Skip to content
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Court accepts another case so they can dynamite the Voting Rights Act   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Elections, Voting system, Voting, Election, Voter turnout, Supreme Court, vote denial case, President Donald Trump  
•       •       •

1678 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2021 at 2:25 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-02-28 9:55:58 PM  
John Roberts already nuked it, he single handedly decided the South was suddenly a magically non-racist place. He literally asked the lawyers if they thought the land mass of the south was racist. It was like 12 seconds after striking down the VRA, every state in the South put restrictions on voting that would hinder voting for POC.
 
2021-02-28 9:58:41 PM  
Now everyone is going to want civil liberties.
 
2021-02-28 10:26:02 PM  
You mean the White Supremacy Court?
 
2021-02-28 10:29:22 PM  
Thing is, Shelby v Holder did lay out a clear path for Congress to renew the protections of the voting rights act. It has to do a study and generate data to demonstrate the prejudicial effects of various voting rights restrictions.

So let's do the study. North Carolina left a clear case for the fact that voter ID laws were being pursued for the explicit purpose of making it harder for persons of color to vote. There's an explicit email trail.

I don't know why Congress doesn't jump all over this. You aren't going to get SCOTUS to feel differently about how to interpret the law, or to feel differently about whether or not they should use examples from 55 years ago to presume things about States today. Their position is rather stupid and blind but it isn't going to change. However, they made it clear: give them some updated study to prove that certain states are systematically attempting to suppress the votes of protected classes and then update the voting rights act to reflect those studies. That will be sufficient to over-ride the presumption of good will on the parts of States.

SCOTUS has said, do X, Y, and Z and you can use Federal Authority to restrict certain practices by States. If you don't update those things to prove the need in the current world, you (Congress) haven't done your job and we won't allow you to interfere with the States right to run election the way they think is best.

Again, it's clear that SCOTUS is blind (or acting that way) to not see the intent, but that blindness will not be magically cure. But it's a bit like a teenager told that they can't go out that night unless they pick up the dirty clothes on their floor and put them in the hamper and rather than picking up their dirty clothes, putting them in the hamper, and then going out, the teenager is sulking in their bed about how unfair their parents are.

Contract a study on the effects of various current and proposed voting restrictions. Use the results of that study to update the Voting Rights Act. Then SCOTUS will enforce it. Get to work.
 
2021-02-28 10:50:14 PM  
And here's what I expect and hope will be part of the conclusions of the study they should undertake.

"Many groups have promoted arguments that certain changes to voting procedures and protocols are required to insure the integrity of our elections. They forward these arguments despite a near complete lack of data suggesting that there is an actual problem with fraudulent voting. This failure to find significant fraud in our elections is not due to a lack of looking. Significant effort has been put into finding fraud, systemic and otherwise, but these investigations have only provided greater confidence the administration of US elections, with the exception of certain systematically increased difficulties for certain populations to vote.

Indeed, the greatest threat to confidence in our elections is clearly what has been a systematic effort to undermine the American people's confidence in their own elections. Some of this effort has been underwritten and driven by foreign governments intending to destabilize the American political system. Others have been systematically pursued by agents within the United States for multiple purposes but including the purpose of enacting restrictions on access to voting that are biased against poor voters and Persons of Color.

Thus, as the intention of improving and preserving the confidence of the American people in the US election system is of significant importance, we recommend that Congress consider writing laws that make it a Felony to conspire to undermine the confidence in the US election system by the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods intended to undermine the confidence is the US election process and US election results.
 
2021-03-01 12:07:37 AM  
I believe they won't go too far because the fear of court-packing looms over them. Go too far and you'll go from. 6-3 to to 7-6. These people don't want to lose their power and upending voting rights might cause it.

Tread lightly.
 
2021-03-01 12:11:22 AM  

Lambskincoat: John Roberts already nuked it, he single handedly decided the South was suddenly a magically non-racist place. He literally asked the lawyers if they thought the land mass of the south was racist. It was like 12 seconds after striking down the VRA, every state in the South put restrictions on voting that would hinder voting for POC.


No, all he said was you can't base modern regulations off of statistics and behaviors that are half a century old. I despise Trump and McConnell and all the GQP attempting to deny voting rights, but he wasn't wrong.
 
2021-03-01 2:11:14 AM  

ArkAngel: Lambskincoat: John Roberts already nuked it, he single handedly decided the South was suddenly a magically non-racist place. He literally asked the lawyers if they thought the land mass of the south was racist. It was like 12 seconds after striking down the VRA, every state in the South put restrictions on voting that would hinder voting for POC.

No, all he said was you can't base modern regulations off of statistics and behaviors that are half a century old. I despise Trump and McConnell and all the GQP attempting to deny voting rights, but he wasn't wrong.


Except their ruling also hamstrung the "don't be dicks for two presidential elections in a row first, then we'll ease up on the federal oversight" part of the law. It's not the federal government's fault that the former Confederacy spent half a century doing everything they could to keep black people away from voting booths.

And the ruling was done specifically because McConnell and the GOP refused to agree with Obama and the Democrats on so much as the color of the sky, never mind what should or should not be included in a New VRA.
 
2021-03-01 2:36:58 AM  
This is my shocked face
Fark user imageView Full Size

/Not dyn-o-mite!
 
2021-03-01 2:39:45 AM  
We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.
 
2021-03-01 2:43:52 AM  

saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.


Which will instigate violence.
 
2021-03-01 2:47:46 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.

Which will instigate violence.


It if is sudden and obvious, most likely, but if it is stretched out over a number of cycles and normalized then no. There will be yelling, of course, but not loud or soon enough.

I dunno. It's been on my spidey radar for quite awhile now and it keeps tingling.
 
2021-03-01 2:55:03 AM  

saturn badger: Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.

Which will instigate violence.

It if is sudden and obvious, most likely, but if it is stretched out over a number of cycles and normalized then no. There will be yelling, of course, but not loud or soon enough.

I dunno. It's been on my spidey radar for quite awhile now and it keeps tingling.


The pendulum swinging and Overton window shifting twisted arguments both sides have to jump through to arrive at their perceived notion of laws.

Whether it's egalitarian and social justice on the left.
To religious autocracy and "individual liberty" on the right.

The farther we drift apart on what the law and the constitution are supposed to represent the farther we drift apart as a nation until we have to have another civil war waged to ensure that we have reached a common consensus.
 
2021-03-01 3:33:59 AM  

wademh: Thing is, Shelby v Holder did lay out a clear path for Congress to renew the protections of the voting rights act. It has to do a study and generate data to demonstrate the prejudicial effects of various voting rights restrictions.

So let's do the study. North Carolina left a clear case for the fact that voter ID laws were being pursued for the explicit purpose of making it harder for persons of color to vote. There's an explicit email trail.

I don't know why Congress doesn't jump all over this. You aren't going to get SCOTUS to feel differently about how to interpret the law, or to feel differently about whether or not they should use examples from 55 years ago to presume things about States today. Their position is rather stupid and blind but it isn't going to change. However, they made it clear: give them some updated study to prove that certain states are systematically attempting to suppress the votes of protected classes and then update the voting rights act to reflect those studies. That will be sufficient to over-ride the presumption of good will on the parts of States.

SCOTUS has said, do X, Y, and Z and you can use Federal Authority to restrict certain practices by States. If you don't update those things to prove the need in the current world, you (Congress) haven't done your job and we won't allow you to interfere with the States right to run election the way they think is best.

Again, it's clear that SCOTUS is blind (or acting that way) to not see the intent, but that blindness will not be magically cure. But it's a bit like a teenager told that they can't go out that night unless they pick up the dirty clothes on their floor and put them in the hamper and rather than picking up their dirty clothes, putting them in the hamper, and then going out, the teenager is sulking in their bed about how unfair their parents are.

Contract a study on the effects of various current and proposed voting restrictions. Use the results of that study to update the Voting Rights Act. Then SCOTUS will enforce it. Get to work.


Why can't the ACLU or some similar organization sue?
 
2021-03-01 3:42:41 AM  
When the next fascist gets welcomed in by the conservative supreme court and democracy dies in America, I just hope I'm not in America anymore. Which is to say, I hope to leave before the next election.
 
2021-03-01 3:59:22 AM  

ArkAngel: Lambskincoat: John Roberts already nuked it, he single handedly decided the South was suddenly a magically non-racist place. He literally asked the lawyers if they thought the land mass of the south was racist. It was like 12 seconds after striking down the VRA, every state in the South put restrictions on voting that would hinder voting for POC.

No, all he said was you can't base modern regulations off of statistics and behaviors that are half a century old. I despise Trump and McConnell and all the GQP attempting to deny voting rights, but he wasn't wrong.


Which he did by deliberately ignoring that the law had a built in mechanism to remove states from its oversight restrictions, and they never met the requirements in 50 years because of their own dedicated refusal to do so.
 
2021-03-01 4:06:47 AM  

ArkAngel: Lambskincoat: John Roberts already nuked it, he single handedly decided the South was suddenly a magically non-racist place. He literally asked the lawyers if they thought the land mass of the south was racist. It was like 12 seconds after striking down the VRA, every state in the South put restrictions on voting that would hinder voting for POC.

No, all he said was you can't base modern regulations off of statistics and behaviors that are half a century old. I despise Trump and McConnell and all the GQP attempting to deny voting rights, but he wasn't wrong.



SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act almost immediately after it was renewed with bipartisan support after extensive research into whether or not it was still needed.

They were basing it on research and observations made of 2006, not 1964. The Roberts justification was not remotely based on anything in reality.
 
2021-03-01 4:13:48 AM  

King Something: And the ruling was done specifically because McConnell and the GOP refused to agree with Obama and the Democrats on so much as the color of the sky, never mind what should or should not be included in a New VRA.


Obama: The sky is blue.
Republicans: I will rape your babies!

News Media: Both sides disagree on the issue of sky colour, but who is right? We have no idea.
 
2021-03-01 4:24:03 AM  

recombobulator: wademh: Thing is, Shelby v Holder did lay out a clear path for Congress to renew the protections of the voting rights act. It has to do a study and generate data to demonstrate the prejudicial effects of various voting rights restrictions.

So let's do the study. North Carolina left a clear case for the fact that voter ID laws were being pursued for the explicit purpose of making it harder for persons of color to vote. There's an explicit email trail.

I don't know why Congress doesn't jump all over this. You aren't going to get SCOTUS to feel differently about how to interpret the law, or to feel differently about whether or not they should use examples from 55 years ago to presume things about States today. Their position is rather stupid and blind but it isn't going to change. However, they made it clear: give them some updated study to prove that certain states are systematically attempting to suppress the votes of protected classes and then update the voting rights act to reflect those studies. That will be sufficient to over-ride the presumption of good will on the parts of States.

SCOTUS has said, do X, Y, and Z and you can use Federal Authority to restrict certain practices by States. If you don't update those things to prove the need in the current world, you (Congress) haven't done your job and we won't allow you to interfere with the States right to run election the way they think is best.

Again, it's clear that SCOTUS is blind (or acting that way) to not see the intent, but that blindness will not be magically cure. But it's a bit like a teenager told that they can't go out that night unless they pick up the dirty clothes on their floor and put them in the hamper and rather than picking up their dirty clothes, putting them in the hamper, and then going out, the teenager is sulking in their bed about how unfair their parents are.

Contract a study on the effects of various current and proposed voting restrictions. Use the results of that study to update the Voting Rights Act. Then SCOTUS will enforce it. Get to work.

Why can't the ACLU or some similar organization sue?


Sue who for what
 
2021-03-01 5:24:08 AM  
Yeah conservatives won't be happy till they can explicitly forbid people from voting based on race. Frankly these are not bright people and can't get too clever with the voting restrictions before they start effecting poor whites as well so they would much prefer a more direct visual approach to determining "fraudulent" voters.
 
2021-03-01 7:23:35 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.

Which will instigate violence.

It if is sudden and obvious, most likely, but if it is stretched out over a number of cycles and normalized then no. There will be yelling, of course, but not loud or soon enough.

I dunno. It's been on my spidey radar for quite awhile now and it keeps tingling.

The pendulum swinging and Overton window shifting twisted arguments both sides have to jump through to arrive at their perceived notion of laws.

Whether it's egalitarian and social justice on the left.
To religious autocracy and "individual liberty" on the right.

The farther we drift apart on what the law and the constitution are supposed to represent the farther we drift apart as a nation until we have to have another civil war waged to ensure that we have reached a common consensus.


We aren't drifting that far apart.

It's the same (roughly) 30-40-30 it's always been. The differences is the right-side 30 is very vocal, whiny, and obsessed with power instead of the national welfare; the left-side 30 is finally realizing they are in a life or death bar fight instead of a debate; and most of that 40 in the middle is too busy or too stupid to really pay attention.

The oligarchs sit outside of this structure and do their damndest to keep the right side riled up, the left side away from any true power, and the center as uninformed and clueless as they possibly can.
 
2021-03-01 7:29:54 AM  

wademh: Contract a study on the effects of various current and proposed voting restrictions. Use the results of that study to update the Voting Rights Act. Then SCOTUS will enforce it. Get to work.


The Supreme Court can use the limited confines of the Constitution to roll back any laws they want. Even if you further clarify or codify the right to vote, the Supreme Court can say "Well, nothing in the Constitution about racism, so, it's doesn't exist, therefore this law is invalid!" That's what they really mean when they say "I'm an originalist." It means they can selectively overturn/ignore laws. They claim the Framers were infallible and whatever they wrote was exactly what was intended. No more, no less.
 
2021-03-01 8:12:37 AM  

saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.


Which is the same thing right-wingers are saying. In fact, they would absolutely destroy this country just to be the ones to pick the judges.
 
2021-03-01 8:48:30 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: I believe they won't go too far because the fear of court-packing looms over them. Go too far and you'll go from. 6-3 to to 7-6. These people don't want to lose their power and upending voting rights might cause it.

Tread lightly.


One justice per circuit.  Do it.
 
2021-03-01 8:56:04 AM  

wademh: Thing is, Shelby v Holder did lay out a clear path for Congress to renew the protections of the voting rights act. It has to do a study and generate data to demonstrate the prejudicial effects of various voting rights restrictions.

So let's do the study. North Carolina left a clear case for the fact that voter ID laws were being pursued for the explicit purpose of making it harder for persons of color to vote. There's an explicit email trail.

I don't know why Congress doesn't jump all over this. You aren't going to get SCOTUS to feel differently about how to interpret the law, or to feel differently about whether or not they should use examples from 55 years ago to presume things about States today. Their position is rather stupid and blind but it isn't going to change. However, they made it clear: give them some updated study to prove that certain states are systematically attempting to suppress the votes of protected classes and then update the voting rights act to reflect those studies. That will be sufficient to over-ride the presumption of good will on the parts of States.

SCOTUS has said, do X, Y, and Z and you can use Federal Authority to restrict certain practices by States. If you don't update those things to prove the need in the current world, you (Congress) haven't done your job and we won't allow you to interfere with the States right to run election the way they think is best.

Again, it's clear that SCOTUS is blind (or acting that way) to not see the intent, but that blindness will not be magically cure. But it's a bit like a teenager told that they can't go out that night unless they pick up the dirty clothes on their floor and put them in the hamper and rather than picking up their dirty clothes, putting them in the hamper, and then going out, the teenager is sulking in their bed about how unfair their parents are.

Contract a study on the effects of various current and proposed voting restrictions. Use the results of that study to update the Voting Rights Act. Then SCOTUS will enforce it. Get to work.


Heh, you took Republicans at their word.
 
2021-03-01 8:56:57 AM  

My Sober Alt: This is my shocked face
[Fark user image image 278x182]
/Not dyn-o-mite!


Damn, man.  I have fond memories of playing with my LEGO sets on the floor by the TV while my parents laughed their assess off to that show.  Some of the best years of my life.  
Emotional gut punch, but in a good way.
 
2021-03-01 8:59:14 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: Night Train to Wakanda: saturn badger: We're not going to lose the country by violence. It will be through the courts.

Which will instigate violence.

It if is sudden and obvious, most likely, but if it is stretched out over a number of cycles and normalized then no. There will be yelling, of course, but not loud or soon enough.

I dunno. It's been on my spidey radar for quite awhile now and it keeps tingling.

The pendulum swinging and Overton window shifting twisted arguments both sides have to jump through to arrive at their perceived notion of laws.

Whether it's egalitarian and social justice on the left.
To religious autocracy and "individual liberty" on the right.

The farther we drift apart on what the law and the constitution are supposed to represent the farther we drift apart as a nation until we have to have another civil war waged to ensure that we have reached a common consensus.


There is no pendulum swing. The country has marched steadily to the right since Nixon, at least. Stop pretending the Democrats are an effective opposition to the Right.
 
2021-03-01 10:32:17 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: wademh: Thing is, Shelby v Holder ...


I read RBG's comments. Did you?
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.