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.

(Esquire)   "Dear Supreme Court: Your Voting Rights Act decision was a pathetic piece of garbage with absolutely horrible legal reasoning, not to mention a complete betrayal of the principles you claim to believe in. Sincerely, Justice John Paul Stevens"   (esquire.com) divider line 75
    More: Amusing, Justice Stevens, Voting Rights Act, supreme courts, slave states, bait and switches, judicial restraint, evidentiary hearing, imposition  
•       •       •

3880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-19 11:20:16 AM
One of the best.
 
2013-07-19 11:21:39 AM
What does he know, anyway?
 
2013-07-19 11:39:26 AM
Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong
 
2013-07-19 11:40:06 AM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Neither of those things are unethical. Omerta is not a code of ethics.
 
2013-07-19 12:01:43 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Which means the situation is truly dire indeed, and the decision utterly reprehensible.
 
2013-07-19 12:05:31 PM
doesn't he know that we're in a post-racial america and that there's no racism anymore!!!!
 
2013-07-19 12:09:37 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Do you understand what ethics are?
 
2013-07-19 12:17:21 PM

kxs401: ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong

Do you understand what ethics are?


Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels. It's a rule of ethics that past justices and presidents have followed for decades.
 
2013-07-19 12:18:12 PM

ArkAngel: Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels.


So no, you don't understand what ethics are.
 
2013-07-19 12:20:24 PM

DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels.

So no, you don't understand what ethics are.


Ethics are the code of conduct and rules that govern a particular group.
 
2013-07-19 12:23:15 PM

ArkAngel: Ethics are the code of conduct and rules that govern a particular group.


No they aren't. For example, I'm a member of American Bar Association. In order to maintain my bar membership, I need to attend a certain number of classes for continuing legal education. This is a rule governing this particular group. It has nothing to do with ethics.
 
2013-07-19 12:37:08 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


you say that but Stevens isn't wrong
 
2013-07-19 12:44:29 PM

ArkAngel: DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels.

So no, you don't understand what ethics are.

Ethics are the code of conduct and rules that govern a particular group.


This is not an "ethics" issue.  At worst, it might be rude, or disrespectful, or even unprofessional, but I don't think it's even any of those.  The case was decided, so his opinions cannot affect the outcome.  He is no longer on the bench, and he is free to speak his mind on any issues.
 
2013-07-19 01:13:49 PM

ArkAngel: kxs401: ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong

Do you understand what ethics are?

Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels. It's a rule of ethics that past justices and presidents have followed for decades.


So we're just making up the meaning of words now. Cool.
 
2013-07-19 01:20:34 PM

ArkAngel: DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Publicly criticizing your successors and saying what you would have done in a situation when you are no longer in that situation is not ethical at high governmental levels.

So no, you don't understand what ethics are.

Ethics are the code of conduct and rules that govern a particular group.


Ethics is moral philosophy (or the philosophy of morals), and involves the determination of what decisions, actions and intentions are morally right and wrong.  While many organizations and professions have ethical codes (e.g. all law bars have such codes), not all codes that govern organizations and professions are codes of ethics.

For example, rules and codes of conduct pertaining to professionalism in the courtroom are not about ethics in any sense; rules and codes of conduct pertaining to how they represent their clients, on the other hand, might be.

Nothing here involves ethics.
 
2013-07-19 01:39:37 PM
you morons have no idea what you've done/or are doing
 
2013-07-19 01:42:02 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Holy shiat. Are you being sarcastic here?
 
2013-07-19 01:42:40 PM
Sucks that the substance of this great piece has been threadjacked by a stupid comment about decorum.
 
2013-07-19 01:44:50 PM

DamnYankees: Sucks that the substance of this great piece has been threadjacked by a stupid comment about decorum.


POINT OF ORDER, SIR.

That is not proper parliamentary procedure.
 
2013-07-19 01:48:12 PM

ArkAngel: No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


And lots of ex-Presidents have done exactly that. The aversion to it is actually a fairly recent development.
 
2013-07-19 01:57:25 PM

DamnYankees: Sucks that the substance of this great piece has been threadjacked by a stupid comment about decorum.


criticism from former poster in thread - unethical sir
 
2013-07-19 02:46:41 PM
Okay, fine, ArkAngel won, board up this thread and lets try again later.
 
2013-07-19 02:58:53 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Ethics? I got your ethics right here.

www.rawstory.com
 
2013-07-19 02:59:23 PM

FlashHarry: doesn't he know that we're in a post-racial america and that there's no racism anymore!!!!


John Paul Stevens is the real racist here.
 
2013-07-19 03:05:17 PM
Certain members of that court were installed specifically for decisions like these. Precedent and principles simply don't apply for these gold nuggets of conservatism.
 
2013-07-19 03:06:52 PM

ArkAngel: Ethics are the code of conduct and rules that govern a particular group.


Isn't that a bit of an 'Appeal to Tradition' fallacy?

Why exactly is it that an ex-member shouldn't offer his opinion?
 
2013-07-19 03:08:14 PM

kxs401: What does he know, anyway?


Not much.  He was on the wrong side of most of the decisions he took part in.
 
2013-07-19 03:15:22 PM
There is a remarkably simple way of fixing this issue. Apportion the number of representatives per state not by population but by number of registered voters.
 
2013-07-19 03:17:56 PM
What do you expect? What do you think the corporatists are doing with their gigantic new intelligence machine? They own everybody now.
 
2013-07-19 03:19:17 PM

Befuddled: Why exactly is it that an ex-member shouldn't offer his opinion?


I was about to ask this, too.  Stevens offering his opinion is not unethical at all.
 
2013-07-19 03:20:34 PM

Apik0r0s: What do you expect? What do you think the corporatists capitalists are doing with their gigantic new intelligence machine? They own everybody now.


Let's not mince words.
 
2013-07-19 03:50:37 PM

ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong


Did you read what Carter just said?  Probably not, it was published in the German language version of Spiegel and only picked up buy a few American news agencies.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_d em ocracy_partner/

I don't even like Carter so if I'm agreeing with him, shiat must be bad.
 
2013-07-19 03:56:10 PM

DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Regardless of the decision or who is on what side, the ethics of a former justice commenting on a current case is questionable. No different than an ex-President saying the current President is doing something wrong

Neither of those things are unethical. Omerta is not a code of ethics.


This so much.  you're basically saying "Hey Justice Stevens, I don't like the point you're making so I'm going to say it's unethical for you to comment at all in the first place."
 
2013-07-19 04:21:10 PM
What's hilarious is that the Justice complained about a decision that he signed on to.
 
2013-07-19 04:22:21 PM
By the way, did subby actually miss this part?

The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the Civil War - or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states - is not justified by the conditions that prevail today.
 
2013-07-19 04:39:06 PM

MyRandomName: By the way, did subby actually miss this part?

The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the Civil War - or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states - is not justified by the conditions that prevail today.


he's referring to Robert's opinion on that. That's not his opinion. He said that the SCOTUS injected itself into something the congress should have taken care of.
the SCOTUS deemed itself the protector of the GOP in congress from the fallout of them voting against the act.
this is judicial activism in it's purest form
 
2013-07-19 04:39:51 PM
All the parts of the VRA that banned former atrocities like poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. are still intact. All that got taken away was preclearance, which when you get down to it, was the codification of an assumption that those affected regions would automatically do the wrong thing and had to be stopped before they got the chance. The new paradigm will still ban voting rights abuses, but won't assume, as formerly, that every change is automatically suspect.

This doesn't sound to me like it contains the seeds of disaster the way opponents are making it out to be. There'll be a good way to find out: As time goes on, if the metrics of minority participation and empowerment  (registrations, turnout, etc.) get worse in what were the old precleared areas, as compared to others, then there can be discussion of reimposing the VRA's preclearances. Till then, all this hullabaloo is based on supposition and bias, not fact.
 
2013-07-19 04:41:59 PM

jjorsett: All the parts of the VRA that banned former atrocities like poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. are still intact. All that got taken away was preclearance, which when you get down to it, was the codification of an assumption that those affected regions would automatically do the wrong thing and had to be stopped before they got the chance. The new paradigm will still ban voting rights abuses, but won't assume, as formerly, that every change is automatically suspect.

This doesn't sound to me like it contains the seeds of disaster the way opponents are making it out to be. There'll be a good way to find out: As time goes on, if the metrics of minority participation and empowerment  (registrations, turnout, etc.) get worse in what were the old precleared areas, as compared to others, then there can be discussion of reimposing the VRA's preclearances. Till then, all this hullabaloo is based on supposition and bias, not fact.


all states should have to get pre-clearance  for changes that could affect federal elections. this includes gerrymandering and voting law changes.
 
2013-07-19 04:45:46 PM
Thread successfully derailed. The point goes toArkAngel.
 
2013-07-19 05:01:03 PM
Might as well restart the thread.

It's a good read, if not too easy.
 
2013-07-19 05:05:05 PM
And the Texas thread vanished.
 
2013-07-19 05:10:51 PM

Alphax: And the Texas thread vanished.


Yep.  FARK loves to boost it's page clicks with trolls, but gets real sensitive when someone exposes and mocks that system.
 
2013-07-19 05:16:41 PM

Hobodeluxe: MyRandomName: By the way, did subby actually miss this part?

The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the Civil War - or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states - is not justified by the conditions that prevail today.

he's referring to Robert's opinion on that. That's not his opinion. He said that the SCOTUS injected itself into something the congress should have taken care of.
the SCOTUS deemed itself the protector of the GOP in congress from the fallout of them voting against the act.
this is judicial activism in it's purest form


Holy crap are you misguided.  Do you ever read a decision in an apolitical manner?  The majority opinion stated exactly what Stevens said.  That an objective arbiter could not agree that the formula used by Congress was valid any longer.

No where in the decision is it "the GOP is hurt by this, therefore rule this".  That is your political spin.  Why can the left never actually argue the logic, they always argue which party gets the benefit.

Facts were many of the areas on the pre-clearance had the highest minority voting rights.  Massachusetts has the worst, yet was not included.  Explain that, please.

Congress had already been warned that they were on thin ice not updating the pre-clearance formula.  The USSC had said so in a previous ruling.  If you look at the original passage of the VRA it was intentionally sunset so that Congress would relook at the provision as voting patterns changed.  You are actually arguing that Congress being lazy is a good thing.
 
2013-07-19 05:21:50 PM

Hobodeluxe: jjorsett: All the parts of the VRA that banned former atrocities like poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. are still intact. All that got taken away was preclearance, which when you get down to it, was the codification of an assumption that those affected regions would automatically do the wrong thing and had to be stopped before they got the chance. The new paradigm will still ban voting rights abuses, but won't assume, as formerly, that every change is automatically suspect.

This doesn't sound to me like it contains the seeds of disaster the way opponents are making it out to be. There'll be a good way to find out: As time goes on, if the metrics of minority participation and empowerment  (registrations, turnout, etc.) get worse in what were the old precleared areas, as compared to others, then there can be discussion of reimposing the VRA's preclearances. Till then, all this hullabaloo is based on supposition and bias, not fact.

all states should have to get pre-clearance  for changes that could affect federal elections. this includes gerrymandering and voting law changes.


Then amend the constitution so as not to violate Article 1, section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;
 
2013-07-19 05:26:51 PM

MyRandomName: The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the Civil War - or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states - is not justified by the conditions that prevail today.


I'm not sure how its possible for a court to make this claim. This is basic judicial restraint; in what other case in US history has the court decided that a law passed by Congress was so irrational, that they struck it down purely for that basis? Note, this is different from regular rational basis review, which is the claim that a law is not rational enough to violate someone of equal protection. Equal protection was not at issue in Shelby?

I don't see how any court is empowered to say "Congress thought this was rational, but we disagree, and we are rational people while Congress is not, so we're overturning this law". I mean, that's not judging. That's just legislating.
 
2013-07-19 05:32:48 PM

MyRandomName: That an objective arbiter could not agree that the formula used by Congress was valid any longer.


We're all aware they said this. We all just think its insane, arrogant and not something judge's have the authority to determine. It's a gross violation of conservative's proclaimed judicial philosophy. The fact that it violates their states philosophy is what causes many people, including me, to doubt the sincerity of this claim.
 
2013-07-19 05:37:56 PM

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the Civil War - or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states - is not justified by the conditions that prevail today.

I'm not sure how its possible for a court to make this claim. This is basic judicial restraint; in what other case in US history has the court decided that a law passed by Congress was so irrational, that they struck it down purely for that basis? Note, this is different from regular rational basis review, which is the claim that a law is not rational enough to violate someone of equal protection. Equal protection was not at issue in Shelby?

I don't see how any court is empowered to say "Congress thought this was rational, but we disagree, and we are rational people while Congress is not, so we're overturning this law". I mean, that's not judging. That's just legislating.


Bingo. It's a reasonable point for a legislator to make, but it is ridiculously out of bounds for the Court. Whether the formula is appropriate or not is a legislative determination, and the legislature recently deemed it to be appropriate. If John Roberts wants to make calls like that, he should run for the Senate. Good luck unseating Mikulski or Cardin, but get your ass off the Court.
 
2013-07-19 05:43:26 PM

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: jjorsett: All the parts of the VRA that banned former atrocities like poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. are still intact. All that got taken away was preclearance, which when you get down to it, was the codification of an assumption that those affected regions would automatically do the wrong thing and had to be stopped before they got the chance. The new paradigm will still ban voting rights abuses, but won't assume, as formerly, that every change is automatically suspect.

This doesn't sound to me like it contains the seeds of disaster the way opponents are making it out to be. There'll be a good way to find out: As time goes on, if the metrics of minority participation and empowerment  (registrations, turnout, etc.) get worse in what were the old precleared areas, as compared to others, then there can be discussion of reimposing the VRA's preclearances. Till then, all this hullabaloo is based on supposition and bias, not fact.

all states should have to get pre-clearance  for changes that could affect federal elections. this includes gerrymandering and voting law changes.

Then amend the constitution so as not to violate Article 1, section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;



You may want to look at the amendments to the constitution (especially the 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th) some of which alter the states rights in voting.
 
2013-07-19 06:29:37 PM
I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' character. I'm talkin' about--hell, Leo, I ain't embarassed to use the word--I'm talkin' about ethics. . . You know I'm a sporting man. I like to make the occasional bet. But I ain't that sporting. When I fix a fight, say--if I pay a three-to-one favorite to throw a goddamn fight--I figure I got a right to expect that fight to go off at three-to-one. But every time I lay a bet with this sonofabiatch Bernie Bernbaum, before I know it the odds is even up--or worse, I'm betting the short money. . . The sheeny knows I like sure things. He's selling the information I fixed the fight. Out-of-town money comes pourin' in. The odds go straight to hell. I don't know who he's sellin' it to, maybe the Los Angeles combine, I don't know. The point is, Bernie ain't satisfied with the honest dollar he can make off the vig. He ain't satisfied with the business I do on his book. He's sellin' tips on how I bet, and that means part of the payoff that should be ridin' on my hip is ridin' on someone else's. So back we go to these questions--friendship, character, ethics. It's a wrong situation. It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good return you gotta go bettin' on chance, and then you're back with anarchy. Right back inna jungle. On account of the breakdown of ethics. That's why ethics is important. It's the grease makes us get along, what separates us from the animals, beasts a burden, beasts a prey. Ethics. Whereas Bernie Bernbaum is a horse of a different color ethics- wise. As in, he ain't got any.
 
2013-07-19 07:18:31 PM

MyRandomName: Holy crap are you misguided. Do you ever read a decision in an apolitical manner? The majority opinion stated exactly what Stevens said. That an objective arbiter could not agree that the formula used by Congress was valid any longer.


It was not in any way the job of the USSC to determine whether this formula was outdated, especially given that congress had revisited the law and the formula many times.  The decision to interject was in and of itself a political move by the court.

No where in the decision is it "the GOP is hurt by this, therefore rule this". That is your political spin. Why can the left never actually argue the logic, they always argue which party gets the benefit.

I always get a chuckle out of this self-image conservatives have of themselves as creatures of cold logic.  It's so very, very absurd.  The only thing I can assume leads to this is the probability that folks on the right assume that because they don't care about their fellow Americans they're somehow emulating Mr. Spock or something.

Lack of empathy is closer to sociopathy that it is to objective logic

Facts were many of the areas on the pre-clearance had the highest minority voting rights. Massachusetts has the worst, yet was not included. Explain that, please.

Massachusetts didn't try and use statute over and over again to disenfranchise minorities. That's not so hard.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report