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.

(Yahoo)   Justice Ginsburg gives an "I told you so" interview on all the new restrictive voting measures being pushed through state legislatures after the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Voting Rights Act, Ginsberg, supreme courts, state legislative, voter ID, Urban League, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

2534 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2013 at 1:26 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 11:52:27 AM
"The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn't make any sense to me," Ginsburg said in a wide-ranging interview late Wednesday in her office at the court. "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."

Really? No one? Not a single farker could have predicted any of this?

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas' decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

HOURS. It took them HOURS.
 
2013-07-26 11:56:36 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-26 12:02:00 PM
Thank you John Roberts, for being a colossal asshat.
I'd argue for impeachment, but we all know that will never happen.
 
2013-07-26 12:02:07 PM
No problem, Jackson Herring. Sue the hell out of Texas, IMHO, and let God sort them out.
 
2013-07-26 12:08:06 PM

Nadie_AZ: Really? No one? Not a single farker could have predicted any of this?


Uh, Ginsberg was saying the exact opposite

 "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."

Basically says "This outcome was obvious, idiots"
 
2013-07-26 12:10:13 PM

the_sidewinder: Nadie_AZ: Really? No one? Not a single farker could have predicted any of this?

Uh, Ginsberg was saying the exact opposite

 "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."

Basically says "This outcome was obvious, idiots"


Holy crap. I read that backwards ... thank you for catching that.
 
2013-07-26 12:16:18 PM

Nadie_AZ: Holy crap. I read that backwards ... thank you for catching that.


Happens to all of us
 
2013-07-26 12:16:43 PM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 227x279]


Yowza. I'd research her briefs. If you know what I mean and I yadda yadda yadda
 
2013-07-26 12:42:38 PM
John Roberts has no business being a SCOTUS justice.  Ideological differences are one thing, but when you deliberately try to hamstring democracy, you should be disqualified from serving in any capacity.
 
2013-07-26 01:28:04 PM
They were doing it before that, too. In both the northern and southern states.
 
2013-07-26 01:28:28 PM
If you have to prove who you are to get a welfare check, is that 'restrictive' too?
 
2013-07-26 01:29:07 PM
weird, apparently I forgot to put you on ignore yesterday
 
2013-07-26 01:29:51 PM
As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".
 
2013-07-26 01:32:27 PM

Jackson Herring: weird, apparently I forgot to put you on ignore yesterday


I don't ignore, but he's got an appropriate shade of embarassed pink now so I don't respond without thinking first.
 
2013-07-26 01:36:26 PM

meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".


It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.
 
2013-07-26 01:37:57 PM

Peki: Jackson Herring: weird, apparently I forgot to put you on ignore yesterday

I don't ignore, but he's got an appropriate shade of embarassed pink now so I don't respond without thinking first.


I prefer dark gray for the trolliest of trolls.

You have to highlight the text to read it.
 
2013-07-26 01:38:27 PM

BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.


All they had to do was behave for 10 years in a row.

As in, they've had 50 years to stop behaving like bigots, and couldn't farking do it.
 
2013-07-26 01:38:37 PM

Jackson Herring: weird, apparently I forgot to put you on ignore yesterday


Yeah, I somehow managed to not ignore him on day 1, too, even though I distinctly remember hitting the little images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org .
 
2013-07-26 01:40:09 PM

BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.


Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.
 
2013-07-26 01:42:03 PM

Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.


The VRA protected people without IDs and vote early?
 
2013-07-26 01:42:56 PM

BMFPitt: Peki: Jackson Herring: weird, apparently I forgot to put you on ignore yesterday

I don't ignore, but he's got an appropriate shade of embarassed pink now so I don't respond without thinking first.

I prefer dark gray for the trolliest of trolls.

You have to highlight the text to read it.


Fark is not that iPad friendly. And honestly, I wouldn't bother on a PC either. Red is instinctively ingrained as stop. I'm too curious for that gray to work (and also why I don't ignore. I'd just unignore to find what they said anyway).
 
2013-07-26 01:44:31 PM

Saiga410: Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.

The VRA protected people without IDs and vote early?


Yes.
 
2013-07-26 01:45:27 PM
Wow.  The comments on yahoo read like World Net Daily or Daily Caller.
Such rage against a non-existent problem.

Do they really believe illegals stole the election from them?

Every single study done in every single state shows illegal voting is such a tiny, tiny, tiny percent of overall votes, it can barely be measured.

The laws being proposed are so blatantly designed to prevent many groups, who typically vote democrat, from voting, and the laws are only being proposed in Republican dominated states.

Can't win fairly, already gerrymandered everything possible, suppress the vote must be the next logical step.
 
2013-07-26 01:46:37 PM

Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.


Just like they already had multiple times.

And they are still going to have to defend the measures in court.
 
2013-07-26 01:47:09 PM

Peki: Fark is not that iPad friendly.


I REEEEAAAAAAALLLY isn't. It's such a pain in the ass to post anything from my iPad, I just usually end up going to my PC to do anything more than just "THIS".
 
2013-07-26 01:47:40 PM

Mentat: Ideological differences are one thing, but when you deliberately try to hamstring democracy, you should be disqualified from serving in any capacity.


Oh stop your bloviating. The preclearance requirement was arbitrary and did nothing to stop other states (such as my own) from enacting voter ID laws.
 
2013-07-26 01:49:29 PM
Ginsberg voted against citizens united too. Seems to know a thing or two about stunningly obvious negative consequences.
 
2013-07-26 01:50:00 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.


Welcome to the club; my state did that over a year ago, as permitted by the VRA's stupid arbitrary preclearance rules.
 
2013-07-26 01:55:05 PM

GoldSpider: Mentat: Ideological differences are one thing, but when you deliberately try to hamstring democracy, you should be disqualified from serving in any capacity.

Oh stop your bloviating. The preclearance requirement was arbitrary and did nothing to stop other states (such as my own) from enacting voter ID laws.


GoldSpider: Mike Chewbacca: Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.

Welcome to the club; my state did that over a year ago, as permitted by the VRA's stupid arbitrary preclearance rules.


Sounds like the obvious solution is to make sure EVERY state is under the microscope on this issue.
 
2013-07-26 01:58:11 PM
The GOP learned in '08 that they need to make voting more difficult.  They learned in '12 that they won't be seriously opposed when they start throwing up roadblocks to the polling station.

2016 will be ... interesting.
 
2013-07-26 01:59:12 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Peki: Fark is not that iPad friendly.

I REEEEAAAAAAALLLY isn't. It's such a pain in the ass to post anything from my iPad, I just usually end up going to my PC to do anything more than just "THIS".


Even worse on my phone.  I hate having to quote a full post with 10 levels of nested conversation because that's all the mobile site will let me do.  At least my Nexus 10 can display the desktop site reasonably well.
 
2013-07-26 01:59:41 PM

Jackson Herring:


Damn she was hot.
 
2013-07-26 02:02:24 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Peki: Fark is not that iPad friendly.

I REEEEAAAAAAALLLY isn't. It's such a pain in the ass to post anything from my iPad, I just usually end up going to my PC to do anything more than just "THIS".


It's not that bad on my iPhone. I just miss not having an unread comments counter.
 
2013-07-26 02:04:17 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: They learned in '12 that they won't be seriously opposed when they start throwing up roadblocks to the polling station.


No, I think they learned that unless they gerrymander the shiat out of their states, the Democrats and feds will push back hard against disenfranchisement shenanigans. Don't you remember all the injunctions during the last election? The outrage from everyone who isn't a die-hard, far-right conservative when they tried to reduce voting hours in Democratic districts? I would say they failed.
 
2013-07-26 02:06:09 PM
Seriously, fark the South. They might as well form the new Nazi party and get it over with.
 
2013-07-26 02:06:49 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Sounds like the obvious solution is to make sure EVERY state is under the microscope on this issue.


I'm fine with that.
 
2013-07-26 02:14:15 PM

BMFPitt: Mike Chewbacca: Peki: Fark is not that iPad friendly.

I REEEEAAAAAAALLLY isn't. It's such a pain in the ass to post anything from my iPad, I just usually end up going to my PC to do anything more than just "THIS".

Even worse on my phone.  I hate having to quote a full post with 10 levels of nested conversation because that's all the mobile site will let me do.  At least my Nexus 10 can display the desktop site reasonably well.


Not being able to selectively quote is one of my problems. Also:

-if I touch off the text screen, I can't do anything but backspace until I click another text field, then come back to the posting screen, but I'm lucky if it doesn't just hold the text where it is, because. . .
-there is no scrolling the posting text field. So sometimes you just have to guess that you're typing correctly

Fix those three, and Fark would be so much better for me
 
2013-07-26 02:15:38 PM

BMFPitt: Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.

Just like they already had multiple times.

And they are still going to have to defend the measures in court.


Indeed they are, but since you can't show harm until after the election is over, it's almost entirely useless.
 
2013-07-26 02:16:25 PM
And the reason there isn't a period on that last sentence is precisely due to the problem I just described. I clicked off, the text reset to the top of the quote, and I couldn't scroll to get the cursor in the right spot.
 
2013-07-26 02:17:35 PM
Just a month removed from the decision, she said, "I didn't want to be right, but sadly I am."

Might as well have said "it was farking OBVIOUS this would happen".
 
2013-07-26 02:18:44 PM

Peki: BMFPitt: Mike Chewbacca: Peki: Fark is not that iPad friendly.

I REEEEAAAAAAALLLY isn't. It's such a pain in the ass to post anything from my iPad, I just usually end up going to my PC to do anything more than just "THIS".

Even worse on my phone.  I hate having to quote a full post with 10 levels of nested conversation because that's all the mobile site will let me do.  At least my Nexus 10 can display the desktop site reasonably well.

Not being able to selectively quote is one of my problems. Also:

-if I touch off the text screen, I can't do anything but backspace until I click another text field, then come back to the posting screen, but I'm lucky if it doesn't just hold the text where it is, because. . .
-there is no scrolling the posting text field. So sometimes you just have to guess that you're typing correctly

Fix those three, and Fark would be so much better for me


And the window is tiny, so I can't even see everything I've written. Which is why I'm farking from my office where it's hot rather than my couch in my living where it's 10 degrees cooler.

/morning sun hits office window heating up the room
 
2013-07-26 02:20:36 PM

qorkfiend: BMFPitt: Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.

Just like they already had multiple times.

And they are still going to have to defend the measures in court.

Indeed they are, but since you can't show harm until after the election is over, it's almost entirely useless.


A half dozen or so measures were enacted and struck down in non VRA states prior to the 2012 elections.
 
2013-07-26 02:21:43 PM
"Scalia, who really takes after the court for taking over legislative turf in same-sex marriage, doesn't make a whimper in voting rights, which passed 98 to nothing in the Senate and 330 to something in the House. I didn't put that to him, but surely he's going to be asked the question, 'How do you distinguish the two?'" she said.


He doesn't give a shiat, Ruth. He knows he is being a hypocrite. He's made it perfectly clear he doesn't care.
 
2013-07-26 02:24:40 PM
Once again showing that those conservatives who are not blatantly evil are delusional.  They think that if they project their ideal world to everyone, it will manifest just as they imagined.  They are just tools for those truly evil ones.
 
2013-07-26 02:24:44 PM
"I stopped wearing condoms when I screw prostitutes because I never got any STIs."
~~Chief Justice John Roberts, United States Supreme Court.

No sh*t. That's a real quote.
 
2013-07-26 02:27:15 PM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: BMFPitt: Mike Chewbacca: BMFPitt: meat0918: As a layman, I'm still not sure of the constitutional grounds they used to stomp on the Voting Rights Act, besides, "We don't like this law".

It treated different states/cities differently based on what was going on there 50 years ago.

Except those same states turned around that same day and disenfranchised voters previously protected by the Voting Rights Act.

Just like they already had multiple times.

And they are still going to have to defend the measures in court.

Indeed they are, but since you can't show harm until after the election is over, it's almost entirely useless.

A half dozen or so measures were enacted and struck down in non VRA states prior to the 2012 elections.


Point taken. However, "We think the law is outdated and should be replaced" is a policy determination, not a legal argument. It also ignores the many provisions in the VRA about collecting new data, the ability to get off the preclearance list, and the fact that Congress explicitly renewed the law less than 10 years ago. This decision was a gross violation of separation of powers and the height of judicial activism.
 
2013-07-26 02:28:05 PM

Nadie_AZ: the_sidewinder: Nadie_AZ: Really? No one? Not a single farker could have predicted any of this?

Uh, Ginsberg was saying the exact opposite

 "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."

Basically says "This outcome was obvious, idiots"

Holy crap. I read that backwards ... thank you for catching that.


Its funny how the brain WANTS to put the word no in front of the word one.
 
2013-07-26 02:28:09 PM

Neighborhood Watch: If you have to prove who you are to get a welfare check, is that 'restrictive' too?


You're a big thinker. I'm recommending you for a position at the Institute for Advanced Study, where you'll supervise Ed Witten.
 
2013-07-26 02:29:10 PM

mediablitz: "Scalia, who really takes after the court for taking over legislative turf in same-sex marriage, doesn't make a whimper in voting rights, which passed 98 to nothing in the Senate and 330 to something in the House. I didn't put that to him, but surely he's going to be asked the question, 'How do you distinguish the two?'" she said.


He doesn't give a shiat, Ruth. He knows he is being a hypocrite. He's made it perfectly clear he doesn't care.


Scalia is a troll in black robes.  He had better hope that his grave will have a state-of-the-art drainage system, otherwise things will get rather messy around it.
 
2013-07-26 02:31:04 PM

whitman00: Wow.  The comments on yahoo read like World Net Daily or Daily Caller.
Such rage against a non-existent problem.

Do they really believe illegals stole the election from them?

Every single study done in every single state shows illegal voting is such a tiny, tiny, tiny percent of overall votes, it can barely be measured.

The laws being proposed are so blatantly designed to prevent many groups, who typically vote democrat, from voting, and the laws are only being proposed in Republican dominated states.

Can't win fairly, already gerrymandered everything possible, suppress the vote must be the next logical step.


notice that while "Voter ID " always gets top billing by our lazy media, the laws always do far more than that and much of it is completely unjustiable by and "fraud prevention" Rhetoric.  For example, NOrth Carolina's law no prohibits polling places from staying open an extra hoour, even when there are still people in line waiting to vote.  Explain how THAt prevents fraud?
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report