SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.

SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 7:44:50 AM)
The majority decided to declare a map unconstitutional so as to prevent enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf Basically they ruled that the section that said certain jurisdiction would need preclearance to change their voting procedures was constitutional (Congress does have very specific ability to legislate voting rules) but that the map of which places were covered wasn't. Since there is no way this Congress will pass a new map the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is effectively dead. This is a truly ridiculous and cowardly ruling.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 7:51:45 AM)
thats the beauty of democracy. it insures 49% of the people are going to get fucked at any given moment. great job security though for government.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 8:10:46 AM)
As usual DomKen, we disagree. The court in its 1966 decision said that the need to depart from the principle of equal sovereignty, and the denial of state authority in the crafting of election laws could only be justified by extremely potent circumstances. As evidence was presented to the court that minority participation in the voting process was on par with the rest of the country, and in fact in many places exceeded the rest of the country these potent circumstances no longer exist, so there is NO justification for the federal abrogation of state authority. Frankly, the court gave lefties a half a loaf -- far more than deserved on this matter. They declared that the voting rights act (and similiar) are constitutional. They just said that there was a need to prove systematic and potent discrimination occured. The problem with this approach is that it leaves the (federal) courts as the ultimate arbiter of whether each jurisdiction has "exceptional" circumstances. Frankly, the 2006 congress deserved to get spanked on this matter. They refused to consider removing jurisdictions from supervision despite clear evidence that federal supervision was no longer warranted. Essentially, the congress wanted to continue to have a democratic club to hang over the states. Lefties gambled that because some discriminiation would be evidenced in some of the districts it would be enough to uphold the law. So rather than take a reasonable, fair, responsible look at the question - they took a partisan position, gambled, and lost. They should have lost. They did lose. Justice was served. Move on.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 8:28:51 AM)
the reason you have laws is so that ANY breach can be adudicated. of course the courts rule this fucking joint not the people. Jury's not required.

GotSteel -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 8:50:18 AM)
And yet another example of the new Republican motto, "If it's fixed break it!"

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 8:59:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As usual DomKen, we disagree. The court in its 1966 decision said that the need to depart from the principle of equal sovereignty, and the denial of state authority in the crafting of election laws could only be justified by extremely potent circumstances. As evidence was presented to the court that minority participation in the voting process was on par with the rest of the country, and in fact in many places exceeded the rest of the country these potent circumstances no longer exist, so there is NO justification for the federal abrogation of state authority. Frankly, the court gave lefties a half a loaf -- far more than deserved on this matter. They declared that the voting rights act (and similiar) are constitutional. They just said that there was a need to prove systematic and potent discrimination occured. The problem with this approach is that it leaves the (federal) courts as the ultimate arbiter of whether each jurisdiction has "exceptional" circumstances. Frankly, the 2006 congress deserved to get spanked on this matter. They refused to consider removing jurisdictions from supervision despite clear evidence that federal supervision was no longer warranted. Essentially, the congress wanted to continue to have a democratic club to hang over the states. Lefties gambled that because some discriminiation would be evidenced in some of the districts it would be enough to uphold the law. So rather than take a reasonable, fair, responsible look at the question - they took a partisan position, gambled, and lost. They should have lost. They did lose. Justice was served. Move on. Nonsense. Prior approval and the map dictating where are obviously constitutional. Article 1, section 4 quote: Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations That's why the weasels couldn't actually throw out the law or rule that no map would be constitutional. They were stuck trying to get away with this stupidity to get their way without actually drawing contempt down on themselves from everyone who can read English.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:02:28 AM)
Realone - I don't object to the courts being the arbiter of breaches of law. The problem here is that there were many breaches. Many parts of the (southern) states breached the voting rights of minorities. This needed to be remedied. However, the remedy imposed did not impose a similar standard on (northern) areas that were also documented to have discriminated, thus violating equal protection. Congress failed to allow states to return to their usual prerogatives when it was clearly called for, thus breaching the rights of the inhabitants in those states. The problem with the ruling - rather than the crafting of a new statute, or the Justice department releasing jurisdiction, is that it opens the entire thing up to interminable litigation - although hopefully it will take a few years for that to happen. (but it won't).

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:14:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux However, the remedy imposed did not impose a similar standard on (northern) areas that were also documented to have discriminated, thus violating equal protection. You shouldn't make stuff up. Is the Bronx in the south? How about Michigan and South Dakota? Would you call Los Angeles part of the south? How about Arizona? They're all (or at least parts) covered by the preclearance requirements. Also big chunks of the south are not covered. Tennessee and Arkansas are not as well as some counties in Virginia and North Carolina as well as some jurisdictions in other southern states.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:14:29 AM)
Which part are you saying is nonsense? My first comments were almost direct quotes from the 1966 decision; my second comment was briefs filed with the court. You are deliberately misreading the opinion of the court. The court didn't rule that congress couldn't make a map to determine voting rights abuses. The court said that congress couldn't rely on decades old data to justify abrogation of state authority. Things changed in the south. Do you really think that things are the same as back when the civil rights were going on - with race riots, civil marches, segregation? The Democratic congress tried to pretend things hadn't changed. The justice department wielded the law as a potent political club against the states in question attempting to preserve the power of the party in power. The Supreme court spanked them. Whether you like it or not - that is what the court said. And it was right. Feel free to be delusional.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Which part are you saying is nonsense? My first comments were almost direct quotes from the 1966 decision; my second comment was briefs filed with the court. You are deliberately misreading the opinion of the court. The court didn't rule that congress couldn't make a map to determine voting rights abuses. The court said that congress couldn't rely on decades old data to justify abrogation of state authority. Things changed in the south. Do you really think that things are the same as back when the civil rights were going on - with race riots, civil marches, segregation? The Democratic congress tried to pretend things hadn't changed. The justice department wielded the law as a potent political club against the states in question attempting to preserve the power of the party in power. The Supreme court spanked them. Whether you like it or not - that is what the court said. Ad it was right. Feel free to be delustional. You and the court ignore the bail out provision. Any jurisdiction that proves they can behave can get out and many have. BTW the Act was renewed in 2006 by a Republican controlled Congress. Again stop making stuff up.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:22:16 AM)
When no one is bailed out by a bailout provision it deserves to be ignored.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 9:27:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux When no one is bailed out by a bailout provision it deserves to be ignored. Can you not read? Many jurisdictions have bailed out.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 11:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux When no one is bailed out by a bailout provision it deserves to be ignored. Can you not read? Many jurisdictions have bailed out. Here, let me quote the Supreme court for you, since you insist on spouting crap. From the 2009 decision: (from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/can-escape-clause-save-voting-rights-provision) The Supreme Court made clear its skepticism about the ongoing need for the law when it heard a similar case in 2009. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements," Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court. That ruling sidestepped the constitutional issue and instead expanded the ability of states, counties and local governments to exit the advance approval process. At that point, so few governments had tried to free themselves from the advance approval requirement that, in 2009, Thomas said the "promise of a bailout opportunity has, in the great majority of cases, turned out to be no more than a mirage." At the time, Thomas said, only a handful of the 12,000 state, county and local governments covered by the law had successfully bailed out. 250 out of more than 12000. Or less than 1% on a percentage of population basis. Or, like I said - a bailout provision that bails no one out should be ignored. Edit: and while we are at it - 250 is not an accurate number either, as the Justice department bailed out 'friendly' jurisdictions via consent decree that did not meet the requirements for bailout. eg. local jurisdictions in alaska, new hampshire and california.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 12:00:39 PM)
At that point, so few governments had tried to free themselves from the advance approval requirement that, in 2009............... You don't win the lottery if you don't play, so I am unsure how you can confuse this.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 12:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail At that point, so few governments had tried to free themselves from the advance approval requirement that, in 2009............... You don't win the lottery if you don't play, so I am unsure how you can confuse this. Exactly. If they didn't even apply what basis do they have for complaining? The plaintiff county certainly didn't even bother applying.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 5:09:11 PM)
And there goes voting rights in Texas. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-voter-id-law-could-start-now-attorney-general-greg-abbott.html/ I just checked no Texas DPS offices have any access for the elderly who cannot stand or for paraplegics or basically for anyone who cannot obtain a DL. So those people are now disenfranchised. They do get the chance to sue after they are actually denied the right to vote but the election results won't be changed and the process will of course take years and cost a lot of money. Even when the law is eventually tossed out, it is after all unconstitutional, the Texas legislature can simply pass another law and another after that.

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 5:45:55 PM)
Indeed, Texas doesn't seem to be wasting any time. http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=88a62b0c2 Someone remind me why we went to war--twice--to hold on to these people.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 6:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And there goes voting rights in Texas. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-voter-id-law-could-start-now-attorney-general-greg-abbott.html/ I just checked no Texas DPS offices have any access for the elderly who cannot stand or for paraplegics or basically for anyone who cannot obtain a DL. So those people are now disenfranchised. They do get the chance to sue after they are actually denied the right to vote but the election results won't be changed and the process will of course take years and cost a lot of money. Even when the law is eventually tossed out, it is after all unconstitutional, the Texas legislature can simply pass another law and another after that. Really. You checked all thousands of offices - as well as provisions for special access exactly how? Did you look for a special departent? Did you look for a transportation department - like special transport? I doubt even the govenor of texas could get results as fast as you just claimed to. Points to the fairness of your argument and the lack of reliability in your facts.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 6:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And there goes voting rights in Texas. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-voter-id-law-could-start-now-attorney-general-greg-abbott.html/ I just checked no Texas DPS offices have any access for the elderly who cannot stand or for paraplegics or basically for anyone who cannot obtain a DL. So those people are now disenfranchised. They do get the chance to sue after they are actually denied the right to vote but the election results won't be changed and the process will of course take years and cost a lot of money. Even when the law is eventually tossed out, it is after all unconstitutional, the Texas legislature can simply pass another law and another after that. Really. You checked all thousands of offices - as well as provisions for special access exactly how? Did you look for a special departent? Did you look for a transportation department - like special transport? I doubt even the govenor of texas could get results as fast as you just claimed to. Points to the fairness of your argument and the lack of reliability in your facts. There are not thousands of DPS DL facilities in Texas. I simply called the Austin headquarters and asked which facilities could handle those conditions.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. (6/25/2013 6:29:48 PM)
Just finished rereading the ruling and realized something, Roberts says the map is unconstitutional but not how it is. So there is no guidance for what would be a constitutional preclearance map even though Roberts et al went out of their way to say that the preclearance requirement was in itself constitutional.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02