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 178
    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?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-25 10:44:45 AM
13 votes:
www.raizlabs.com
Has socialized medicine and now better voting rights than a red-stater.
2013-06-25 10:46:06 AM
10 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 10:39:53 AM
10 votes:

Rev. Skarekroe: I don't get it.


Jim Crow is back baby!!
2013-06-25 10:41:56 AM
9 votes:
Look for even more fun voting laws coming from Red states in the next election.
2013-06-25 10:45:41 AM
8 votes:
Well, they don't call 'em the slave states for nothing.

This is a bigger threat to democracy than the NSA distraction.
2013-06-25 10:42:11 AM
8 votes:
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.
2013-06-25 10:55:34 AM
7 votes:
Ginsburg: "Throwing out preclearance... is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
2013-06-25 11:44:44 AM
6 votes:
hasty ambush: www.survivalandbeyond.net

Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 2012 election results;Registered voters 927,996Votes Cast 617,141Votes for Barack Obama 420,953Votes for Mitt Romney 184,475
Teatards generally lack several basic intellectual tools that would otherwise distinguish them from monkeys. This is why I no longer view them as even fully human, and I am a farking Republican.
2013-06-25 11:04:34 AM
6 votes:
This is such a stupid ruling.  The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not "this map needs to be updated, because we think it has too many conservative states".  That's not a ruling, that's legislating.
2013-06-25 10:51:37 AM
6 votes:
Simple solution: Pass a federal law that doesn't discriminate against those states. Make *all* states subject to federal approval of federal election procedure. We in Ohio could use that intervention.
2013-06-25 10:47:08 AM
6 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.


it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.
2013-06-25 10:46:30 AM
6 votes:

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.


Unless you studied 3rd grade history or have a memory that goes back 40 years, I can see how this might not make sense.
2013-06-25 10:42:55 AM
6 votes:
If you live in a red state and you skin isn't white, enjoy voting suppression for the next few decades :(


I don't get it, this today, but they sent the affirmative action one back to lower courts? wtf
2013-06-25 10:40:23 AM
6 votes:
fark you Kock Bros.
2013-06-25 10:40:19 AM
6 votes:
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!
2013-06-25 11:04:09 AM
5 votes:

what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.


Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.
2013-06-25 10:57:11 AM
5 votes:

skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have  the Constitutional authority for such oversight.


Have you read the 15th amendment? It's not long, and it gives them the explicit right to do such oversight.

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.
2013-06-25 10:45:01 AM
5 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 11:11:39 AM
4 votes:
So, as I understand it, the key to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.  Well and good. Lets get congress busy on an updated VRA without section 4 at all, let's just make it apply generally to the whole US.  In this day and age when the worst attempts at rigging the ballot box this time around were in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennslyvania, just putting the Southern States under the microscope doesn;t really make sense any more anyway
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:10:36 AM
4 votes:
I don't know about you, but to me it looks like we're awfully close to the point where everything needs to be reset and restarted.
2013-06-25 10:50:25 AM
4 votes:
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.
2013-06-25 10:49:41 AM
4 votes:

bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.


It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.
2013-06-25 10:45:21 AM
4 votes:
After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.

your burdensome regulations impinge on our first  amendment right to be racists
2013-06-25 10:39:06 AM
4 votes:
I don't get it.
2013-06-25 11:51:12 AM
3 votes:
hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

www.survivalandbeyond.net

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

Sigh.

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

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:26:53 AM
3 votes:

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

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.
2013-06-25 11:17:07 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-25 11:12:37 AM
3 votes:
Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
2013-06-25 11:11:34 AM
3 votes:
Hey if you can't win honestly, cheat your ass off.

Gerrymandering, poll taxes, literacy tests, reduced/relocated polling locations For The Win!

/meet the new south, same as the old south.
2013-06-25 11:08:06 AM
3 votes:
Next on the SCOTUS greatest hits, non-corporation people are declared 3/5ths of a vote.

Seriously... fark these guys.
2013-06-25 11:02:22 AM
3 votes:
If you can show a photo ID to buy beer or rent a movie, you can show photo ID to vote for President of the United States. Stop whining.

Unlike liberals, the South has changed since 1965. But, continue on with your stereotyping. That's only wrong when it's anyone other than Southerners. Then, it's a federal hate crime thingy, or something.
2013-06-25 10:51:15 AM
3 votes:

FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.


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.
2013-06-25 10:49:17 AM
3 votes:

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.


In all fairness, it wasn't singling out the south, it was singling out states with past history of voter suppression.
2013-06-25 10:48:47 AM
3 votes:

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


Hell, we can't even get a law to stick that says you have to show ID to register in this here blue state.  I need ID to buy allergy medicine, but I can just wander into any polling place on the day of the election, claim to live there, and I'm in.  Sheesh.
2013-06-25 10:48:46 AM
3 votes:

FlashHarry: To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.

it makes sense in that the south has a history of suppressing minority voting rights. and anyone who thinks that we live in a "post-racist" society is either an idiot or a liar.


I think it should've been expanded to cover the entire country.
2013-06-25 10:47:07 AM
3 votes:

Cythraul: They will tomorrow!


James!: Tomorrow.


My point is more that Scalia punted on the issue of gay marriage last week when he said that the court can't make moral judgments on the state of the country. But, right here, we are judging how far the country has progressed.
2013-06-25 10:43:51 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 10:42:14 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-25 10:41:14 AM
3 votes:
But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

images.sodahead.com
2013-06-25 10:41:11 AM
3 votes:
A gym teacher couldn't be any worse than a senile old movie actor.
2013-06-25 06:44:38 PM
2 votes:
Remember Mike Turzai?

i.imgur.com
2013-06-25 06:01:52 PM
2 votes:

Churchill2004: I grew up in Arkansas and Texas, and I never heard someone casually use the n-word until I moved to Wisconsin. In my experience, people who think the South is more racist have never actually lived there.


ethicsbob.files.wordpress.com

I lived in that crap hole called Little Rock for 3 years and you sir are full of crap!

Racism is alive and well in the South...
2013-06-25 12:28:23 PM
2 votes:
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 12:09:50 PM
2 votes:
Roberts just went down in history as leading the worst Supreme Court since this decision:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-06-25 11:31:48 AM
2 votes:

elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]


You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.
2013-06-25 11:27:49 AM
2 votes:

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


You seem ignorant of history.
2013-06-25 11:25:04 AM
2 votes:
EyeballKid:

www.raizlabs.com
Has socialized medicine and now better voting rights than a red-stater.

img.pandawhale.com
2013-06-25 11:24:05 AM
2 votes:
www.politifake.org


Voted six times for Obama in one election

patdollard.com


dancingczars.files.wordpress.com

www.survivalandbeyond.net
images.sodahead.com
2013-06-25 11:16:51 AM
2 votes:

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

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


Let's see.  In which of those fifteen southern states did gerrymandering first start?
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-06-25 11:16:38 AM
2 votes:

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

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


The right of racists to make sure Blah people don't vote.
2013-06-25 11:15:17 AM
2 votes:

BravadoGT: Should have been 9-0.


Not a chance.  The racists I mean liberals need to keep the race issue alive so they can remain relevant.
2013-06-25 11:14:48 AM
2 votes:
I don't think this is a big deal, I mean, its not like one political party is actively trying to suppress minority votes, right?
2013-06-25 11:12:47 AM
2 votes:
This law set up two classes of states. The racist states and the non racist states. You can't possibly think this was a good policy.
2013-06-25 11:08:54 AM
2 votes:

El_Perro: 98-0 in Senate
390-33 in House
. . .
5-4 in Supreme Court, too bad.


Boy those anti-judicial activism Republicans are going to PISSED!

Right?
2013-06-25 11:08:18 AM
2 votes:

spiderpaz: This is such a stupid ruling.  The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not "this map needs to be updated, because we think it has too many conservative states".  That's not a ruling, that's legislating.


mind blowing ain't it?  Their whole rationale for unconstitutionality is "we don't agree with congress."
2013-06-25 11:07:43 AM
2 votes:
happy with the result:
www.mainjustice.com
2013-06-25 10:59:48 AM
2 votes:

qorkfiend: bdub77: As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.

It's swiftly coming up on the time when I'm expected to have kids, and I'm seriously considering raising them somewhere other than the United States.


I've been seriously discussing the matter with my wife for a number of years now.

Wage inequality, worsening education, inadequate healthcare, an obesity epidemic, major privacy concerns, due process violations, a crumbling infrastructure, plutocratic control of local, state (ALEC) and federal governments, a broken patent system, lots of basically mindless church-controlled zombies in the boonies, and a stupid/ambivalent voting bloc.

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.
2013-06-25 10:59:09 AM
2 votes:
Basically, these southern states have to trust the government to provide fairness and equality - the same government that has an IRS wing that targets groups discriminately and monitors their phone calls unconstitutionally.  I definitely lean left, but this year my federal overseers continue to be a complete WTF?
If it were all part of a plan, the next logical step is to give these states to Mexico, but then change their minds and come back... WITH Mexico!  Arriba!
2013-06-25 10:59:01 AM
2 votes:

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.


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Although Ralph Waldo wasn't using it sarcastically as I am.

How long was it between the passage of the 14th Amendment and the day when blacks in the South could vote without interference? 100 years? That's how long the VRA should be in effect.
2013-06-25 10:57:49 AM
2 votes:
It's a well thought out, educated ruling, and it completely lacks common sense.
2013-06-25 10:57:46 AM
2 votes:
key phrase: "it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists."

it can be argued that racial discrimination never existed... anywhere...  you're not going to win that argument... but it could certainly be argued... could also argue that man was created by god in his image and that evolution is just a theory... oh wait... those are still being 'argued'.
2013-06-25 10:51:53 AM
2 votes:
It is not SCOTUS's place to decide which states Re racist. Congress should make EVERY state require federal approval before changing voting laws.

Do you really think Arizona and Wisconsin are immune to voting shenanigans? That's absurd.
2013-06-25 10:51:25 AM
2 votes:

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.


Since when does the south has a problem with having one set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another?
2013-06-25 10:49:18 AM
2 votes:
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

And it is, of course, better for nine five Supreme Court justices to ensure that it "speaks to current conditions" (or, in Constitution-speak, is "appropriate legislation") than for Congress to do so.

98-0 in Senate
390-33 in House

. . .

5-4 in Supreme Court, too bad.
2013-06-25 10:47:19 AM
2 votes:

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


No, you don't. It's Lynyrd Skynyrd. Ergo, it would be shiat.
2013-06-25 10:46:14 AM
2 votes:
You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.
2013-06-25 10:45:40 AM
2 votes:
As someone who lives in NC, my general impression is that this country is really going down hill. This is not helping my feelings on the matter.
2013-06-25 10:44:02 AM
2 votes:
I'll shiat a brick, eat said shiatted brick, and then shiat said eaten brick before Congress passes another preclearance formula.
2013-06-25 10:42:29 AM
2 votes:
This is where that constitutional right to vote would come in handy. States are given pretty broad power to determine qualifications for voting with the major caveats provided for by the voting amendments. Stupid Constitution.
2013-06-25 10:41:18 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-06-25 10:39:39 AM
2 votes:
A high school gym coach? We could do worse
2013-06-26 12:14:17 AM
1 votes:
Lets face facts here, The people who are happy about this can dance around it all they want. But they fool no one. They are stoked that Black, Hispanic, Native Americans ect will get stopped from voting Democratic.  Anyone who says different or tries the Rand Paul/Republican doublespeak is an outright liar.

Enjoy it while you can.
2013-06-25 08:21:40 PM
1 votes:
I thought the point of the court was to interpret laws, not strike them down because, yah know, congress was wrong.
2013-06-25 07:20:19 PM
1 votes:

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


Do some research... especially with Texas. You may become enlightened as to how badly things have changed
2013-06-25 06:35:33 PM
1 votes:
Can we just get rid of gerrymandering and cut up the districts using some kind of computer or something?
2013-06-25 05:42:45 PM
1 votes:
Looks like the Supreme Court violated the Separation of Powers today.  If only there was some body that could ajudicate that.
2013-06-25 05:14:59 PM
1 votes:

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

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

As is your right.

No one has the right to deny that to you under any circumstances.  YOU are the government, enshrined in the first sentence of our constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.

Sure, you have a constitutional right to vote.  Once.  If you're a citizen.  Show that you're a citizen and that you live where you want to vote, and, no problem.  We'll even give you the ID for free.  Somehow this is seen as infringing on them.


Because if you grew up before the 90s you were told that what defines this country is that you do not have to prove who you are to have your rights. That is for authoritarians, dictatorships and Eastern Bloc countries.

That country is dead now. We have become what many of us learned is the embodiment of evil in society. That is what my very liberal parent's taught and that is what my very conservative teachers taught. Now we have DUI checkpoints, TSA screening on internal flights, and a legal obligation to spy on one another and report suspicious activity. And if you don't believe that you have not worked in the financial world lately.

When they say freedom isn't free they mean that people die from bad things in a free society. That the bad guys win sometimes because the same tools used to defeat them are things like the KGB or the Stasi and it is not worth the long term erosion of individual rights and freedoms to track everyone, to verify everyone. If you track you also control. And that is the definition of an evil government.
2013-06-25 04:24:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:00 PM
1 votes:
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 03:59:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:41:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:33:01 PM
1 votes:
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 03:32:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:13 PM
1 votes:
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 03:29:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:42 PM
1 votes:
this ruling is the very definition of judicial activism.
2013-06-25 03:03:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:02 PM
1 votes:

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.


Pure garbage-juice.
2013-06-25 01:39:33 PM
1 votes:

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.


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.
2013-06-25 01:24:41 PM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-06-25 01:18:04 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Came for fark liberal idiocy, left satisfied.

All the USSC ruled was that you have to update your statistics once every 40 years.

Liberals just hate being forced to show their work. Same with the affirmative action ruling.


The cynic in me thinks that the amendment to the VRA reauthorization that would have done just that was deliberately tanked to destroy the VRA.
2013-06-25 01:16:39 PM
1 votes:

Carth: is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law


Republicans.
2013-06-25 01:10:23 PM
1 votes:

pacified: can Scalia die already?


THIS please.  That lard ass can't have too many more years left in his condition.  Lets see if we can get him some gift cards to Jack In The Box or something to just hurry up the process.
2013-06-25 01:05:37 PM
1 votes:

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 12:48:37 PM
1 votes:
can Scalia die already?
2013-06-25 12:48:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:40:00 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:49 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 12:27:49 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:55 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:19 PM
1 votes:
This is how Republicans will retain power. Gerrymandering. Disenfranchising voters. Voter Fraud.


Screw having decent ideas when you can just cheat.
2013-06-25 12:18:27 PM
1 votes:

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 12:09:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:07:40 PM
1 votes:
2013-06-25 12:06:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:05:20 PM
1 votes:

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 12:04:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:02:50 PM
1 votes:
This country is farked.
2013-06-25 11:57:51 AM
1 votes:
pre or post fiery plane crash?
2013-06-25 11:55:11 AM
1 votes:
If anyone disagrees with this ruling and then DOESN'T VOTE in 2014, you are a moran. The reason Congress is such a mess is because so many voters stupidly sat out 2010, even after watching the Tea Party go on for two years.

If everyone who can vote actually does, then the Tea Party won't be able to use this to their advantage, because I suspect they will. 2014 is going to be a very important election, and sitting on the sidelines isn't an option. You have no excuse. Vote, because the Tea Party is not down just yet, and if you ignore it like you did in 2010, it will come back.
2013-06-25 11:53:08 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Yes, but I don't think the legal reasoning in Broad v. Board was "the times have changed". The reasoning was "we were wrong last time". That's very different from what's happening here.
2013-06-25 11:52:14 AM
1 votes:

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


I don't think I've mentioned the South a single time in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting this from. My outrage here is entirely based on legal norms and the utter hypocrisy of the court in applying its own stated standards.
2013-06-25 11:49:24 AM
1 votes:

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


Bingo.  It's flatly not their job.  Even if we agreed the criteria congress came up with was shiat, it doesn't matter; the power to come up with the criteria is explicitly delegated to congress per the 15th Amendment.
2013-06-25 11:48:43 AM
1 votes:

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


You're taking the position that Congress has plenary, uncheckable power?
2013-06-25 11:48:37 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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


jeez dude. Congress DOES have the authority, as you pointed out. However, the formula they use in exercising that authority has been rejected as unconstitutional. It applies a test based on things that were in place 60 years ago. You may disagree with the decision but it is not an abuse of authority.
2013-06-25 11:47:21 AM
1 votes:

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

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


On what basis can a court declare a law unconstitutional because "the underlying data the Congress used to determine the application was out of date". Does this apply to all laws? Can I sue under any law assuming that the data the Congress used in making the law is from before 1970?
2013-06-25 11:40:32 AM
1 votes:
This quote from the decision is amazing:

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

This is exactly as Ginsburg said - the majority is basically making the argument "why are you still holding up that umbrella? You're not getting wet, clearly there's no need for it".
2013-06-25 11:40:05 AM
1 votes:

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

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


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.


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

Subversion of Democracy is what this is.
2013-06-25 11:38:34 AM
1 votes:
Some of these guys want to retire, and they can't do it until the GOP get back in office.
2013-06-25 11:37:49 AM
1 votes:

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


Voted six times for Obama in one election

[patdollard.com image 600x350]


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

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


An entire stream of bullshiat!  Well done!
2013-06-25 11:37:47 AM
1 votes:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

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


SCOTUS: Fark it, we decide now.
2013-06-25 11:36:42 AM
1 votes:

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


So, voting is the same as buying beer or renting a video down there. Glad you Rebs take it so seriously. Kind of explains a lot of the smelly detritus you send to Congress.
2013-06-25 11:35:49 AM
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:35:20 AM
1 votes:

cman: trotsky: elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]

You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.

To be fair it is wrong to blame the sins of the father on the son


1980 is beginning of the Corporate Era in terms of corporate influence on Congress.  Big money lobbying built starting about 1973.  In other words you're right.  Look at a graph of any U.S. trends and it always goes to shiat at 1980.
2013-06-25 11:35:08 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 11:33:13 AM
1 votes:

trotsky: elchip: enik: Oh noes, it's a bad day for the Farxists!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]

You know, during WWII the Brits, French and the Germans, the farking conquered Germans, wondered what the hell was up with White MPs beating the shiat out of Black American soldiers. The British in particular simply could not understand, even with their own inherent racism, how Americans treated blacks so utterly poorly overseas. They regularly circumvented the discrimination bullshiat as well.

You know, I'm starting to think that the 1970s were pretty much the peak of American civilization. All we're doing now is seemingly regressing. I'll have a better answer after tomorrow.


To be fair it is wrong to blame the sins of the father on the son
2013-06-25 11:31:40 AM
1 votes:

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.


\citationneeded.jpg
\\imagined problem is imaginary
2013-06-25 11:31:18 AM
1 votes:
xaf.xanga.com
2013-06-25 11:28:33 AM
1 votes:

dv-ous: Does that mean that in Texas you can shoot your attorney for giving you bad advice?


Only if he tries to run away with it at night.
2013-06-25 11:28:26 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: 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.

Here is one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/robert-ehrlich-paul-schuric k- voter-suppression_n_1131852.html

The guy was found guilty and sent to prison.


And how does this relate in any way to the court ruling? A lone bad apple, and there are plenty of Democrats doing it, has nothing to do with the ruling. The ruling means certain parts of the country will be allowed to make their own rules and have them challenged if need be, like everywhere else.

It quite simply, makes things fair.
2013-06-25 11:27:18 AM
1 votes:

wjllope: A high school gym coach? We could do worse


We did, a community organizer
2013-06-25 11:27:10 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 11:25:43 AM
1 votes:
http://www.fark.com/goto/7813730/http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politic s/scotus-voting-rights/index.html?ooohthatsmell

wut
2013-06-25 11:24:39 AM
1 votes:
For those of you not understanding, the pre-clearance made it so that certain places with a history of discrimination had to get voter law changes pre-approved. Without this, they can change voter laws a month before voting, move locations, change numbers of voting machines, whatever... then good luck people trying to sue, see if they can get through the legal system in time to unfark the voting laws before November. It's a greenlight from the supreme court to rig elections...
2013-06-25 11:24:29 AM
1 votes:

Full Metal Retard: Primitive Screwhead: But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x272]

You are completely detached from reality.


No, racial discrimination still exists in the good ole US of A and until I'm convinced otherwise, I want every law that protects those who may be discriminated against.
The tricky and part I have no answer for is, How does one argue that racial discrimination no longer exists?
If that's detached from reality, I'll stay in Fantasy Land.
2013-06-25 11:24:03 AM
1 votes:

Private_Citizen: Hey if you can't win honestly, cheat your ass off.

Gerrymandering, poll taxes, literacy tests, reduced/relocated polling locations For The Win!

/meet the new south, same as the old south.


100% This.

After the 2008 elections the Republicans lost their minds. Not sure if it was the fact they lost the White House, or the fact they lost it to a black man. They had two choices, try and expand  their base by appealing to blacks and Hispanics or try and change the game. They went with the latter. It's disgusting the tactics they have tried. While this ruling is not a deal breaker, it does embolden them to keep on the path they are on. It's a big loss for the country.
2013-06-25 11:23:49 AM
1 votes:
I guess this means that since I live in a heavily minority and Democratic leaning district in my town in Alabama and had to wait in a long line for 2+ hours to vote for POTUS last time (while my friends in heavily white, wealthy, and Republican districts had barely any lines in their voting locations); that next time I will be waiting in a 5+ hour long line to vote.

Thanks SCOTUS.
2013-06-25 11:23:33 AM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: The Court doesn't just deal with individual rights, they also have to be concerned with the rights of the States.


What rights of the states do you think trumps the 15th amendment, then? Stop speaking so broadly, lets get specific. What rights of a political entity trumps the 15th amendment?
2013-06-25 11:18:54 AM
1 votes:

what_now: The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?


Then why did you earlier say they overturn laws that are bad policy. Are you aware that "bad policy" and "unconstitutional" are two different things?
2013-06-25 11:18:22 AM
1 votes:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.
Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to "demolition" of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.


www.heygidday.biz

Thanks again, SCOTUS. Bang-up job you're doing for the good of the country.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:17:53 AM
1 votes:

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.


They have to stop felating their corporate buddies and get to work.  So, in other words, it doesn't happen.
2013-06-25 11:17:41 AM
1 votes:
The voting mess in this country is why I unregistered to vote. there's no point to voting anymore.  I wish there was because I died a little inside when I unregistered.

There are people who are registered and DON'T VOTE.  No sir, I unregistered.
If you go to the county clerk and ask, you'll probably get the same confused looks that I got.
They didn't have a form. I was asked to write it down on a piece of yellow pad paper.

/Voting is for suckers and squares.
2013-06-25 11:17:12 AM
1 votes:

bulldg4life: Cythraul: They will tomorrow!

James!: Tomorrow.

My point is more that Scalia punted on the issue of gay marriage last week when he said that the court can't make moral judgments on the state of the country. But, right here, we are judging how far the country has progressed.


Scalia makes moral judgments all the time.  The difference is he applies his religious morality and claims he is just following the text.  When Scalia talks complains about morality he is talking about morality in the sense that philosophers use the term morality.. ( i.e most people agree is wrong to hack apart children when they act up).  Scalia does not like that morality..but has no bones about applying the "moral tenets" of his rather conservative religious views.  That is why his concept of orginalism is bankrupt.  It is why textualism is bankrupt those who follow that philosphy claim they are only following the text, what they are really doing is using the text to justify their socio-economic-morality views.  Hence the thing Scalia supposedly abhors.  Watch the Schadenfreude on the Windsor case.
2013-06-25 11:17:07 AM
1 votes:

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: Yes, that is the point of the Supreme Court. That's what they do.

Holy crap. You either don't understand what courts do, or...well, no. That's the only explanation I can think of. You don't understand what courts do.

The Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional laws. What the hell do you think they do?


You conflated "bad" with "unconstitutional". Unconstitutional laws can be plenty good, and constitutional laws can be ridiculously moronic.
2013-06-25 11:16:55 AM
1 votes:

Magorn: So, as I understand it, the key to the decision is the idea that Section 4, the part that identifies the States that have to get heightened scrutiny is outdated, and therefore has to be struck down.  Well and good. Lets get congress busy on an updated VRA without section 4 at all, let's just make it apply generally to the whole US.  In this day and age when the worst attempts at rigging the ballot box this time around were in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennslyvania, just putting the Southern States under the microscope doesn;t really make sense any more anyway


The one in PA was so bad that a GOP congresscritter basically admitted it was a concerted effort to suppress the vote of certain demographics.  It got struck down before the election, though.  How about a new law, or even an amendment to make it painfully simple:  One citizen of age, one vote.  Polling places must be scaled across the board to the size of the electorate.  24 hour voting cycle.  Could even require ID so long as the state would provide one free of charge, though even that adds an inconvenience and gets a bit sketchy.

This is 2013, we have robots on Mars, there is NO reason we can't have an across the board, absolutely fair and impartial system that assures EVERYONE who is eligible the right to easily vote, and instant counts by computer.
2013-06-25 11:16:51 AM
1 votes:
To the echo chamber's credit, I haven't yet seen anyone here say that this is worse than Dred Scott.
2013-06-25 11:15:43 AM
1 votes:
Now it is up to Congress to pass a law that can pass Constitutional muster.

This really is how it is supposed to work.
2013-06-25 11:15:35 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.

On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?


In this case, it is more like congress passing a law to prevent flooding and only making it applicable to coastal states.  The problem is, just as much (if not more) flooding is occurring inland due to rivers overflowing.  There is no longer a connection between who you are applying the law to (coastal states) and trying to solve the problem (flooding).

The VRA used a formula to determine whether or not pre-clearance was required.  It basically relied on whether or not you had a certain level of voter registration among minorities.  The problem is that this metric no longer correlates with whether or not minorities are being discriminated against.  There were more successful challenges to voting rules brought in areas which were exempted by the formula than in areas covered by it.  The formula is no longer a valid indication of where the worst discrimination is occurring, just like being in a state next to the ocean is not necessarily the best indication of where flooding will occur.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 11:13:58 AM
1 votes:

toby8915: happy with the result:
[www.mainjustice.com image 366x344]


every time someone uses this situation to prove a point god kills a puppy.

Seriously... that's the only OMG LIBBURUUL voting suppression argument you have.  There are a half dozen in examples of Republican voting suppression shenanigans in Florida alone... and that's only since 2000.
2013-06-25 11:13:10 AM
1 votes:

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


No it won't.  This will enable even greater racial gerrymandering.
2013-06-25 11:12:56 AM
1 votes:
FINALLY the SCOTUS is opening the doors to privatize our elections process by removing all the pesky "fairness" that was in the way.
2013-06-25 11:12:04 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, the NSA scandal is no big deal, but this is. Okay.
2013-06-25 11:11:05 AM
1 votes:
Yay for states rights. Now outlaw the goddamn black vote.
2013-06-25 11:10:11 AM
1 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: but to single out the South doesn't make a huge amount of sense and was begging to be declared unconstitutional.


your aware of the south's..shall we say troubles?

//and by troubles I mean the Souths historical attempts to only allow white protestant Christians to vote.  The latest iteration is the voter ID laws. Heck there is a provision in the the Arkansas Constitution that says an atheist cannot hold any public office and cannot be considered a competent witness in any Court in the state.
2013-06-25 11:10:00 AM
1 votes:

runin800m: DamnYankees: What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y?

You think that's a great path to head down, saying that congress can pass laws that only apply in certain states or certain congressional districts? You don't think that might possibly be a terrible precedent to set that could be readily abused in the future? What other laws can they write that only apply to particular places? Where is the line drawn here? Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others? IANAL, but it seems like a dangerous road to go down to me.


They already can do that. Some laws only have to pass rational basis review. Some laws have to pass heightened or strict scrutiny. Laws that have to pass those increased bars either do not equally protect a suspect or quasi-suspect class, or they impinge upon a right. Is a collection of states a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Is discrimination a right? I think the answer is no in both cases.
2013-06-25 11:08:19 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.

Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.


Is that what happened in Pennsylvania?

No. The unconstitutional law was struck down before the vote. Without the precondition clause.
2013-06-25 11:07:46 AM
1 votes:

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

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

As is your right.

No one has the right to deny that to you under any circumstances.  YOU are the government, enshrined in the first sentence of our constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.


Sure, you have a constitutional right to vote.  Once.  If you're a citizen.  Show that you're a citizen and that you live where you want to vote, and, no problem.  We'll even give you the ID for free.  Somehow this is seen as infringing on them.
2013-06-25 11:05:52 AM
1 votes:
From another thread:

This is why the idea of a living constitution is terrible

SCOTUS just subverted democracy

"Times have changed" is a shiatty way to rule.
2013-06-25 11:03:44 AM
1 votes:

thetubameister: u do not have a constitutional right to pseudoephedrine.


I get a feeling some red states will legalize methamphetamine before they legalize pot.
2013-06-25 11:00:49 AM
1 votes:
Gosh, this will make it tough for the Democrat candidate for President to get 100% of the vote in some precincts in 2016.
2013-06-25 11:00:11 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 10:59:13 AM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Well, it's not like people are still trying to make it difficult for some segments of the population to vote, amirite?


Oh, I'd say three-fifths of the population at most will face some difficulty voting as a result.
2013-06-25 10:56:26 AM
1 votes:

runin800m: I think it's unconstitutional because it was so selective. I wouldn't have a problem if it covered every state.


On what basis? What's the basis to rule that Congress can't make certain laws more applicable to area X than area Y? It is unconstitutional to pass a law relating to coastal flooding that only applies to coastal states?
2013-06-25 10:54:57 AM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: More to the point it's not fair that to use data from the 1960's when making the decision whether or not a State needs more oversight.


Who says? You? Congress has the power to do this, and they decided that historical patterns of Jim Crow and segregation were still relevant.
2013-06-25 10:54:10 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Or sue states for violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens in effect if not by direct action


You can still do this. The whole point of pre-clearence though is that this takes a lot of time. It can take years to litigate a case. Meanwhile, elections are ongoing and people are disenfranchised.
2013-06-25 10:53:33 AM
1 votes:

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.


More to the point it's not fair that to use data from the 1960's when making the decision whether or not a State needs more oversight. The part of the law that the Court says in Unconstitutional is the part that says which States get Federal oversight, if Congress updates that section the rest of the law is unchanged.
2013-06-25 10:50:14 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Sure, you can make an ID card required.  You just have to make sure it's free and readily available.
2013-06-25 10:47:29 AM
1 votes:
Vote for Kang or Chodos either way your screwed.
2013-06-25 10:46:14 AM
1 votes:

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.


Especially since our northern red states have been playing games with who can vote over the last few cycles.
2013-06-25 10:45:08 AM
1 votes:
I sometimes doubt the courts commitment to Sparkle Motion.
2013-06-25 10:41:38 AM
1 votes:
It's up to these State to now show it is not needed.

Let them try.
2013-06-25 10:40:49 AM
1 votes:

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!


Tomorrow.
2013-06-25 10:40:37 AM
1 votes:
This one? Jesus mods, we have a great discussion going in a whole other one which is wasted now.
2013-06-25 10:40:02 AM
1 votes:
I don't think he is running.
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report