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 32
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-26 01:55:05 PM
7 votes:

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 02:27:15 PM
5 votes:

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 However, "We think the law is outdated and should be replaced" is a policy determination, not a legal argument.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 02:31:04 PM
4 votes:

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 01:45:27 PM
4 votes:
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 01:40:09 PM
4 votes:

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 01:38:27 PM
4 votes:

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 12:42:38 PM
4 votes:
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 02:38:01 PM
3 votes:

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 12:08:06 PM
3 votes:

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 12:02:00 PM
3 votes:
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 05:23:23 PM
2 votes:

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 02:52:41 PM
2 votes:

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 02:21:43 PM
2 votes:
"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 02:06:09 PM
2 votes:
Seriously, fark the South. They might as well form the new Nazi party and get it over with.
2013-07-26 02:04:17 PM
2 votes:

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 11:52:27 AM
2 votes:
"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 03:35:57 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:10 PM
1 votes:
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 02:55:48 PM
1 votes:
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 02:54:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:38:24 PM
1 votes:

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 02:37:31 PM
1 votes:
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 02:29:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:40 PM
1 votes:
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 02:17:35 PM
1 votes:
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 02:15:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:15 PM
1 votes:

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 01:58:11 PM
1 votes:
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 01:49:29 PM
1 votes:
Ginsberg voted against citizens united too. Seems to know a thing or two about stunningly obvious negative consequences.
2013-07-26 01:38:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:57 PM
1 votes:

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 11:56:36 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report