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.

(Huffington Post)   Congress introduces legislation to replace Voting Rights Act provision gutted by SCOTUS last year   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 90
    More: Hero, Voting Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court, suffrages, Bloody Sunday for Congress, John Conyers, Time Off to Vote Act, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, humans  
•       •       •

1920 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2014 at 2:31 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 03:08:59 PM

Karac: Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote.


Which is why the VRA was such a well written law, because it was self-regulating. Smart and effective. So of course it had to be gutted.
 
2014-01-16 03:09:25 PM

Lord_Baull: Can't foresee spin that would not backlash against them if anyone (read: republicans) were to fight this.


Would not surprise me in the least to see them try anyway.
 
2014-01-16 03:18:14 PM

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.


Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.
 
2014-01-16 03:19:33 PM

Karac: Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote. NOT THE 40 YEARS YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.


last time I caught him in a similar lie he said "well I was trying to prove a point". He thinks making stuff up that is not true id ok, if it helps to win your argument.
 
2014-01-16 03:22:29 PM

Soup4Bonnie: From the link I posted:

Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes.

It is a bill and the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be optimistic but this is Congress we're talking about and it is a bill so the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be pessimistic.


Under current write-up, could "unintentional" discrimination against minorities be used to challenge the voter ID laws?
 
2014-01-16 03:23:30 PM
Introduced is a long way from becoming law, especially with this Congress.
 
2014-01-16 03:26:18 PM
I'll eat the crumbs in my keyboard if this is even brought to a vote in the house
 
2014-01-16 03:31:05 PM
40-year-old data

lies and the lying liars who tell them

oops i mean posters and their "opinions"
 
2014-01-16 03:34:14 PM

Serious Black: It seems to fix a lot, yes. The ACLU is pretty pleased with it. I haven't found the text yet to examine the formula myself though.


Then why the hell would any Republicans vote for it?
 
2014-01-16 03:34:34 PM

Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.


Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.
 
2014-01-16 03:39:49 PM

palelizard: Under current write-up, could "unintentional" discrimination against minorities be used to challenge the voter ID laws?


I do not know.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:42 PM

Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.


My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:53 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: It seems to fix a lot, yes. The ACLU is pretty pleased with it. I haven't found the text yet to examine the formula myself though.

Then why the hell would any Republicans vote for it?


Because they're good, decent, caring people who genuinely believe everyone should okay, I gotta stop there. I can't finish that sentence without cracking up. Sorry. Go back to whatever you were doing before I distracted you.
 
2014-01-16 03:55:38 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."


You are ignoring the fact that on day 1 GOP controlled states used the lack of preclearance to disenfranchise portions of the populace. Looks like that 40 YO data might have had some validity.
 
2014-01-16 03:57:52 PM
No reason to celebrate yet.  Good luck getting the Grand Racist Party to vote on it.
 
2014-01-16 03:58:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.

My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.


He was just doing it to prove a point.
 
2014-01-16 04:00:55 PM

max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.


Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.
 
2014-01-16 04:01:52 PM

sprgrss: max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.

Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.


Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2014-01-16 04:03:26 PM

sprgrss: max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.

Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.


Update what? The bail-out process that uses contemporary data and had been in the law since it was originally enacted?
 
2014-01-16 04:05:15 PM
Let me know if it actually passes and is signed into law. Otherwise, meh.
 
2014-01-16 04:16:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.

My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.


The examples are irrelevant to the point asserted.  The baseline formula for requiring preclearance was based on 1968 data.  A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status.  Rather, that entity would have to bring suit in D.C. to obtain relief, where the burden of proof is that you can't have even been under investigation for anything bad.  That's not basing continuing preclearance requirements on current data about voter discrimination/intimidation/suppression, it's basing it on historical data about whether or not the jurisdiction played nice or was targeted by the feds, without any proof of any shenanigans.

And by the way, all of that "flexibility" remains.  Which really makes my point about the law not having been gutted at all.
 
2014-01-16 04:16:56 PM
Lawmakers are trying to restore Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which focused on the regions of the country with a history of racial discrimination at the polls.

No, they aren't.  They're replacing the section of the law that was legitimately a matter of contention-- messing with state voting laws based on 50-year-old data-- and replaced it with something that addresses the concerns of both sides -- a system that uses present-anchored historical data to avoid relying on something obsolete.

It's an actual reform for once, it isn't "restoring" anything.
 
2014-01-16 04:22:06 PM

Garet Garrett: A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status.


Not even remotely true. Regions have always been "bailed out" based on recent actions, not events in the 1960s.
 
2014-01-16 04:25:11 PM

Jim_Callahan: 50-year-old data


nope
 
2014-01-16 04:37:28 PM

Jackson Herring: nope


You know what's wrong with 50 year old data?  There's 50 of them!
 
2014-01-16 04:40:26 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-16 04:44:40 PM
If there's GOP support, there has to be a minority-disenfranchisement law escape clause in there somewhere.
*reads TFA*
Farkitall!
I wish I'd been wrong.
 
2014-01-16 04:49:03 PM
I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.
 
2014-01-16 04:55:18 PM
You would think that after 60 years, we would have matured enough as a nation to the point where this type of legislation would not be necessary... but alas, we are quite a stupid country with quite a few bigots.
 
2014-01-16 04:56:32 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


In reality we already have all the voter ID we need... just show your social security card and have someone scan it at the voting booth.
 
2014-01-16 04:57:02 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


Look up one.
See?
You're not alone.
 
2014-01-16 04:59:25 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


I'm a little concerned about it too. But frankly, one of the big gets is shifting the Section 3 bail-in provisions from disparate treatment standards to disparate impact standards. That's a huge get, and it more than offsets some of the problems I have with the bill.
 
2014-01-16 05:14:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.

Look up one.
See?
You're not alone.


Yeah, it was the "typing while others submit" mistake. It's just sad what needs to be conceded in order to appease the obstructionists into a vote.
 
2014-01-16 05:20:47 PM
About time.  Didn't the Supreme Court say that Congress needed to do this when they struck that portion of the law, anyways?
 
2014-01-16 05:30:10 PM

NEDM: About time.  Didn't the Supreme Court say that Congress needed to do this when they struck that portion of the law, anyways?


Yup, lets just hope they abide by the courts recommendations or it will eventually get bounced yet again.
 
2014-01-16 07:21:18 PM

StubhyGraham: Yeah, I bet the House will be in a tremendous rush to pass this.


They will take all deliberate speed.
 
2014-01-16 07:33:01 PM

Garet Garrett: The examples are irrelevant to the point asserted.  The baseline formula for requiring preclearance was based on 1968 data.  A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status


False.

Or are you lying to prove a point again? If so, what point is that?
 
2014-01-16 08:47:49 PM
If I had any Photoshop skillz, I would shoop Boner's head onto Gandalf's body and have him yelling at Bill from the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"
 
2014-01-16 09:12:01 PM
Then pass an amendment that defines money is not free speech
and businesses are not people.
 
2014-01-17 01:57:45 AM
It'll get nowhere fast.

imageshack.us
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report