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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2013-07-26 02:32:12 PM

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.


And that's why it should have been tossed out.  The court messed up however and should have said everyone is under pre-clearance until Congress updates the rule
 
2013-07-26 02:32:57 PM

qorkfiend: 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.


Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.
 
2013-07-26 02:36:18 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


True.  Although I am somewhat disappointed that social welfare groups, progressive organizations, etc. are not attacking this from both angles.  Fighting attempts to disenfranchise voters is all well and good, but you can't put all your eggs in one basket.

They should all be making a MASSIVE push to get whomever these laws are aimed against to do what's needed to meet the newer, more stringent requirements (I noticed most of the laws are requiring some form of photo ID, etc).  Don't just wait until the election season.

Make it a once a month thing.  Maybe every Sunday have a table set up outside of church to handle registrations.  Or at the local park, or what have you.  I know resources and staff are already stretched thin as it is, but something is better than nothing.  If they win the lawsuit against the new laws, great.  If not, at least there's SOME percentage of the disenfranchised that are still able to cast their vote.  Just an idea.
 
2013-07-26 02:37:31 PM
No need for "I told you so", the conservatives on the court were counting on voting rights being restricted. It's the only way they can keep their majorities.
 
2013-07-26 02:38:01 PM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.


Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.
 
2013-07-26 02:38:24 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


Me too.
 
2013-07-26 02:40:13 PM

Rann Xerox: 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.


Remember the right wing pants wetting over Maddow calling him a troll? Scalia has bent over backwards to prove her right in the last 4 months.
 
2013-07-26 02:45:21 PM

qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.

Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.


Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. And it was being protected by the VRA on an arbitrary historical basis.

Sounds the same to me.

// I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering.
// Too late on that for another 8 years or so.
 
2013-07-26 02:50:45 PM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.

Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.

Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. And it was being protected by the VRA on an arbitrary historical basis.

Sounds the same to me.

// I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering.
// Too late on that for another 8 years or so.


It only sounds the same if you're being deliberately obtuse.

The protections in the VRA were neither arbitrary nor historical, as the preclearance list was frequently updated with new data.

Or are you claiming that somehow the VRA was itself an infringement upon the right to vote?
 
2013-07-26 02:52:41 PM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.

Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.

Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. And it was being protected by the VRA on an arbitrary historical basis.

Sounds the same to me.

// I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering.
// Too late on that for another 8 years or so.


No.  The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision).  If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.
 
2013-07-26 02:53:31 PM

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


Jesus, meth is a hell of a drug.
 
2013-07-26 02:54:11 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


I'm hoping it will backfire like it did in 2012.  They might be winning support from their ignorant base but they are going to turn away a lot of independents.  Anyone outside the Fox/hate radio bubble knows this is bullshiat.
 
2013-07-26 02:55:48 PM
It's very apparent that a major part of the GOP's strategy is simply keeping as many non-Republicans from voting as possible, but I wonder if it might blow up in their faces. This could end up creating very mobilized, motivated, and effective registration drives in these states. That happened in some places in 2012.
 
2013-07-26 02:56:59 PM

BMFPitt: // I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering


Didnt that get struck down a few years ago?
 
2013-07-26 02:57:56 PM

someonelse: It's very apparent that a major part of the GOP's strategy is simply keeping as many non-Republicans from voting as possible, but I wonder if it might blow up in their faces. This could end up creating very mobilized, motivated, and effective registration drives in these states. That happened in some places in 2012.


Yeah...and while the GOP's margin in the House got shaved a bit, they seem to have consolidated their gains in the state legislatures.
 
2013-07-26 03:01:32 PM
I think it's cute that she thinks the conservatives on the Court didn't know EXACTLY what was coming.
 
2013-07-26 03:14:10 PM
I'm shocked, shocked!  Shocked that red states would do exactly what they said they would not do.

It's all abut the hypocrisy in the south.  Do people from the south actually think that anyone would ever believe a word that they would ever say?
 
2013-07-26 03:15:06 PM

47 is the new 42: and the one I can't remember.


You're thinking of (Sc)alito, Scalia's boy wonder sidekick.

"I stopped paying rent because I hadn't been evicted."
~~Chief Justice John Roberts, United States Supreme Court.
 
2013-07-26 03:23:44 PM
qorkfiend: The protections in the VRA were neither arbitrary nor historical, as the preclearance list was frequently updated with new data.

Collecting data, sure. But the list has barely changed over the decades.

Or are you claiming that somehow the VRA was itself an infringement upon the right to vote?

No, other than the gerrymandering part.

47 is the new 42: No. The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision). If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.

Well maybe that's because the Constitutionality of the VRA as a whole was not under review. No one was suggesting that Congress didn't have that power, and some of the justices you mention explicitly said that's what Congress should do.

Saiga410: Didnt that get struck down a few years ago?

It has struck down specific redistricting plans, but the section is still in effect.
 
2013-07-26 03:25:26 PM

BMFPitt: and southern states.


There's a reason Alabamastan didn't have a Republican governor for over a century.

It's the same reason the winner of the Democratic primary (or party caucus) in my city is going to win in November.  Not all of those folks switched parties in the 80s and 90s.
 
2013-07-26 03:30:11 PM

hurdboy: BMFPitt: and southern states.

There's a reason Alabamastan didn't have a Republican governor for over a century.

It's the same reason the winner of the Democratic primary (or party caucus) in my city is going to win in November.  Not all of those folks switched parties in the 80s and 90s.


I'm from Pittsburgh. We don't bother much with the pretense that the Democratic primary isn't the de facto general election.
 
2013-07-26 03:32:32 PM

Rann Xerox: 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.


If I don't outlast him. somebody please take one for me.
 
2013-07-26 03:35:57 PM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.

Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.

Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. And it was being protected by the VRA on an arbitrary historical basis.

Sounds the same to me.

// I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering.
// Too late on that for another 8 years or so.


I'm sorry, you're still being obtuse.  What evidence did Prop 8 supporters have that they had any basis for their claims? Oh, right, none. No evidence at all. They're not even close to similar when you compare their factual backgrounds.   Which is why one is a good decision and the other is dogshiat awful.
 
2013-07-26 03:48:33 PM
whatsthepont.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-26 03:52:04 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's like saying the murder rate is down thanks to harsh murder penalties, so we don't need laws against murder any more.
 
2013-07-26 03:57:16 PM

BMFPitt: I'm from Pittsburgh.


That's something you might think twice about proclaiming publicly in polite company.  That's even more true considering Rolling Rock, steak cooked Pittsburgh-style, Roelithsberger Girl.

(Mocking at my western PA in-laws' expense....thankfully, Mrs. H doesn't resemble Benny's belle.)

BMFPitt: We don't bother much with the pretense that the Democratic primary isn't the de facto general election.


I live in Norfolk, VA.  The old money here all belongs to old Byrd Organization Democrats.  Local elections are supposed to be non-partisan, here.  But when you get to the polls, there's often only one candidate on the ballot come election day.  That that candidate received the Dems' backing isn't a coincidence.  Neither is the fact that he/she is white.

//Racial mutt, political independent, but not Fark IndependentTM
 
2013-07-26 03:59:40 PM

Mike Chewbacca: 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.


Well, now, there's your problem. You should've hit the little instead.
 
2013-07-26 04:06:48 PM

AirForceVet: No problem, Jackson Herring. Sue the hell out of Texas, IMHO, and let God sort them out.


When you have a Texas AG who brags about how many times he's been in court against the US on the taxpaper dime, you have to think he's just trolling for new sound bites for his Aspiring Governor campaign.

trollistan.com
 
2013-07-26 04:10:20 PM

ShadowKamui: The court messed up however and should have said everyone is under pre-clearance until Congress updates the rule


Court can't do that; that would be an obvious "legislating from the bench".  Congress has to re-write the law.
 
2013-07-26 04:14:07 PM

Magorn: 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?


By keeping poor people from voting who had to work all day. Real Voters take the day off, or a long lunch, or have the nanny watch the kids.
 
2013-07-26 04:18:52 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.


from wiki:

Bail out

The term "bail out" refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions

may seek exemption from the coverage formula under Section 4(a).[40] In

order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory

judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.[6]

Eighteen Virginia jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 Preclearance

requirements have successfully "bailed out."[40]

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to

demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before

coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment

included two significant changes.[40] First, Congress provided that

where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that

state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned

the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a

covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the

10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has

taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities
.[40][41]

On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of

Virginia-[42] On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire sued to "bail out"

from the requirements, which were originally imposed on ten towns that

used a literacy test and had voting disparities when the Act was

passed,[43] and prevailed on March 1, 2013.[44]

In (2009),[45] the Supreme Court ruled that political subdivisions that

do not register voters have the ability to bail out.[46]


Bail in

Section 3(c) of the VRA contains a "bail in" or "pocket trigger" process

by which jurisdictions outside the coverage formula of Section 4(b) that

violate other provisions of the Voting Rights Act may become subject to

preclearance under a federal court order. Unlike Section 5 preclearance,

the period of coverage is based on a ruling or consent decree issued by

a federal court, and the scope of coverage may be limited to particular

types of voting changes.[47][48] Although the Supreme Court held the

coverage formula under Section 4(b) unconstitutional in , it did not

hold Section 3(c) unconstitutional; thus, bailed-in jurisdictions remain

subject to Section 3(c) preclearance.[13][49]

Bailed-in jurisdictions

Section 3(c) was first applied in 1975, and since then, the following

jurisdictions have been bailed in:[48]


States

Arkansas

New Mexico (coverage since terminated)

Counties

California: Los Angeles

Florida: Escambia

Nebraska: Thurston

New Mexico: Bernalillo

South Dakota: Buffalo

South Dakota: Charles Mix

Municipalities

Tennessee: Chattanooga


/State/cities have either bailed out or bailed in based on actions more recent than 50 years ago.
 
2013-07-26 04:23:55 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.


Yep. Any legal challenges to the southern states' sudden implementation of voting laws which the VRA would have prevented will be (rightfully) found unconstitutional by the appropriate Circuit Court (or by a lower court, where the decision will be appealed to the Circuit Court, who will then frown upon the GOP's shenanigans), then appealed to the US Supreme Court which will rule 5-4 that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to file the lawsuit when they did and thus the entire case and all ruling associated therewith don't count and are null and void.

And it'll be the same 5-4 split that castrated the VRA, and the ruling will happen after the election where the plaintiffs could have voted if the VRA was still intact, and the 5 Justices will rule in favor of this gross injustice without the slightest hint of irony.

/the only silver lining is that by that point, the plaintiffs WILL have standing to file suit
//but they will not get reimbursed for the money they spend on legal fees from the first go-around
///and they'll have to go through the entire process a second time, from original filing through several appeals and then finally to the USSC
////in other words, it'll be at least ten or fifteen years before this whole thing finally gets completely and properly un-farked
 
2013-07-26 04:24:06 PM

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


Well, you got that hang of the "shiat-and-run" technique down pretty quickly, I'll give you that.

Hasn't the novelty worn off, yet?
 
2013-07-26 04:24:24 PM

hurdboy: BMFPitt: and southern states.

There's a reason Alabamastan didn't have a Republican governor for over a century.

It's the same reason the winner of the Democratic primary (or party caucus) in my city is going to win in November.  Not all of those folks switched parties in the 80s and 90s.


It took a long time for Southerners to switch from unanimous support of Democrats to unanimous support of Republicans; it started at the presidential level (Alabama wouldn't even let LBJ's name appear on the ballot in '64, giving Goldwater 100% of the vote), and hasn't completely trickled down yet.  There was a time when Republicans didn't even enter candidates in many House and Senate races in the South.  More recently, Republicans in the South have managed to get elected unopposed.  It will probably trickle down to city politics eventually.
 
2013-07-26 04:25:06 PM
www.hotlikesauce.com
 
2013-07-26 04:52:26 PM

Deucednuisance: Well, you got that hang of the "shiat-and-run" technique down pretty quickly, I'll give you that.



I'm still here.
 
2013-07-26 05:00:48 PM

qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: 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.

Your argument is basically identical to the Prop 8 supporters.

Except for that pesky fact that Prop 8 is a clear violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA is not.

Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. And it was being protected by the VRA on an arbitrary historical basis.

Sounds the same to me.

// I just wish someone had challenged the part where minorities are required to be disenfranchised via gerrymandering.
// Too late on that for another 8 years or so.

It only sounds the same if you're being deliberately obtuse.

The protections in the VRA were neither arbitrary nor historical, as the preclearance list was frequently updated with new data.

Or are you claiming that somehow the VRA was itself an infringement upon the right to vote?


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
-- Article 2  Section 1

Your state does not have to let you vote for president.
 
2013-07-26 05:07:06 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Deucednuisance: Well, you got that hang of the "shiat-and-run" technique down pretty quickly, I'll give you that.


I'm still here.


In that case, a) getting a welfare check is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, 2) you don't have to show ID every time you get a welfare check, and c) I'm assuming you're well aware of both those things. Up your game.
 
2013-07-26 05:08:12 PM

unamused: Your state does not have to let you vote for president.


That's true. And every state can pass a law that says they'll always assign every electoral vote to a particular party, regardless of how people vote.
 
2013-07-26 05:08:39 PM
47 is the new 42:

--Snip--

No. The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision). If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.


Umm....no.  Unless Texas says only blacks have to present ID the 15th is irrelevant.
 
2013-07-26 05:19:58 PM

Mike Chewbacca: unamused: Your state does not have to let you vote for president.

That's true. And every state can pass a law that says they'll always assign every electoral vote to a particular party, regardless of how people vote.


Bingo.  This is why Gore never had a chance in Florida.  Florida allows the legislature to select the electors in a contested election.  Speaker Feeney had the votes to send Republican electors.  Jug Ears was going to be President no matter how many times the liberals counted the ballots.
 
2013-07-26 05:23:23 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Deucednuisance: Well, you got that hang of the "shiat-and-run" technique down pretty quickly, I'll give you that.


I'm still here.


I thought you were traveling. . .
 creepy ass-cracka     
        2013-07-19 08:47:45 PM

skozlaw: Neighborhood Watch: I'm not a 'troll'...
Ha. Ha. You're trolling Fark on a Friday night with a custom account. Nobody loves you, not even your mom.
Fine, believe what you want, but I'm definitely not a troll.

 http://www.fark.com/comments/7850857/Well-that-didnt-take-long-Fox- New s-host-calls-Obama-Race-Baiter-In-Chief?viewmode=1&togglehtml=1&is_usi ng_js=1&unignore=1&startid=85481281&tt=

/At least you remembered to use the same log-in name this time...
 
2013-07-26 05:41:26 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Deucednuisance: Well, you got that hang of the "shiat-and-run" technique down pretty quickly, I'll give you that.


I'm still here.



You know, if you're bored, you could always bring back the meow said the dog login, which was usually amusing and sometimes even loveable. What's the matter, too much work? I know the Teabagger shtick has got to be a lot easier, but it's just annoying.
 
2013-07-26 06:14:33 PM
someonelse:  getting a welfare check is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, 2) you don't have to show ID every time you get a welfare check


You have to prove who you are (and that you qualify for it) in order to receive welfare.  Doesn't that 'restrictive' requirement put an unfair burden on the poor, minorities and the elderly - i.e. the ones that suffer so terribly by having to show I.D. to vote?

Oh, btw, firearm ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right and... guess what?  That's right, you have to prove who you are in order to pass the background check.   Doesn't that 'restrictive' requirement put an unfair burden on the poor, minorities and the elderly - i.e. the ones that are most likely to need protection in high-crime neighborhoods?
 
2013-07-26 06:30:06 PM

hurdboy: That's something you might think twice about proclaiming publicly in polite company.  That's even more true considering Rolling Rock, steak cooked Pittsburgh-style, Roelithsberger Girl.


I have never heard of that except from a bunch of non-Pittsburghers asking me about it.  Medium rare FTW.

HighOnCraic: from wiki:
Bail out
...
The post-1984 bailout standard requires that acovered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it hastaken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.[40][41]
...


As I've stated earlier, hardly anyone has bailed out or in during that time.  Even though blatant voter suppression has gone on in non VRA states.  The formula was broken.

King Something: Yep. Any legal challenges to the southern states' sudden implementation of voting laws which the VRA would have prevented will be (rightfully) found unconstitutional by the appropriate Circuit Court (or by a lower court, where the decision will be appealed to the Circuit Court, who will then frown upon the GOP's shenanigans), then appealed to the US Supreme Court which will rule 5-4 that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to file the lawsuit when they did and thus the entire case and all ruling associated therewith don't count and are null and void.

And it'll be the same 5-4 split that castrated the VRA, and the ruling will happen after the election where the plaintiffs could have voted if the VRA was still intact, and the 5 Justices will rule in favor of this gross injustice without the slightest hint of irony.


Then why hasn't that happened already?  There were a bunch of court cases in non VRA states where laws were struck down prior to being used in an election.

unamused: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
-- Article 2  Section 1

Your state does not have to let you vote for president.


There are other elections besides Presidential.
 
2013-07-26 06:51:18 PM

BMFPitt: hurdboy: That's something you might think twice about proclaiming publicly in polite company.  That's even more true considering Rolling Rock, steak cooked Pittsburgh-style, Roelithsberger Girl.

I have never heard of that except from a bunch of non-Pittsburghers asking me about it.  Medium rare FTW.

HighOnCraic: from wiki:
Bail out
...
The post-1984 bailout standard requires that acovered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it hastaken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.[40][41]
...

As I've stated earlier, hardly anyone has bailed out or in during that time.  Even though blatant voter suppression has gone on in non VRA states.  The formula was broken.


So, the list of places that have bailed in and bailed out appeared on your screen as white text, and therefore you couldn't see them?

And in regards to the areas that haven't bailed out, is that proof that the system is broken, or proof that they haven't been able to go the necessary ten years without showing bad faith?
 
2013-07-26 08:18:02 PM
Its like every time we take a step forward in this country we have to take a step back because progress gets in the way of asshats who want to manipulate the system to hold on to power/the status quo.
 
2013-07-26 08:57:56 PM

EwoksSuck: Its like every time we take a step forward in this country we have to take a step back because progress gets in the way of asshats who want to manipulate the system to hold on to power/the status quo.


It's the nature of this country that the Great Moderate Middle always pulls the country back to the center eventually.  Usually this is a good thing, but it makes progress a slog sometimes.
 
2013-07-26 09:11:29 PM

BMFPitt: The formula was broken.


That is a policy decision, not a legal argument.
 
2013-07-26 10:09:02 PM

Mentat: 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.


Did you think that when he concurred in Hollingsworth?
 
2013-07-26 10:13:25 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: No need for "I told you so", the conservatives on the court were counting on voting rights being restricted. It's the only way they can keep their majorities.


Except that voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts actually increased minority voting. Even poor people will try to fight back a little.

Neighborhood Watch: someonelse:  getting a welfare check is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, 2) you don't have to show ID every time you get a welfare check


You have to prove who you are (and that you qualify for it) in order to receive welfare.  Doesn't that 'restrictive' requirement put an unfair burden on the poor, minorities and the elderly - i.e. the ones that suffer so terribly by having to show I.D. to vote?

Oh, btw, firearm ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right and... guess what?  That's right, you have to prove who you are in order to pass the background check.   Doesn't that 'restrictive' requirement put an unfair burden on the poor, minorities and the elderly - i.e. the ones that are most likely to need protection in high-crime neighborhoods?


Exactly. High-crime neighborhoods where everyone has guns with lots of shootings will be safer if more people have guns. Even an idiot can see it's the only solution.
 
2013-07-26 10:15:30 PM

HighOnCraic: So, the list of places that have bailed in and bailed out appeared on your screen as white text, and therefore you couldn't see them?


Not sure if serious.

And in regards to the areas that haven't bailed out, is that proof that the system is broken, or proof that they haven't been able to go the necessary ten years without showing bad faith?

Mostly not worth the effort to try to get off the list.   Plenty more in bad faith.  Plenty more who are not bailed in acted in just as bad of faith.

Why are you OK with allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression?

qorkfiend: That is a policy decision, not a legal argument.


It fails the rational basis test.
 
2013-07-26 11:08:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mentat: 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.

Did you think that when he concurred in Hollingsworth?


Yes.  I believe he has an agenda that involves removing regulatory barriers to big business and disenfranchising voters.  The fact that he occasionally makes rulings that I agree with doesn't change that.  In fact, I suspect based on his pattern of rulings that he's willing to allow a few progressive victories such as ObamaCare (which really isn't a progressive victory anyway) in order to preserve a pretense of an impartial court.  So long as he's able to get the important rulings, the rest don't matter.  I think that's dangerous and we're going to be dealing with the consequences for a long time.
 
2013-07-26 11:38:10 PM

unamused: 47 is the new 42:

--Snip--

No. The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision). If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.

Umm....no.  Unless Texas says only blacks have to present ID the 15th is irrelevant.


www.slate.com

No mention of black people anywhere on this test.
 
2013-07-27 03:15:24 AM

Mentat: Gyrfalcon: Mentat: 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.

Did you think that when he concurred in Hollingsworth?

Yes.  I believe he has an agenda that involves removing regulatory barriers to big business and disenfranchising voters.  The fact that he occasionally makes rulings that I agree with doesn't change that.  In fact, I suspect based on his pattern of rulings that he's willing to allow a few progressive victories such as ObamaCare (which really isn't a progressive victory anyway) in order to preserve a pretense of an impartial court.  So long as he's able to get the important rulings, the rest don't matter.  I think that's dangerous and we're going to be dealing with the consequences for a long time.


OK. :)
 
2013-07-27 04:39:54 AM

schrodinger: unamused: 47 is the new 42:

--Snip--

No. The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision). If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.

Umm....no.  Unless Texas says only blacks have to present ID the 15th is irrelevant.

[www.slate.com image 850x1232]

No mention of black people anywhere on this test.


Whites were exempted from the literacy test if they could meet alternate requirements (the grandfather clause) that, in practice, excluded blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

In order for the 15th to apply you would have to prove that whites were not required to present ID.
 
2013-07-27 06:31:00 AM

Alphax: 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.


Opera Mini on a blackberry works great. Score one for the blackberry.
 
2013-07-27 02:23:54 PM

BMFPitt: HighOnCraic: So, the list of places that have bailed in and bailed out appeared on your screen as white text, and therefore you couldn't see them?

Not sure if serious.

And in regards to the areas that haven't bailed out, is that proof that the system is broken, or proof that they haven't been able to go the necessary ten years without showing bad faith?

Mostly not worth the effort to try to get off the list.   Plenty more in bad faith.  Plenty more who are not bailed in acted in just as bad of faith.

Why are you OK with allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression?


You said something along the lines of "No one gets bailed out," even though I provided a list of places that were bailed out.  As far as effort goes, all they have to do is not pass any discriminatory voting laws.  How much effort does that take?

I'm not okay with allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression.  I am okay with the fact that a federal court blocked their attempt at voter suppression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/pennsylvania-judge-delays-imple me ntation-of-voter-id-law.html?_r=0
 
2013-07-27 03:42:25 PM

HighOnCraic: You said something along the lines of "No one gets bailed out," even though I provided a list of places that were bailed out.


"Hardly anyone" is not "along the lines" of no one.  Your list contained very few places.

As far as effort goes, all they have to do is not pass any discriminatory voting laws.  How much effort does that take?

They have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove they didn't.  Which is why most communities don't bother trying.  But more importantly, the bail-in process is clearly lacking.  And I have yet to hear any of the lemmings in here explain why they're fine with that.

I'm not okay with allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression.  I am okay with the fact that a federal court blocked their attempt at voter suppression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/pennsylvania-judge-delays-imple me ntation-of-voter-id-law.html?_r=0


You mean exactly like I stated about 20 posts ago?  And was subsequently told by a bunch of people that was unpossible because without the preclearence that didn't apply to PA no court challenge could happen until after the election.  Even after pointing it out again?
 
2013-07-27 04:02:54 PM

BMFPitt: HighOnCraic: You said something along the lines of "No one gets bailed out," even though I provided a list of places that were bailed out.

"Hardly anyone" is not "along the lines" of no one.  Your list contained very few places.


If you've got a list of places that need to be added, I'm all for adding them.

As far as effort goes, all they have to do is not pass any discriminatory voting laws.  How much effort does that take?

They have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove they didn't.  Which is why most communities don't bother trying.  But more importantly, the bail-in process is clearly lacking.  And I have yet to hear any of the lemmings in here explain why they're fine with that.


How much effort does it take to simply not pass any discriminatory voting laws? Heck, just don't pass any new voting laws for ten years, problem solved.  I have no problem with making the bail-in process stronger.  Maybe the fact that you refer to your fellow farkers as lemmings is the reason they're not responding to your unique charms.

I'm not okay with allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression.  I am okay with the fact that a federal court blocked their attempt at voter suppression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/pennsylvania-judge-delays-imple me ntation-of-voter-id-law.html?_r=0

You mean exactly like I stated about 20 posts ago?  And was subsequently told by a bunch of people that was unpossible because without the preclearence that didn't apply to PA no court challenge could happen until after the election.  Even after pointing it out again?


I haven't followed your discussion with others, but why did you ask me if I was okay allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression?
 
2013-07-27 05:24:46 PM
l1.yimg.com
Damn, she's 80? Glad she has good genes, hope she makes it to 120.
 
2013-07-27 05:44:57 PM

unamused: schrodinger: unamused: 47 is the new 42:

--Snip--

No. The VRA despite what five justices ruled was well within Congress's power under the 15th Amendment (barely mentioned in the decision). If I were in Congress, I'd probably introduce a new Voting Rights Act with the text of the 15th Amendment in every single section as a big FU to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the one I can't remember.

Umm....no.  Unless Texas says only blacks have to present ID the 15th is irrelevant.

[www.slate.com image 850x1232]

No mention of black people anywhere on this test.

Whites were exempted from the literacy test if they could meet alternate requirements (the grandfather clause) that, in practice, excluded blacks.


Note how you moved the goal post there.
 
2013-07-27 06:06:50 PM

youncasqua: 47 is the new 42: and the one I can't remember.

You're thinking of (Sc)alito, Scalia's boy wonder sidekick.

"I stopped paying rent because I hadn't been evicted."
~~Chief Justice John Roberts, United States Supreme Court.


Ah thank you.  I have no idea why I had that brain fart.
 
2013-07-27 11:00:33 PM

HighOnCraic: If you've got a list of places that need to be added, I'm all for adding them.


All or nothing.  Everyone plays by the same rules.

How much effort does it take to simply not pass any discriminatory voting laws? Heck, just don't pass any new voting laws for ten years, problem solved.

The effort isn't in not discriminating, it's in a lengthy process of proving you didn't.  And it's not just laws.  If you decide to open a new polling place in a neighborhood that didn't even exist 10 years ago, that needs to be approved.

Maybe the fact that you refer to your fellow farkers as lemmings is the reason they're not responding to your unique charms.

Not my fault they're lemmings.

I haven't followed your discussion with others, but why did you ask me if I was okay allowing Pennsylvania to try to enact voter suppression?

You are here defending the arbitrary two-tiered system that allowed it to not be subject to VRA review.
 
2013-07-27 11:03:22 PM

schrodinger: Note how you moved the goal post there.


I certainly didn't.  Are you saying that it's OK to have flagrant discrimination as long as you come up with a convoluted mechanism for doing so?
 
2013-07-28 01:16:02 AM

BMFPitt: schrodinger: Note how you moved the goal post there.

I certainly didn't.  Are you saying that it's OK to have flagrant discrimination as long as you come up with a convoluted mechanism for doing so?


That's the argument that unamused is making in regards to voter ID laws, not me.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report