Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Salon)   The Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act may thrill Republicans now, but it may present them with a very thorny problem in 2014   (salon.com) divider line 310
    More: Interesting, Voting Rights Act, Mitch McConnell, Boehner, supreme courts, U.S. Supreme Court, Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, suffrages  
•       •       •

8308 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 6:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 04:32:18 PM  
interesting thought. i'm sure they'll block the hell out of it. they're republicans; it's what they do.
 
2013-06-25 04:48:23 PM  
Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.
 
2013-06-25 04:53:17 PM  
See, I'm not terribly worried because the GOP can never exhibit moderation, especially on something like this, so they'll go well beyond full retard and scare even more people away.
 
2013-06-25 05:00:36 PM  
Boehner and Cantor have both declined to comment.

Speaker2Animals: The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.


It's not just that it was passed, it's that it was actively passed in its current form. In 2006 an amendment was proposed which would have modified Article IV to put in a different formula, and Congress voted against it. In other words, Congress did exactly what Roberts accused them of not doing, but that's apparently not enough. The more I read here, the more infuriating it is. You can't help but feel like the majority wrote the opinion in bad faith.
 
2013-06-25 05:08:44 PM  
This going to bite them badly in another way, previously the Federal government would shoot down the bad voting laws instead of it being the evil Fed it will now be the court system. The NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC will be taking these states AGs to court and the AGs will have to defend the laws in court. Making these fights much much more public and killing GOP minority outreach
 
2013-06-25 05:09:02 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.


The formula used to determine the regions needing clearance was written in the 60's
 
2013-06-25 05:11:35 PM  

DamnYankees: You can't help but feel like the majority wrote the opinion in bad faith with Koch in hand.


FTFY
 
2013-06-25 05:13:14 PM  

ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.

The formula used to determine the regions needing clearance was written in the 60's


They passed the bill in 2006. The Congress at that point determined there was no reason to change it. Are you really trying to be on the same side of this as McConnell?
 
2013-06-25 05:14:09 PM  

ArkAngel: The formula used to determine the regions needing clearance was written in the 60's


And was explicitely and consciously re-authorized in 2006. Congress voted to reject an amendment which would have changed it. It's not like they forgot about the formula. They actively deliberated on whether they thought they should change it, and decided not to. These 5 justices just felt like they knew better.
 
2013-06-25 05:20:08 PM  

Speaker2Animals: ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.

The formula used to determine the regions needing clearance was written in the 60's

They passed the bill in 2006. The Congress at that point determined there was no reason to change it. Are you really trying to be on the same side of this as McConnell?


Congress also hasn't dropped DOMA or mohair subsidies intended to ensure adequate supplies for WWI military uniforms. Times change and laws should reflect that
 
2013-06-25 05:21:04 PM  
If you don't support the voting rights act, then there is very little question that you are in fact a filthy racist.
 
2013-06-25 05:23:59 PM  

ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.

The formula used to determine the regions needing clearance was written in the 60's

They passed the bill in 2006. The Congress at that point determined there was no reason to change it. Are you really trying to be on the same side of this as McConnell?

Congress also hasn't dropped DOMA or mohair subsidies intended to ensure adequate supplies for WWI military uniforms. Times change and laws should reflect that


Did DOMA come up for re-authorization? Must have missed that.
 
2013-06-25 05:25:55 PM  

ArkAngel: Times change and laws should reflect that


Is this a new rule of constitutional law? Any law passed more than X years ago becomes automatically unconstitutional?
 
2013-06-25 05:27:12 PM  

ArkAngel: Congress also hasn't dropped DOMA or mohair subsidies intended to ensure adequate supplies for WWI military uniforms. Times change and laws should reflect that


That's entirely irrelevant to McConnell stating he had no idea what was in the bill, yet voted on it anyway.
 
2013-06-25 05:57:03 PM  
Thank god for the conservative wing of the SCOTUS.  Wouldn't want the libby lib activist judges overturning the will of Congress or anything.
 
2013-06-25 06:01:22 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Thank god for the conservative wing of the SCOTUS.  Wouldn't want the libby lib activist judges overturning the will of Congress or anything.


jesus, no shiat, right? this is about the most activist decision ever handed down.
 
2013-06-25 06:16:16 PM  

ArkAngel: Times change and laws should reflect that


From a public policy perspective, it may be true that laws should reflect the times.  But that's a political issue, squarely in Congress's court, not the Court's.
 
2013-06-25 06:34:32 PM  

FlashHarry: jesus, no shiat, right? this is about the most activist decision ever handed down.


THIS x100.

This decision is jaw-dropping in it's activism.
 
2013-06-25 06:36:14 PM  

FlashHarry: Three Crooked Squirrels: Thank god for the conservative wing of the SCOTUS.  Wouldn't want the libby lib activist judges overturning the will of Congress or anything.

jesus, no shiat, right? this is about the most activist decision ever handed down.


It's not 'activism' when it's conservatives doing it, it's 'taking back our country' or possibly 'defending freedoms'.
 
2013-06-25 06:36:18 PM  
These people shouldn't be voting, they should be wearing cute hats and bowties and serving us at our parties.
 
2013-06-25 06:37:01 PM  
This is what scares me about the prop 8 and DOMA rulings tomorrow.  The court will just pawn the responsibility off on those whose inability to act is no different than upholding the two laws.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:41 PM  
I don't understand. Can I still vote?
 
2013-06-25 06:40:17 PM  
I must say, there's something interesting afoot in the SCOTUS.

Britney Spear's Speculum: This is what scares me about the prop 8 and DOMA rulings tomorrow.


In the can. I normally don't make declarative statements about things i have absolutely no control over, but I think they will do the right thing.
 
2013-06-25 06:40:53 PM  

Cletus C.: I don't understand. Can I still vote?


No, there's a literacy test now.
 
2013-06-25 06:41:22 PM  

thamike: Cletus C.: I don't understand. Can I still vote?

No, there's a literacy test now.


Doh!
 
2013-06-25 06:42:34 PM  
If the provisions of it applied to the whole country instead of states the govt decided was racist 50 years ago it would be completely constitutional, but it is unconstitutional (even if its well meaning) as written
 
2013-06-25 06:43:47 PM  

thamike: In the can. I normally don't make declarative statements about things i have absolutely no control over, but I think they will do the right thing.


What do you think they're gonna do?
 
2013-06-25 06:44:00 PM  
I can't imagine that anyone can make a straight faced, honest defense of using 40+ year old data to determine the maps.  Clearly, demographics and times have changed over the last 40 years; heck, they've changed over the last 5 years.  There are areas that are not covered today that probably should be and areas that are covered, but haven't had problems in a long time.

Its seems obvious that, for the VRA, to really and truly work well, it needs to be based on constantly refreshed data and analysis.  Minorities tend to move around and the law should follow them as they do.  As they relocate to previously uncovered areas and, if problems come up, the regularly refreshed data should uncover the problem and activate the pre-clearance provisions.  As the problem fades away, the data should show it and the area should be removed from the pre-clearance.  This is how it should have been written in the 60's.

I read this that the SCOTUS called congress on it and pointed out the obvious need to keep that data fresh and relevant.  Since it would be unbelievably wrong for SCOTUS to simply usurp congress, assume they won't fix it, and do the fixes themselves, they did the correct thing in sending it back to congress to fix.  They have to be given that chance.  If they fail in that, then it would be reasonable to return to the court for a court ordered fix.  But, they have to at least be given the chance to fix it.  That's democracy, that's the separation of powers, that's how the country was founded.
 
2013-06-25 06:44:29 PM  

Cletus C.: thamike: Cletus C.: I don't understand. Can I still vote?

No, there's a literacy test now.

Doh!


farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-06-25 06:45:00 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle:  "I haven't read it yet. Obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different America than we have today," McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon at his weekly Capitol briefing. "My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act. There may be others who want to comment on it. At this point I think I'm going to read it first. But I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s."

The 1960s? It was reauthorized by Congress in 2006, you senile f*ck. You voted for it.


Well, to be fair, it  is very different now. Voting rights are threatened everywhere, not just the South and other racist enclaves.
 
2013-06-25 06:45:00 PM  
FTFA: "In 2006, Democrats and Republicans came together to reauthorize the law, garnering overwhelming bipartisan support in a Republican-led Congress - passing the House by a vote 390-33 and the Senate by a vote of 98-0, then signed into law by President George W. Bush," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

So with a Republican president and congressional majority, the Democrats didn't simply sh#t the bed and give the finger to the American people in order to score cheap political points?

Huh. Interesting approach.
 
2013-06-25 06:45:02 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: thamike: In the can. I normally don't make declarative statements about things i have absolutely no control over, but I think they will do the right thing.

What do you think they're gonna do?


The right thing, FFS!  Didn't you read his post?
 
2013-06-25 06:46:34 PM  

doyner: The right thing, FFS! Didn't you read his post?


Well when you put it that way....
 
2013-06-25 06:46:37 PM  
I believe this is going to historically be the most overturned SCOTUS ever. They have handed down so many bad rulings that are common sense levels of wrong.

Lifetime appointments have got to go. This whole process is now just a place that you stick political plants to stroke your own parties egos. The SCOTUS as it is stands is, for lack of a better word, dumb.
 
2013-06-25 06:47:51 PM  
I am honestly unsure what will make me happier about tomorrow's rulings

1) DOMA going down in flames and Judge Walker's opinion making equal marriage the law in California

2) Watching the press try to deal with what are likley to be dense companion cases on third party standing

Given #2 I expect to see at least some media outlets declaring gay marriage the winner in Perry, and others declaring that gay marriage lost, because it will be easier than explaining the vagueries of determining "injury in fact" for Article III standing in an appellate context.
 
2013-06-25 06:48:08 PM  
I could see Congress coming back with a new formula which would expand coverage to most States and municipalities.  Have there been class based election shenanigans in your city or State in the last 10 years?  If so, welcome to the federal oversight list.  PA, OH, WI, CO, TX, FL, etc, I'm looking at you.
 
2013-06-25 06:48:38 PM  

remus: I can't imagine that anyone can make a straight faced, honest defense of using 40+ year old data to determine the maps.  Clearly, demographics and times have changed over the last 40 years; heck, they've changed over the last 5 years.  There are areas that are not covered today that probably should be and areas that are covered, but haven't had problems in a long time.


Of course you understand that there is a mechanism under the VRA for states to show remove themselves from such listings by showing 10 years of good faith, right?

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#bailout

It's hard to decide whether the ruling itself or your weak defense of same is slimier.  I vote equally slimy.
 
2013-06-25 06:51:42 PM  

Cletus C.: thamike: Cletus C.: I don't understand. Can I still vote?

No, there's a literacy test now.

Doh!


And, Boy, Ah'm not sure this here ID you gave me is valid.  Why don't ya run on down to the DMV tomorrow, get it verified, and come right back.  We'll still be here waitin for ya.  Oh, and there's a monetary fee you'll need to pay but you need to pay it today - cash only - no checks or credit cards.
 
2013-06-25 06:51:54 PM  
The formula in §4(b) was not reasonable and not tailored, it was under inclusive and over inclusive.  That is what the Supremes said today.  And they are 100% correct.  Just because Congress re-upped the legislation, including the formula, 7 years ago doesn't give it the presumption of constitutionality.  It is also insignificant in the analysis that Congress contemplated changing the formula in 2006 but didn't.
 
2013-06-25 06:52:29 PM  

FlashHarry: interesting thought. i'm sure they'll block the hell out of it. they're republicans; it's what they do.


yep.  These assholes know that minorities tend to vote Democrat.. They'll block it.
 
2013-06-25 06:52:42 PM  

zedster: This going to bite them badly in another way, previously the Federal government would shoot down the bad voting laws instead of it being the evil Fed it will now be the court system. The NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC will be taking these states AGs to court and the AGs will have to defend the laws in court. Making these fights much much more public and killing GOP minority outreach


Not to mention costing those states and their subdivisions a shiat-ton of money they already don't have to defend voting restrictions they know are wrong and unconstitutional.  Timing will be everything - have the new restrictions go into effect the fourth Friday of October of election year.  Nobody has standing until after the election because nobody's been harmed.  State court, state supreme court, fed district court, fed appeals court - two years minimum, so two federal cycles at the HoRs level before SCOTUS will even talk about granting Cert.

"A Republic, Madam.  If you can keep it."
 
2013-06-25 06:53:06 PM  
This ruling might have been the best thing for minority voting and the democratic party for the next 20 years.
The republicans have been throwing turd after turd against the wall in their efforts to reduce the black vote, the women's vote, the young peoples vote the hispanic vote, the LGBT vote, and the vote for any group that can't fill in all four blanks - "white", "male", "straight", and "christian".

They are in for a rude awakening come 2014 and especially 2016. The study of human nature shows us that telling someone they are forbidden or restricted from doing something is the surest way to make sure they do it.
 
2013-06-25 06:53:41 PM  

thiefofdreams: I believe this is going to historically be the most overturned SCOTUS ever. They have handed down so many bad rulings that are common sense levels of wrong.

Lifetime appointments have got to go. This whole process is now just a place that you stick political plants to stroke your own parties egos. The SCOTUS as it is stands is, for lack of a better word, dumb.


The direction of the country is  determined by the decisions of someone who hasn't been in power for almost 25 years.  That's insane.  We're still being terrorized by Reagan.
 
2013-06-25 06:54:27 PM  

Winston Smith '84: Cletus C.: thamike: Cletus C.: I don't understand. Can I still vote?

No, there's a literacy test now.

Doh!

And, Boy, Ah'm not sure this here ID you gave me is valid.  Why don't ya run on down to the DMV tomorrow, get it verified, and come right back.  We'll still be here waitin for ya.  Oh, and there's a monetary fee you'll need to pay but you need to pay it today - cash only - no checks or credit cards.


Ha. You can't fool me that easily. I'll be right there at the front of the line the second Tuesday in November ready to vote for whichever candidates my union boss/minister/boss/life coach/fark sponsor tells me to vote for!
 
2013-06-25 06:54:29 PM  

remus: I read this that the SCOTUS called congress on it and pointed out the obvious need to keep that data fresh and relevant. Since it would be unbelievably wrong for SCOTUS to simply usurp congress, assume they won't fix it, and do the fixes themselves, they did the correct thing in sending it back to congress to fix. They have to be given that chance.


Also- when the fark did that become the USSC's job?

The decision itself seems extraconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of powers. Fark the majority five and anyone that defends this garbage decision.
 
2013-06-25 06:54:37 PM  
FTA:  The Court's conservative majority didn't rule that so-called "preclearance" standards are unconstitutional - just that the ones Congress had adopted, most recently in 2006, no longer fly.

If that isn't the work of activist judges, then I don't know what is. Or is this idiot court suggesting that laws just expire after five to eight years.
 
2013-06-25 06:55:41 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: "In 2006, Democrats and Republicansinos came together to reauthorize the law, garnering overwhelming bipartisan support in a Republicanino-led Congress - passing the House by a vote 390-33 and the Senate by a vote of 98-0, then signed into law by President George W. Bush," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.


As fixed by your Senate and House Teatards, who have no intention whatsoever of knuckling under to the blahs.
 
2013-06-25 06:56:22 PM  

sprgrss: The formula in §4(b) was not reasonable and not tailored, it was under inclusive and over inclusive.  That is what the Supremes said today.  And they are 100% correct.  Just because Congress re-upped the legislation, including the formula, 7 years ago doesn't give it the presumption of constitutionality.  It is also insignificant in the analysis that Congress contemplated changing the formula in 2006 but didn't.


They had no business even taking up this matter.  There's no farking constitutional question here.  They usurped the power of the legislative and executive branches in this horrible ruling.
 
2013-06-25 06:57:58 PM  

ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: ArkAngel: Speaker2Animals: Yertel the Turtle: ........


. Times change and laws should reflect that


How does that square with Scalia's "original intent"? Either the provisions were constitutional at the time the constitution was amended to allow them or they were not. Under the premise that they were constitutional then but no longer are goes against this position.
 
2013-06-25 06:59:38 PM  

remus: I can't imagine that anyone can make a straight faced, honest defense of using 40+ year old data to determine the maps.


Did you notice that within hours of the decision, a number of states that are on the pre-clearance list said "Oh sweet, now we can pass these maps that were found to be discriminatory."  These farks are still racist today.
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report