Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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
    More: Obvious, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Voting Rights Act, Ginsberg, supreme courts, state legislative, voter ID, Urban League, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

2536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2013 at 1:26 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 16 of 116 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report