Skip to content
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.

(WRAL)   NC Supreme Court: We don't need no stinkin' democracy   (wral.com) divider line
137
    More: Obvious, Law, Voting, Constitution, Supreme court, Supreme Court of the United States, History, Judiciary, Legislature  
•       •       •

4518 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2023 at 2:25 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
kdawg7736 [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-04 8:52:08 PM  
Are they still considered Best Carolina?
 
King Something [TotalFark]
2023-02-04 8:53:22 PM  
'Murica.
 
delsydsoftware [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-04 10:59:05 PM  
I'm generally pretty glad that I left my home state of NC. If they could ever get rid of gerrymandering, it would likely swing democratic (or at least a strong purple). But, there's a legacy of good old boy politics, overt and hidden racism, corruption at the local level, etc. The idea that the Supreme Court can revisit past decisions on a whim (without a pending related case) is so appalling that those court justices should be run out of the state.
 
edmo [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-04 11:20:39 PM  
Conservative courts will be overturning laws and precedent just because. They have no morals, no standards, no ethics.
 
Farking Clown Shoes [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 12:31:45 AM  
Overturning established legal precedent as soon as "your team" gains a majority on the bench?

"We learned it from you, SCOTUS!"
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 2:27:34 AM  
REASONS!
 
Keizer_Ghidorah
2023-02-05 2:41:15 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


Why are you always showing your ass?
 
Jim_Callahan
2023-02-05 2:43:51 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


Because, while the proposals claim to be voter ID laws and are named in that fashion, what they actually are is almost invariably a poll tax blocking constitutionally-guaranteed voting rights.

If I need to explain why poll taxes (especially poll taxes specifically as a prerequisite to being allowed your voting rights) aren't legal in the US, or why just renaming something illegal to something nominally inoffensive by the subtle technique of "blatantly lying" does not suddenly make it legal, I'm not really sure that a post on an internet forum is a venue capable of the level of make-up education required to break it down further and get you up to speed.

For the purposes of brevity, let's just point out that these laws are essentially word-for-word reproductions of what are commonly called "Jim Crow Laws", originally formulated in the reconstruction-era former confederate states for the same reason as literally every other thing done by the former Confederate states in the reconstruction and post-reconstruction era.  Note that I'm not saying morally equivalent, nor am I making some vague and nonspecific claim of unclear racist intent, they are literally the same laws, with near-identical wording in many cases.

What's going on here is not some subtle and deeply hidden point that only a nuanced understanding of public policy will allow an especially clever historian to unearth: it's literally straight-up ctrl+c ctrl+v of explicit neoconfederate political action.

// To further emphasize the point, actual voter ID law, as in "you can present a government ID in place of the specific registration paperwork if you lack it", is already the law in literally every state and territory.  If that was what so-called "Voter ID laws" were actually about they'd be 100% redundant.  I don't even know where my registration card is and haven't used one in over a decade, if that was the agenda the problem was 'solved' before I was even born.
 
erik-k [OhFark]
2023-02-05 2:48:16 AM  
"The Harper experiment has failed, and it is time for this Court to recognize that, correct its errors, and return to the Constitution and this State's traditional modes of interpretation,"

JFC these goddamn psychotic lunatics are beyond Orwell. It's absolutely terrifying. They would smile as they stabbed you to death while calmly telling you that whole body ventilation is good for you if Dear Leader told them to.
 
shinji3i
2023-02-05 2:48:39 AM  

kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?


Yes, they are. Much like how the Detroit Lions are the best team that has gone 0-16.
 
Bennie Crabtree
2023-02-05 2:57:04 AM  
One reason for supreme courts is to avoid do-overs, and instill real, appreciable stability. That is why the common law systems require cases, and standing, to change or reverse rulings. And legislatures are supposed to wait for an election before they elgislate decisions away. The point is not conservatism that defies change and enforces tradition for tradition's sake, but that even minute changes can become oversized confusion when the courts flip-flop on their own terms.

Without legal stability, you get degrees of anarchy, regardless of who votes. And those degrees of anarchy result in weeeeird developments socially and culturally. Usually not good ones. And revoking rights ona whim, not even with a case with standing??? That's how violent revolutions happen.

Of course, I still think the USA is in a civil war, and the NC Superem Court is confirming my suspicions. Since they are simply revisiting the cases because they want to, I want to know how theya re gettign away with it. And the answer is, during  civil war, the chaos in legislatures opens the door for courts to do that, and also, the NC supreme court has the support of citizens who are violently fighting the status quo, which is QAnon and white supremacists. You don't need a skirmish every day for it to be a civil war, but you do need a plurality of courts to rebel against the laws of the land. :(
 
Bennie Crabtree
2023-02-05 2:57:52 AM  

erik-k: "The Harper experiment has failed, and it is time for this Court to recognize that, correct its errors, and return to the Constitution and this State's traditional modes of interpretation,"

JFC these goddamn psychotic lunatics are beyond Orwell. It's absolutely terrifying. They would smile as they stabbed you to death while calmly telling you that whole body ventilation is good for you if Dear Leader told them to.


Yyyyup.
 
Obscene_CNN
2023-02-05 3:00:13 AM  
Nothing wrong with having to prove who you are when you vote. It is common in other first world nations.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 3:03:49 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

Because,

Straight up b*tch slap


Wow. You are WAY better at this than I am.
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 3:06:11 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


I might accept voter I.D. in the following conditions:

1) All voter IDs must be created, maintained, tracked, managed, provided by government entities - no private companies involved at all with the exception of whatever company that prints them (but even that process requiring government oversight).

2) State governments must confirm that ALL registered voters have received their voter I.D.

3) Any administrative entities managing voter ID must be bipartisan, no matter which party is in control.

4) Voter IDs must be "free."  They should be completely funded by income tax.  There should be no separate tax or fee specifically for the issuance of voter IDs.

5) A system should be in place so that if a voter arrives at the polls, but has forgotten their voter ID, the poll workers can confirm that the registered voter indeed has been issued a voter ID.  At that point, any state or federally issued photo ID (drivers license, passport card) can be used in place of the voter ID.

6) Since we're going this far with all the beurocracy, might as well follow the lead of the Aussies and make voting mandatory.

Do all of this, and just maybe voter IDs won't end up being too much of a burden / obstacle to voters.
 
ElPrimitivo
2023-02-05 3:09:47 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


Sigh.... because of racism, just like has been pointed out and nauseam to numbskulls who know that but keep asking stupid questions about it.

Daily Show Sparks Local Controversy
Youtube 5HSWmCqBshk
 
ElPrimitivo
2023-02-05 3:11:34 AM  

ElPrimitivo: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

Sigh.... because of racism, just like has been pointed out and nauseam to numbskulls who know that but keep asking stupid questions about it.

[YouTube video: Daily Show Sparks Local Controversy]


Ad nauseam. Stupid autoincorrect.
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 3:14:45 AM  

kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?


Actually, I'm all for a Carolinian reunification.  There's been enough years since the split that much healing has taken place.  It's time to bring families split by the border back together again.

We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.
 
replacementcool
2023-02-05 3:15:29 AM  
I'm so farking glad I don't live in that dumpster country.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 3:22:28 AM  

Cythraul: We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.


Oh! They sell fireworks and hotdogs and weird tchotchke there!

Not sure if Ron Jon or South of the Border is winning the billboard game. But they are both trying.
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 3:27:24 AM  

DannyBrandt: Cythraul: We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

Oh! They sell fireworks and hotdogs and weird tchotchke there!

Not sure if Ron Jon or South of the Border is winning the billboard game. But they are both trying.


You think it's bad now, you should have seen it 30 years ago (or maybe you did?).  SotB had even more billboards back then.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 3:31:14 AM  

Cythraul: DannyBrandt: Cythraul: We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

Oh! They sell fireworks and hotdogs and weird tchotchke there!

Not sure if Ron Jon or South of the Border is winning the billboard game. But they are both trying.

You think it's bad now, you should have seen it 30 years ago (or maybe you did?).  SotB had even more billboards back then.


Only 84 miles to South of the Border!

Pedro welcomes you!
 
Gordon Bennett [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-05 3:34:27 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Obscene_CNN
2023-02-05 3:41:58 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

[Fark user image 600x356]


You mean like math is racist?
 
jst3p
2023-02-05 3:50:24 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


I am going to just wait until someone else shows how stupid you are.

Cythraul: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

I might accept voter I.D. in the following conditions:

1) All voter IDs must be created, maintained, tracked, managed, provided by government entities - no private companies involved at all with the exception of whatever company that prints them (but even that process requiring government oversight).

2) State governments must confirm that ALL registered voters have received their voter I.D.

3) Any administrative entities managing voter ID must be bipartisan, no matter which party is in control.

4) Voter IDs must be "free."  They should be completely funded by income tax.  There should be no separate tax or fee specifically for the issuance of voter IDs.

5) A system should be in place so that if a voter arrives at the polls, but has forgotten their voter ID, the poll workers can confirm that the registered voter indeed has been issued a voter ID.  At that point, any state or federally issued photo ID (drivers license, passport card) can be used in place of the voter ID.

6) Since we're going this far with all the beurocracy, might as well follow the lead of the Aussies and make voting mandatory.

Do all of this, and just maybe voter IDs won't end up being too much of a burden / obstacle to voters.


Hinged, you stupid but it sadly wont stop you from being stupid again tomorrow.
 
Bandito King [OhFark]
2023-02-05 3:50:33 AM  

Cythraul: DannyBrandt: Cythraul: We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

Oh! They sell fireworks and hotdogs and weird tchotchke there!

Not sure if Ron Jon or South of the Border is winning the billboard game. But they are both trying.

You think it's bad now, you should have seen it 30 years ago (or maybe you did?).  SotB had even more billboards back then.


Cafe Risque or nothing.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 3:53:19 AM  

Bandito King: Cafe Risque or nothing.


"I've been on the road for the last 10 hours. Let me stop off at this strip club on I-75."
 
LarrySouth
2023-02-05 4:01:42 AM  

Cythraul: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

I might accept voter I.D. in the following conditions:

1) All voter IDs must be created, maintained, tracked, managed, provided by government entities - no private companies involved at all with the exception of whatever company that prints them (but even that process requiring government oversight).

2) State governments must confirm that ALL registered voters have received their voter I.D.

3) Any administrative entities managing voter ID must be bipartisan, no matter which party is in control.

4) Voter IDs must be "free."  They should be completely funded by income tax.  There should be no separate tax or fee specifically for the issuance of voter IDs.

5) A system should be in place so that if a voter arrives at the polls, but has forgotten their voter ID, the poll workers can confirm that the registered voter indeed has been issued a voter ID.  At that point, any state or federally issued photo ID (drivers license, passport card) can be used in place of the voter ID.

6) Since we're going this far with all the beurocracy, might as well follow the lead of the Aussies and make voting mandatory.

Do all of this, and just maybe voter IDs won't end up being too much of a burden / obstacle to voters.


And hold elections in a Saturday...
 
neofonz
2023-02-05 4:07:37 AM  

Cythraul: kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?
I've P
Actually, I'm all for a Carolinian reunification.  There's been enough years since the split that much healing has taken place.  It's time to bring families split by the border back together again.

We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.


The only thing NC wants from SC is Myrtle Beach.
The only thing SC wants from NC is good barbecue.

/gonna start some fights with that one
 
Langdon_777
2023-02-05 4:09:57 AM  
Wow the SC redoing cases without even any pending litigation - talk about legislating from the bench.

This is a really scary development that the new SC thinks they are allowed to do such things.
 
COMALite J
2023-02-05 4:11:24 AM  

jst3p: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

I am going to just wait until someone else shows how stupid you are.

Cythraul: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

I might accept voter I.D. in the following conditions:

1) All voter IDs must be created, maintained, tracked, managed, provided by government entities - no private companies involved at all with the exception of whatever company that prints them (but even that process requiring government oversight).

2) State governments must confirm that ALL registered voters have received their voter I.D.

3) Any administrative entities managing voter ID must be bipartisan, no matter which party is in control.

4) Voter IDs must be "free."  They should be completely funded by income tax.  There should be no separate tax or fee specifically for the issuance of voter IDs.

5) A system should be in place so that if a voter arrives at the polls, but has forgotten their voter ID, the poll workers can confirm that the registered voter indeed has been issued a voter ID.  At that point, any state or federally issued photo ID (drivers license, passport card) can be used in place of the voter ID.

6) Since we're going this far with all the b[ueau]rocracy, might as well follow the lead of the Aussies and make voting mandatory.

Do all of this, and just maybe voter IDs won't end up being too much of a burden / obstacle to voters.

Hinged, you stupid but it sadly wont stop you from being stupid again tomorrow.

Jim_Callahan: Because, while the proposals claim to be voter ID laws and are named in that fashion, what they actually are is almost invariably a poll tax blocking constitutionally-guaranteed voting rights.

If I need to explain why poll taxes (especially poll taxes specifically as a prerequisite to being allowed your voting rights) aren't legal in the US, or why just renaming something illegal to something nominally inoffensive by the subtle technique of "blatantly lying" does not suddenly make it legal, I'm not really sure that a post on an internet forum is a venue capable of the level of make-up education required to break it down further and get you up to speed.

For the purposes of brevity, let's just point out that these laws are essentially word-for-word reproductions of what are commonly called "Jim Crow Laws", originally formulated in the reconstruction-era former confederate states for the same reason as literally every other thing done by the former Confederate states in the reconstruction and post-reconstruction era. Note that I'm not saying morally equivalent, nor am I making some vague and nonspecific claim of unclear racist intent, they are literally the same laws, with near-identical wording in many cases.

What's going on here is not some subtle and deeply hidden point that only a nuanced understanding of public policy will allow an especially clever historian to unearth: it's literally straight-up ctrl+c ctrl+v of explicit neoconfederate political action.

// To further emphasize the point, actual voter ID law, as in "you can present a government ID in place of the specific registration paperwork if you lack it", is already the law in literally every state and territory. If that was what so-called "Voter ID laws" were actually about they'd be 100% redundant. I don't even know where my registration card is and haven't used one in over a decade, if that was the agenda the problem was 'solved' before I was even born.

DannyBrandt: Wow. You are WAY better at this than I am.

Good job, Jim_Calahan! Also check out my Answer on Quora (my second ever there) that I just posted on the subject. It shows how not-a-problem the "problem" that Voter ID is supposed to "solve" is.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Why are you always showing your ass?

ElPrimitivo: ElPrimitivo: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

Sigh.... because of racism, just like has been pointed out and nauseam to numbskulls who know that but keep asking stupid questions about it.

[YouTube video: Daily Show Sparks Local Controversy]

Ad nauseam. Stupid autoincorrect.

You see the part where Aasif is speaking but the audio has cut away back to the anchors? I remember that interview. What he said to Yeltin is, "You do know we can hear you, right?" but Yeltin just kept right on talking himself out of a job.

Obscene_CNN: Gordon Bennett: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

[Fark user image 600×356]

You mean like math is racist?

Hinged: So anyone who asks for your I.D. (when you're doing anything OTHER THAN voting) is 'taxing' you?

The 24ᵗʰ Amendment doesn't ban making people pay to identify themselves for other purposes. It explicitly bans poll taxes ― precisely because the Jim Crow states were doing the sorts of things Jim_Calahan was talking about. And now they're basically copying and pasting the same laws again.

Never mind the expense. Some people can't get a copy of their birth certificate because one was never issued for them at birth. It was common for black babies born in the South during Jim Crow to've not been issued a birth certificate at birth, so no copy can be made of something that never existed. Many of these people are still alive and well, and are natural born citizens who should have the right to vote ― they just can't prove that they're natural born citizens.

The previous court in North Carolina had already struck these laws down as, in the words of the judge, "targeting black voters with almost surgical precision." They based this on audio recordings of the proceedings of the state legislature where some of the representatives straight-up said things like, "How can we make this so it mostly affects black voters?" (not sure they used the word "black: there ― may've been a word the Fark filters don't like) while crafting the legislation.
 
Shatners Agent [BareFark]
2023-02-05 4:14:30 AM  

Cythraul: DannyBrandt: Cythraul: We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

Oh! They sell fireworks and hotdogs and weird tchotchke there!

Not sure if Ron Jon or South of the Border is winning the billboard game. But they are both trying.

You think it's bad now, you should have seen it 30 years ago (or maybe you did?).  SotB had even more billboards back then.


Pedro says what?
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 4:14:31 AM  

neofonz: Cythraul: kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?
I've P
Actually, I'm all for a Carolinian reunification.  There's been enough years since the split that much healing has taken place.  It's time to bring families split by the border back together again.

We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

The only thing NC wants from SC is Myrtle Beach.
The only thing SC wants from NC is good barbecue.

/gonna start some fights with that one


That's not true.

We'd take Charleston too.  It seems like a nice town.
 
COMALite J
2023-02-05 4:14:31 AM  

Langdon_777: Wow the SC redoing cases without even any pending litigation ― talk about legislating from the bench.

This is a really scary development that the new SC thinks they are allowed to do such things.

This is why we don't need no steenkin;' democracy in the Judicial Branch. We already don't at the federal level because the Framers were smart enough to not do that. It needs to be abolished at the State and other levels as well. Judges should not be elected, period ― especially not in State Supreme Courts. Democracy's place is in the Legislative Branch.
 
replacementcool
2023-02-05 4:15:17 AM  
respect to the people actually willing to take the time to explain to hinged why his bad faith argumentation is stupid, racist bullshiat being spewed by a stupid, racist moron JAQing off, because while he won't read a single word of it, somebody else- with a functioning brain - might learn something.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 4:17:42 AM  

Shatners Agent: Pedro says what?


Pedro says tell your parents to stop at South of the Border

Only 57 more miles.
 
neofonz
2023-02-05 4:21:17 AM  

Cythraul: neofonz: Cythraul: kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?
I've P
Actually, I'm all for a Carolinian reunification.  There's been enough years since the split that much healing has taken place.  It's time to bring families split by the border back together again.

We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

The only thing NC wants from SC is Myrtle Beach.
The only thing SC wants from NC is good barbecue.

/gonna start some fights with that one

That's not true.

We'd take Charleston too.  It seems like a nice town.


The "taking of Charleston" has usually been fraught with... issues.
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 4:24:06 AM  

neofonz: Cythraul: neofonz: Cythraul: kdawg7736: Are they still considered Best Carolina?
I've P
Actually, I'm all for a Carolinian reunification.  There's been enough years since the split that much healing has taken place.  It's time to bring families split by the border back together again.

We should have a reunification meeting at South of the Border.

The only thing NC wants from SC is Myrtle Beach.
The only thing SC wants from NC is good barbecue.

/gonna start some fights with that one

That's not true.

We'd take Charleston too.  It seems like a nice town.

The "taking of Charleston" has usually been fraught with... issues.


Hey, were the state that founded Blackwater.  We'd send in our 'elites' to take it.

But violence won't be necessary, with the peaceful reunification negotiations taking place at Carolina Summit 2023, hosted by South of the Border.
 
todangst
2023-02-05 4:30:42 AM  

ElPrimitivo: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

Sigh.... because of racism, just like has been pointed out and nauseam to numbskulls who know that but keep asking stupid questions about it.

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/5HSWmCqBshk?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]


I love how his claim that democrats make fun of him was based on their saying "Look at him."
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 4:33:41 AM  

Hinged: COMALite J: Some people can't get a copy of their birth certificate because one was never issued for them at birth. It was common for black babies born in the South during Jim Crow to've not been issued a birth certificate at birth, so no copy can be made of something that never existed. Many of these people are still alive and well, and are natural born citizens who should have the right to vote ― they just can't prove that they're natural born citizens.


So they can't get SS numbers, driver's licenses, etc. either?

Think of all the things that you need to show I.D. in order to do (hint: it's a LOT).  Are you saying that they can't do any of things - and asking for an I.D. (for anything at all) is overt racism?


The right to vote has a long history of requirements for a voter to 'proove' (land ownership, reading tests) they have the right to vote.  Such past requirements almost always disenfranchised minority voters and voters from marginalized communities.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 4:34:02 AM  

Hinged: So they can't get SS numbers, driver's licenses, etc. either?


I somehow get the impression you are happy about this.
 
Ishkur [OhFark]
2023-02-05 4:37:32 AM  

Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?


The "controversy" is that it's not actually about Voter ID.

It's a dogwhistle for disenfranchising minorities.
 
DannyBrandt [TotalFark]
2023-02-05 4:49:24 AM  

Ishkur: It's a dogwhistle for disenfranchising minorities.


He knows that. He's "just asking questions" because he somehow thinks he is smarter than at least 10% of the people here. And he is going to be rich someday. And married to an actual person with feelings.
 
Cythraul
2023-02-05 5:01:22 AM  

Hinged: Cythraul: Hinged: COMALite J: Some people can't get a copy of their birth certificate because one was never issued for them at birth. It was common for black babies born in the South during Jim Crow to've not been issued a birth certificate at birth, so no copy can be made of something that never existed. Many of these people are still alive and well, and are natural born citizens who should have the right to vote ― they just can't prove that they're natural born citizens.


So they can't get SS numbers, driver's licenses, etc. either?

Think of all the things that you need to show I.D. in order to do (hint: it's a LOT).  Are you saying that they can't do any of those things - and asking for an I.D. (for anything at all) is overt racism?


The right to vote has a long history of requirements for a voter to 'proove' (land ownership, reading tests) they have the right to vote.  Such past requirements almost always disenfranchised minority voters and voters from marginalized communities.


What's that got to do with having an I.D. in 2023?

I don't see the connection.


There's been enough intellectual, non-combative discourse with you in this thread on the subject.

I'd wager at this point if you don't see the connection, it's because you've made that choice.
 
erik-k [OhFark]
2023-02-05 5:14:42 AM  

Hinged: COMALite J: Some people can't get a copy of their birth certificate because one was never issued for them at birth. It was common for black babies born in the South during Jim Crow to've not been issued a birth certificate at birth, so no copy can be made of something that never existed. Many of these people are still alive and well, and are natural born citizens who should have the right to vote ― they just can't prove that they're natural born citizens.


So they can't get SS numbers, driver's licenses, etc. either?

Think of all the things that you need to show I.D. in order to do (hint: it's a LOT).  Are you saying that they can't do any of things - and asking for an I.D. (for anything at all) is overt racism?


The hallmark of a lying troll who is not worth listening to is when something is explained to them in considerable detail, and they just repeat the same disingenuous lie again verbatim.
 
HighOnCraic
2023-02-05 5:29:17 AM  

COMALite J: The previous court in North Carolina had already struck these laws down as, in the words of the judge, "targeting black voters with almost surgical precision." They based this on audio recordings of the proceedings of the state legislature where some of the representatives straight-up said things like, "How can we make this so it mostly affects black voters?" (not sure they used the word "black: there ― may've been a word the Fark filters don't like) while crafting the legislation.


Yeah, I remember that audio clip; it was pretty blatant.

I'm sure that the push for new voting laws had nothing to do with the fact that Obama won in North Carolina in 2008...

Almost one million African Americans voted in North Carolina in 2008. In 2004, only 59% of registered black voters turned out compared to 66% of registered whites. But in 2008, a record 72% of registered blacks voted, which surpassed the rate of whites (69%) for the first time. African Americans make up 21% of the voting-age population in the state, but they were 33% of the new registered voters in 2008, 28% of those who participated in early voting, 36% of those who used Same Day Registration, and 23% of the total number of people voting in the general election. That record level of participation proved crucial for many candidates, beginning with Obama.

https://democracync.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WrapUpYearofVoterPR2008.pdf

/Nothin' at all!
//Nothin' at all!
///Stupid sexy Flanders!
 
hlehmann
2023-02-05 6:03:23 AM  

Hinged: Jim_Callahan: Hinged: Why is Voter I.D. 'controversial'?

Because, while the proposals claim to be voter ID laws and are named in that fashion, what they actually are is almost invariably a poll tax blocking constitutionally-guaranteed voting rights.

So anyone who asks for your I.D. (when you're doing anything OTHER THAN voting) is 'taxing' you?


You don't have a constitutional right to buy beer without proving you're of legal drinking age.  You do have a constitutional right to vote.
Or is that too complicated for you?
 
odinsposse
2023-02-05 6:22:58 AM  

Obscene_CNN: Nothing wrong with having to prove who you are when you vote. It is common in other first world nations.


Exactly. The people in favor of voter ID don't understand those countries or America's voting system. In America you prove your identity when registering to vote. That's why you only need a minor action like matching signatures to vote on voting day. In other countries they either don't have voter registration or they automatically register voters without any input from them at all. That's why they need an ID because that voters hasn't proven their identity yet. Requiring people both prove their identity to register to vote and prove their identity by having an ID to vote is redundant and is clearly irrational unless you're trying to create more opportunities to disenfranchise voters by screwing with both voter registration and ID requirements.
 
JeffMD
2023-02-05 6:28:54 AM  
The fact courts can revisit old cases when they decide they have enough judges in their pocket to force a desired outcome when ever they want is one cell of the cancer that is strangling this country.
 
Felgraf
2023-02-05 6:47:50 AM  
Ah, bugger, I meant to post this in THIS thread.

The Dems really, really need to realize that the GOP isn't playing the same Game anymore, and that the rules and the game aren't the same thing.

A.R. Moxon lays this out *REALLY* well: https://armoxon.substack.com/p/the-rules

1) There's the game and there's the rules. Two different but entwined things.
Without the game, the rules don't make sense. If somebody tries to call you offsides when you're walking down the sidewalk you're going to look at them funny even if they're wearing a striped shirt and blowing a whistle. Right? Offsides of what? Offsides to what end?

2) The rules exist to make the game work, not the other way around. Without the rules, the game doesn't work. I'd go further: if one team playing the game stops following the rules, and nothing exists to stop them, and they're allowed to go on playing like that, then you aren't playing that game anymore. You're playing a different game, defined by the people allowed to go on breaking the rules. If your rules don't include checks and consequences for those who have no regard for the rules, then you don't actually have rules. If such checks and consequences exist, and those charged with imposing them lack the will or the ability to impose them, then the rules don't exist anymore, nor does the game they defined.

If you're playing football, and one team starts using aluminum bats as weapons, and sets their goalposts on fire, and ignores downs and the clock and penalties, while demanding that the other team continue to play by the established rules, it's not a football game anymore. Correct?

At that point, if the referees don't take control of the game, then the game has been abrogated and the refs are just weirdos in striped shirts. The game has become "open melee," which isn't really a game. Anybody on the opposing team who agrees to the demands for continued compliance to the rules and keeps trying to play football, or anybody in the stands who cheers such an effort, would have to be considered side-eye, as you would anybody who has abandoned observable reality.

If you want to go on having a football team, you're going to have to get rid of the bats and eject the players wielding them. Getting rid of the bats means recognizing that you're not playing football anymore. To stop playing football then shouldn't be thought of as more disruptive than what the rule-breaking team is doing.

It shouldn't be thought of as an act against football.

3) The rules are necessary to the game, but the rules are not the point.

The game is the point.

Which leads me to this question: what's the game?

We ought to know.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more news before we break it? Try

TotalFark

See what's behind the green door
and help keep the tap flowing

learn more | sign up
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.