scream "I'm a reasonable individual", however.


Sure, but in this context it's not that much more outrageous than many generic insults.

/and I'll thank you in advance for not starting up one of those "how come it isn't as bad when black people say "n*gger?" arguments
 
2013-06-25 03:38:16 PM  

FLMountainMan: drew46n2: Discrimination don't exist round these parts no more, yessir! What, that stars and bars on our state flag? Sheeeeeeet son, that's about HERITAGE. Now go ahead an pay this here heritage tax and the vote booth's over yonder.

And yet, the South is the most integrated region of the country and elects the most black people to Congress.  But I'm sure that's entirely due to these laws.

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


The South is the most integrated region based on what metric?  Percentage of minority population?  I wonder if there might be any historical region for the concentration of black people in the southern states.  Despite the fact that the South is approaching a majority-minority status as a whole, there is still endemic prejudice resulting in things like segregated proms and increasing school segregation.

The South elects the most black people to Congress specifically because the VRA calls for the creation and maintenance of majority-minority districts.  If it weren't for preclearance, it would be likely that these districts would be cracked so as to dilute their voting power.  We'll see what the impact is when districts are redrawn post-2020.  No doubt the tea-party controlled legislatures in the deep south will come up with some interesting maps.
 
2013-06-25 03:38:36 PM  

mattharvest: Did you read the opinion? Do you have a clue how the arguments proceeded? Do you know anything here of substance? Do you have anything to offer except vitriol?


I read the opinion. Twice. What I see is a rollback of a decision that was historically valid, upheld by every congress since, and which has the support of the american people... but that a few southern states thought was unfair, and brought a lawsuit. Never mind that this has historical and current precedent.

BTW, those in my own house I can call as I wish, though I'm ashamed that I happen to be the same color as this asswipe Thomas today.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:02 PM  

Alonjar: "Uncle Tom" is what you're looking for. Tom/Thomas.

/Wow, fark is really white.....


Isn't "Uncle Tom" just a polite (using the term loosely) way of saying "house n*gger"?
 
2013-06-25 03:39:24 PM  
I see the folks who live in a totally black and white world are going apeshiat over this.

Thankfully, the supreme court can actually see shades of grey.

This pretty much sums it up:
 Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting-a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States-an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."

Discrimination isn't gone - but we ain't in 1965 either.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:37 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.

it doesn't scream "I'm a reasonable individual", however.

Sure, but in this context it's not that much more outrageous than many generic insults.

/and I'll thank you in advance for not starting up one of those "how come it isn't as bad when black people say "n*gger?" arguments


shiat, that's not even remotely near my MO.
 
2013-06-25 03:40:28 PM  

Biological Ali: Alonjar: "Uncle Tom" is what you're looking for. Tom/Thomas.

/Wow, fark is really white.....

Isn't "Uncle Tom" just a polite (using the term loosely) way of saying "house n*gger"?


it's the polite way we refer to my biological uncle's "roommate".
 
2013-06-25 03:41:30 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that. It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

For what it's worth, "house n*gger" seems to be more something that black people say as a criticism of other black people (with a few exceptions, like that one terrible cartoonist). Malcolm X's "House Negro/Field Negro" speeches popularized the term quite a bit, I think.


I am very familiar with the term having lived the entirety of my forty years in the South and the last 17 in New Orleans, and I do know that it is used predominately among African Americans to disparage other African Americans, and I don't think the implication is any less insidious.

rewind2846: Nabb1:
But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

You really shouldn't let you emotions get the better of you like that.  It can make you say something you either regret or reveals something about yourself you might prefer was not common knowledge.

What, that I, along with many other black people don't believe that this Thomas character wouldn't be fit to shine Thurgood Marshall's shoes?
Got news for ya - he isn't.

As for emotions - you dare to look into my father's eyes and tell him the things he did for me and later generations don't matter.


I would not dream of doing such a thing. I don't think Thomas is as good a Justice as Marshall was. I merely think you would be better served by making your point without relying on demeaning terminology.
 
2013-06-25 03:41:43 PM  

skullkrusher: shiat, that's not even remotely near my MO.


I mean, not you specifically but the thread in general, because there's always somebody who insists on starting up that argument.
 
2013-06-25 03:48:29 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: shiat, that's not even remotely near my MO.

I mean, not you specifically but the thread in general, because there's always somebody who insists on starting up that argument.


I think we need 10 lbs of processed dairy food for that
 
2013-06-25 03:49:36 PM  

Nabb1: I would not dream of doing such a thing. I don't think Thomas is as good a Justice as Marshall was. I merely think you would be better served by making your point without relying on demeaning terminology.


The term I used was tame and safe for work compared to what some of my politically active black friends and relatives are discussing right now on facebook. You have no idea.

This is not over.
 
2013-06-25 03:50:31 PM  

rewind2846: mattharvest: Did you read the opinion? Do you have a clue how the arguments proceeded? Do you know anything here of substance? Do you have anything to offer except vitriol?

I read the opinion. Twice. What I see is a rollback of a decision that was historically valid, upheld by every congress since, and which has the support of the american people... but that a few southern states thought was unfair, and brought a lawsuit. Never mind that this has historical and current precedent.

BTW, those in my own house I can call as I wish, though I'm ashamed that I happen to be the same color as this asswipe Thomas today.


(a) the color of your skin doesn't entitle you to any special privilege to use racial epithets.  Whatever justification there is for a person to use self-describing epithets in a 'reclaimed' fashion (e.g. black people who call each other by the n-word affectionately), that cannot apply to a person like you who used the term purely for hate.  It's hate.  Don't disguise your hate in some sort of nonsensical 'my own house' mentality.  You're disparaging him for his race, plain and simple.

(b) You're just sound and fury, signifying nothing: you're not addressing any of the arguments - legal or otherwise - presented either by the Court or anyone posting here.  You just want to be angry, and you're deluding yourself into this somehow being about telling you that your ancestors aren't as worthwhile any more.  It's just silliness.  This doesn't denigrate anything about the Civil Rights movement or any of its participants.

Try responding calmly to the specific arguments at hand, and maybe people will take you seriously (as opposed to marking you as a bigot, as many of us now have thanks to your use of epithets).
 
2013-06-25 03:53:55 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.

Jim Crow is back baby!!




Unwad your panties girly man that is not what the court ruled:

The ruling leaves in place many of the protections of the 1965 law, such as banning literacy tests.

What the court said is congress must update the law, bring into the 21century:

"If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present cover- age formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today's statistics tell an entirely different story," Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

So maybe, just maybe a new formula might bring other states and counties under the VRA and drop others that no longer need it.
 
2013-06-25 03:55:09 PM  

Nabb1: I am very familiar with the term having lived the entirety of my forty years in the South and the last 17 in New Orleans, and I do know that it is used predominately among African Americans to disparage other African Americans, and I don't think the implication is any less insidious.


It kind of is less insidious though. It's like Chris Rock's bit about some black people being "n*ggers" - sure, it's used as an insult, but in context it's not really worse than any regular insult. Can't read much more into that without going down the silly "OMG he said the n-word!" route.
 
2013-06-25 03:56:21 PM  

rewind2846: The term I used was tame and safe for work compared to what some of my politically active black friends and relatives are discussing right now on facebook. You have no idea.


You're categorically insane if you think there is any professional workplace in the US where the epithet you used is "safe for work".

Bigots use hate speech, and no one else.  Users of hate speech are bigots, and nothing more.

Find a way to express yourself in a civilized way, and people will be far more interested in your ideas.  Few people want to hear people spout hate speech.
 
2013-06-25 03:56:53 PM  

rewind2846: Nabb1: I would not dream of doing such a thing. I don't think Thomas is as good a Justice as Marshall was. I merely think you would be better served by making your point without relying on demeaning terminology.

The term I used was tame and safe for work compared to what some of my politically active black friends and relatives are discussing right now on facebook. You have no idea.

This is not over.


Well, look at it this way: Congress is going to have to address this.  Legislation will be introduced.  This will be debated.  And GOP Congressmen cannot simply rubber stamp renewal of the same VRA.  They'll have to debate it head on and craft new standards.  And if their base is indeed as racist as people say, this is going to put them in a very uncomfortable position.  No one is going to let them ignore this ruling and creating an updated version of the VRA consistent with today's ruling.  So, no, it is not over.  Not by a long shot.
 
2013-06-25 03:59:50 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: I am very familiar with the term having lived the entirety of my forty years in the South and the last 17 in New Orleans, and I do know that it is used predominately among African Americans to disparage other African Americans, and I don't think the implication is any less insidious.

It kind of is less insidious though. It's like Chris Rock's bit about some black people being "n*ggers" - sure, it's used as an insult, but in context it's not really worse than any regular insult. Can't read much more into that without going down the silly "OMG he said the n-word!" route.


No, I don't think that's quite the case.  That term, like "Uncle Tom" have very specific meanings, and are meant as insults towards black people who do not subscribe to certain views that others think they as black people should espouse, as if their skin color should dictate their philosophy.
 
2013-06-25 04:00:25 PM  

mattharvest: Try responding calmly to the specific arguments at hand, and maybe people will take you seriously (as opposed to marking you as a bigot, as many of us now have thanks to your use of epithets).


Mark me as you want, I really don't care. I was born in north carolina in 1962. I saw what happens when citizens who should be allowed to vote are not. I know what disenfranchisement loos like up close and personal. When you've had similar experiences, get back to me, okay.

The southern states that filed the suits that came before the supreme court have had a long, long history of disenfranchisement and worse. They should have had just as much time to prove their good intentions. That some states want to file suits so that they can put up more roadblocks to minority voters is not that proof.

1965 wasn't that long ago.
 
2013-06-25 04:01:00 PM  
Once again the Roberts court takes a big fat dump on separation of powers.

The 15th amendment says that no one shall have their right to vote infringed upon and it shall be up to the Congress to determine how best to enforce said right. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
2013-06-25 04:02:13 PM  

FlashHarry: well, it's not like the south was ever in play for democrats anyway.


And by "South" you meand Michigan, New York, California, and South Dakota?

media.washtimes.com
 
2013-06-25 04:04:08 PM  

DamnYankees: Biological Ali: Honestly, I don't that it'd be hopeless to expect a move from Congress.

Have you SEEN this Congress? I think they've passed something like 3 substantive bills this entire session.


True enough, but this law passed with the approval of nearly all of Congress, so I think it may have hope yet. Sure, you could end up with a debt ceilingesque situation where something that was once taken for granted suddenly becomes a controversy, but the symbolism of this law is so powerful even today (in contrast to the dry technicalities of something like a debt ceiling, and even the Supreme Court acknowledged that there is a very real justification for some kind of law), that I think the Republicans would be hard pressed to pull that here.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:44 PM  

Nabb1: rewind2846: Nabb1: I would not dream of doing such a thing. I don't think Thomas is as good a Justice as Marshall was. I merely think you would be better served by making your point without relying on demeaning terminology.

The term I used was tame and safe for work compared to what some of my politically active black friends and relatives are discussing right now on facebook. You have no idea.

This is not over.

Well, look at it this way: Congress is going to have to address this.  Legislation will be introduced.  This will be debated.  And GOP Congressmen cannot simply rubber stamp renewal of the same VRA.  They'll have to debate it head on and craft new standards.  And if their base is indeed as racist as people say, this is going to put them in a very uncomfortable position.  No one is going to let them ignore this ruling and creating an updated version of the VRA consistent with today's ruling.  So, no, it is not over.  Not by a long shot.


Josh Green described the ruling as a poisoned chalice. I think that is a reasonable description. I fully expect the GOP to use this to establish laws that de facto discriminate against non-whites; there are already reports that Texas plans to immediately enforce its voter ID law. But if they do push those laws with impunity, they will further ensure the GOP's demographic death. At the same time, they can't vote to add their own jurisdictions to the preclearance list because that would be an admission of racism which the GOP can't do.
 
2013-06-25 04:06:50 PM  

Nabb1: That term, like "Uncle Tom" have very specific meanings, and are meant as insults towards black people who do not subscribe to certain views that others think they as black people should espouse, as if their skin color should dictate their philosophy.


Their skin color dictates how they are treated in the criminal justice system.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated by the police.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated by our school systems.
Their skin color dictates their ability to make a living.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated in this society.
Why should it not color (pun intended) their philosophy?

When skin color is no longer a factor in how people live, then it will no longer be a factor in how they think.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:48 PM  

rewind2846: Nabb1: That term, like "Uncle Tom" have very specific meanings, and are meant as insults towards black people who do not subscribe to certain views that others think they as black people should espouse, as if their skin color should dictate their philosophy.

Their skin color dictates how they are treated in the criminal justice system.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated by the police.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated by our school systems.
Their skin color dictates their ability to make a living.
Their skin color dictates how they are treated in this society.
Why should it not color (pun intended) their philosophy?

When skin color is no longer a factor in how people live, then it will no longer be a factor in how they think.


"Being a factor" is not the same thing as "dictating."
 
2013-06-25 04:15:00 PM  

Nabb1: No, I don't think that's quite the case. That term, like "Uncle Tom" have very specific meanings, and are meant as insults towards black people who do not subscribe to certain views that others think they as black people should espouse, as if their skin color should dictate their philosophy.


The specific meaning is that of a black person who is living comfortably while participating in and aiding a system that is hostile towards black people in general. You can obviously disagree with the sentiment - for instance, you've made the argument that the term is used over relatively trivial philosophical differences, and so you you could make the perfectly reason argument that using "house n*gger" in this context is just pointless melodrama. But calling it "insidious" is itself being a tad over-dramatic.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:10 PM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-25 04:15:22 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.


Oddly enough, I had you favorited as "rational" even before this thread.  Well, ok, it's not really that odd, except in as much as it's unusual to favorite any Farker that way.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:08 PM  

Biological Ali: Alonjar: "Uncle Tom" is what you're looking for. Tom/Thomas.

/Wow, fark is really white.....

Isn't "Uncle Tom" just a polite (using the term loosely) way of saying "house n*gger"?


The worst part of all this is that someone born in Georgia in 1948, who couldn't even drink from the same water fountain as the white kids and would have been lynched for talking to a white girl, and who was fortunate enough to go to Yale law school at a time when the total number of people who looked like him could fit in the (back of) one bus, thinks he's above all that because he married a white woman, hangs around white people and became a supreme court justice.

He forgot where he came from a long, long time ago, and will have just as much trouble catching that cab as I do in NYC. That's why I think he's deserving of that term, and worse.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:23 PM  

Biological Ali: But calling it "insidious" is itself being a tad over-dramatic.


I'll concede that point.
 
2013-06-25 04:26:14 PM  

Nabb1: Biological Ali: But calling it "insidious" is itself being a tad over-dramatic.

I'll concede that point.


pussy :)
 
2013-06-25 04:28:13 PM  

Nabb1: "Being a factor" is not the same thing as "dictating."


No one makes decisions based on only one thing. When those factors are large and overwhelming enough to be life-altering, they can most certainly "dictate" your decision-making process, like being run over by a train and having a leg amputated can cause you to take the bus instead next time you travel.
 
2013-06-25 04:33:19 PM  
So this law is outdated and the Second Amendment isn't. Right.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:53 PM  

Superjoe: So this law is outdated and the Second Amendment isn't. Right.


I don't think you get to strike amendments down like that
 
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