Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[fskimospy]

The only ones with their heads in their asses are liberals

Jesus just called me again about you. He says you're being a bad Christian still.

 

[glenn1]

You can only challenge in court after the fact. In other words the harm has to have occurred already. The result an incumbant would already be in place and its effectively too late. Under the old law feds are preventing harm before it happens based on history.

But this is OK in northern states? That's the entire point of criticizing Section 5 only being applicable to certain states based on past actions; it does nothing to stop it in the future in other places. If it was worth stopping in 2010 in Georgia, it would be worth stopping in 2016 in Minnesota.

 

[PokerGuy]

But this is OK in northern states? That's the entire point of criticizing Section 5 only being applicable to certain states based on past actions; it does nothing to stop it in the future in other places. If it was worth stopping in 2010 in Georgia, it would be worth stopping in 2016 in Minnesota.

He's obviously wrong about his claim about harm having to occur before laws can be challenged. Even if he were right, the idea of using 50 year old obviously bad data to drive the process is completely stupid.

 

[nehalem256]

Lol! Well that's a nice catch 22.

"There are no race based laws because liberals say everything is racist!"

Convenient!

You should be a judge because apparently that type of idiotic thinking is actually used (see today's ruling).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_who_cried_wolf

That should explain things for you.

Here is an exerpt from Jus. Ginsburg. Part of a case that show why conservatives on this court have their heads in their asses about the need for the VRA...

Anyone notice this bullshit occurred in 2010? Less then 3 years ago??

Anyone notice that 90% of black people vote Democrat. Do I need to explain to you why putting a measure on a ballot that increases turnout among those who would vote 90% against you is a bad idea(regardless of the race involved)?

Logically if there was discussion of a ballot measure to say install school prayer Democrats would want to prevent it because it would drive up the Evangelical Christian vote, most of whom vote Republican. It doesn't mean they hate Christians; it means they are intelligent

 

[fskimospy]

But this is OK in northern states? That's the entire point of criticizing Section 5 only being applicable to certain states based on past actions; it does nothing to stop it in the future in other places. If it was worth stopping in 2010 in Georgia, it would be worth stopping in 2016 in Minnesota.

With this law, like every law, you balance the benefits to society vs. the freedom you are infringing. It's really easy to make a case for how infringing on the freedom of a state that not engaged in rampant racial voting discrimination doesn't make sense but infringing on a repeat offender does.

When states behave differently you treat them differently.

 

[HomerJS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_who_cried_wolf

That should explain things for you.




Anyone notice that 90% of black people vote Democrat. Do I need to explain to you why putting a measure on a ballot that increases turnout among those who would vote 90% against you is a bad idea(regardless of the race involved)?

Logically if there was discussion of a ballot measure to say install school prayer Democrats would want to prevent it because it would drive up the Evangelical Christian vote, most of whom vote Republican. It doesn't mean they hate Christians; it means they are intelligent

And there was no malice intented by those rednecks in Ala calling blacks Aborigines while trying to change the laws? Head in sand much??

Seems Republicans have totally given up on modifying their policies and attitudes and would rather defacto have people with white hoods standing at polling places on election day.

 

[nehalem256]

And there was no malice intented by those rednecks in Ala calling blacks Aborigines while trying to change the laws? Head in sand much??

Seems Republicans have totally given up on modifying their policies and attitudes and would rather defacto have people with white hoods standing at polling places on election day.

I am saying if the "black aborigines" had been voting Republican the "rednecks" would have welcomed the turnout.

 

[glenn1]

With this law, like every law, you balance the benefits to society vs. the freedom you are infringing. It's really easy to make a case for how infringing on the freedom of a state that not engaged in rampant racial voting discrimination doesn't make sense but infringing on a repeat offender does.

When states behave differently you treat them differently.

I thought ending voter discrimination was an unqualified good, now you're telling me it needs to be balanced against "state freedom?" So if say Minnesota only passed a small amount of voter discrimination measures, you'd be cool with that since you're balancing it against state's rights?

 

[fskimospy]

I thought ending voter discrimination was an unqualified good, now you're telling me it needs to be balanced against "state freedom?" So if say Minnesota only passed a small amount of voter discrimination measures, you'd be cool with that since you're balancing it against state's rights?

Of course it isn't an unqualified good. Should the US Army be called in to take over a small town because the local mayor made some discriminatory ordinance? Of course not, the response is proportional to the offense. Basically every single case that reaches the Supreme Court has balancing interests at play. If they didn't, they wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this though, it has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Every state is subject to absolutely identical laws against voter discrimination. Some states, due to repeated attempts to subvert those laws, have additional safeguards put in place in order to accomplish the same goal.

I am no more okay with Minnesota discriminating than I am Texas, and luckily the law puts the same requirement for equality on both. Texas' history of racist attempts to limit minority voting meant that the feds decided to enforce that law differently there, however.

 

[ivwshane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_who_cried_wolf

That should explain things for you.




Anyone notice that 90% of black people vote Democrat. Do I need to explain to you why putting a measure on a ballot that increases turnout among those who would vote 90% against you is a bad idea(regardless of the race involved)?

Logically if there was discussion of a ballot measure to say install school prayer Democrats would want to prevent it because it would drive up the Evangelical Christian vote, most of whom vote Republican. It doesn't mean they hate Christians; it means they are intelligent

Lol!

Could you pull any more shit out of your ass?

You compare real world examples with a made up example to prove your point? Lol, please.

 

[zinfamous]

Perhaps while you're sharing your superior knowledge of, well, everything with those poor dumb Supreme Court Justices, you can explain to them how half-century old data are still exactly relevant today and how Affirmative Action programs can never change, only grow.

These data are from 1965 at the very latest. People who could not vote when it was enacted are now happily retired, and not just from government jobs. If you "think" that nothing has changed in forty-eight years, why not just advocate separating the southern and midwestern states away from the USA?

Well, here's one old lady that is smarter than all of us; and fortunately, she has already answered this question of yours:

It is a very contradictory message that SCOTUS on the one hand has told Congress that they aren't capable of handling the Voter Rights Act (even though Congress had unanimous bi-partisan support, every time they re-authorized it), yet on the other hand tell them, that Congress must re-formulate and re-draw the maps.

I think it is summed up very well here in this dissent by Ginsburg:

Here are five key excerpts from her dissent:

"When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’ power to act is at its height."

"Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime."

"Just as buildings in California have a greater need to be earthquake* proofed, places where there is greater racial polarization in voting have a greater need for prophylactic measures to prevent purposeful race discrimination."

"Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story. See supra, at 18–19. Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on "data from the record," and declines to enter the "debat[e about] what [the] record shows" ... One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation's signal piece of civil-rights legislation.

"Given a record replete with examples of denial or abridgment of a paramount federal right, the Court should have left the matter where it belongs: in Congress’ bailiwick."
Ginsburg's dissent also rattled off these eight examples of race-based voter discrimination in recent history:

In 1995, Mississippi sought to reenact a dual voter registration system, "which was initially enacted in 1892 to disenfranchise Black voters," and for that reason, was struck down by a federal court in 1987.

Following the 2000 census, the City of Albany, Georgia, proposed a redistricting plan that DOJ found to be "designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength … in the city as a whole."

In 2001, the mayor and all-white five-member Board of Aldermen of Kilmichael, Mississippi, abruptly canceled the town’s election after "an unprecedented number" of African-American candidates announced they were running for office. DOJ required an election, and the town elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen.

In 2006, this Court found that Texas’ attempt to re¬draw a congressional district to reduce the strength of Latino voters bore "the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation," and ordered the district redrawn in compliance with the VRA ... In response, Texas sought to undermine this Court’s order by curtailing early voting in the district, but was blocked by an action to enforce the §5 pre-clearance requirement.

In 2003, after African-Americans won a majority of the seats on the school board for the first time in history, Charleston County, South Carolina, pro¬posed an at-large voting mechanism for the board. The proposal, made without consulting any of the African-American members of the school board, was found to be an "'exact replica'" of an earlier voting scheme that, a federal court had determined, violated the VRA ... DOJ invoked §5 to block the proposal.

In 1993, the City of Millen, Georgia, proposed to delay the election in a majority-black district by two years, leaving that district without representation on the city council while the neighboring majority white district would have three representatives ... DOJ blocked the proposal. The county then sought to move a polling place from a predominantly black neighborhood in the city to an inaccessible location in a predominantly white neighborhood outside city limits.

In 2004, Waller County, Texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their intention to run for office. The county then attempted to reduce the avail ability of early voting in that election at polling places near a historically black university.

In 1990, Dallas County, Alabama, whose county seat is the City of Selma, sought to purge its voter rolls of many black voters. DOJ rejected the purge as discriminatory, noting that it would have disqualified many citizens from voting "simply because they failed to pick up or return a voter update form, when there was no valid requirement that they do so."

READ HER FULL DISSENT HERE

 

[PokerGuy]

When states behave differently you treat them differently.

Do you have any data more recent than 50 years ago that indicates which states and jurisdictions "behave differently"? Should we go by 100 year old data? How about 150 years? It's obviously stupid to use such irrelevant data as the basis for such decisions, and the majority of the court understood this.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well, here's one old lady that is smarter than all of us; and fortunately, she has already answered this question of yours:

You mean that dingbat who's wrong on just about every ruling?

Read the majority opinion, it makes complete sense. Dingbat's dissent is just an emotional appeal for irrational decisions.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have any data more recent than 50 years ago that indicates which states and jurisdictions "behave differently"? Should we go by 100 year old data? How about 150 years? It's obviously stupid to use such irrelevant data as the basis for such decisions, and the majority of the court understood this.

Sure, there are plenty of examples in this thread. Additionally, while debating the extension Congress accessed current data to see if reauthorizing the old formula made sense. They decided almost unanimously that it did. Don't think I don't notice the irony of someone who has complained repeatedly about activist judges endorsing an opinion that overturns not only decades of precedent but unanimous legislative activity. Not that I doubt your ability to utilize doublethink to justify this to yourself. Better avoid those uncomfortable thoughts.

Additionally, you appear to be defending Roberts' rationale that because the Voting Rights Act was effective, we don't need the Voting Rights Act. Needless to say, that is unpersuasive. lol.

 

[zinfamous]

You mean that dingbat who's wrong on just about every ruling?

Read the majority opinion, it makes complete sense. Dingbat's dissent is just an emotional appeal for irrational decisions.

lol. you a funny guy.

basically, this is what you are saying: close analysis of data should be written off as "emotional appeal." whereas the opinion that makes "sense" is actually nothing more than a cursory examination of a pile of corrolated nonsense.


but, carry on. you're failure to grasp these minor points is funny to me.

hey--which justices would be considered the "activist judges" in this case? ....it make you sad to realize that you are now on their side. but then, you will likely never accept that.

 

[PokerGuy]

while debating the extension Congress accessed current data to see if reauthorizing the old formula made sense. They decided almost unanimously that it did.

Sure they did, and the information presented in court showed beyond any reasonable doubt that it was completely worthless and made no logical sense, that's what sunk the VRA case.

Don't think I don't notice the irony of someone who has complained repeatedly about activist judges endorsing an opinion that overturns not only decades of precedent but unanimous legislative activity. Not that I doubt your ability to utilize doublethink to justify this to yourself. Better avoid those uncomfortable thoughts.

In reality, had the congress applied the rules across the board equally, then the court interfering would be judicial activism. Instead, they chose the more narrow approach, they didn't create some new legislation with their ruling, they just threw out the use of garbage data to single out certain communities which is clearly unconstitutional. Congress is free to do it correctly if they want to.

Additionally, you appear to be defending Roberts' rationale that because the Voting Rights Act was effective, we don't need the Voting Rights Act. Needless to say, that is unpersuasive. lol.

Using that logic there is no way the VRA could ever be removed either. If it was effective, we need to keep it because it's effective. If there are problems, the VRA is obviously still needed. That's the flip side of the same logical coin. It doesn't make sense either way.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure they did, and the information presented in court showed beyond any reasonable doubt that it was completely worthless and made no logical sense, that's what sunk the VRA case.

Oh really? You're claiming SCOTUS undertook the same quality of review as Congress did? I await your evidence for this, because it's pretty obviously false.

In reality, had the congress applied the rules across the board equally, then the court interfering would be judicial activism. Instead, they chose the more narrow approach, they didn't create some new legislation with their ruling, they just threw out the use of garbage data to single out certain communities which is clearly unconstitutional. Congress is free to do it correctly if they want to.

Like I said, I had no doubt that you would find a way to rationalize it. I do eagerly await your screams of judicial activism if SCOTUS invalidates DOMA or declares gay marriage bans to be unconstitutional. I'm sure you'll decide that those were legislated 'correctly'.

Don't let those uncomfortable thoughts bother you. Just push them out of your head and pretend it never happened.

Using that logic there is no way the VRA could ever be removed either. If it was effective, we need to keep it because it's effective. If there are problems, the VRA is obviously still needed. That's the flip side of the same logical coin. It doesn't make sense either way.

So you're finally starting to see that simply using racial disparities in voting as the determinant for deciding the applicability of this law is an incredibly dumb idea. You mind giving the Supreme Court a call and sharing this newfound insight of yours with them? No need to telephone Congress about that, btw. They weren't so foolish.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh really? You're claiming SCOTUS undertook the same quality of review as Congress did? I await your evidence for this, because it's pretty obviously false.

Nope, nowhere did I make that claim. I did, however, say that the data presented in court (and elsewhere) showed very easily and conclusively that using 50 year old data was absurd.

I do eagerly await your screams of judicial activism if SCOTUS invalidates DOMA or declares gay marriage bans to be unconstitutional. I'm sure you'll decide that those were legislated 'correctly'.

I'm pretty sure the 4 merry band of idiots on the court will get the 1 additional vote they need to change the definition of marriage to suit the whims of some, but I don't call that judicial activism, I call it stupidity.

Don't let those uncomfortable thoughts bother you.

You must be projecting again

So you're finally starting to see that simply using racial disparities in voting as the determinant for deciding the applicability of this law is an incredibly dumb idea.

Down goes the strawman! ... sorry, I've said nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out that your argument about Robert's rationale holds no water.

No need to telephone Congress about that, btw. They weren't so foolish.

No, they did something even more stupid (and unconstitutional), they choose some formula based on 50 year old data to single out and punish certain communities.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, they most certainly needed to be educated better on the issues. That was also part of Ginsberg's dissent, the incredibly poor job the majority did of researching the topic as compared to the data assembled by the legislature. Maybe you would like to explain to that poor, dumb Supreme Court Justice why her understanding of the evidence was wrong?

Edit: If you look at my other posts though, I already explained why their reasoning was terrible. Roberts' questioning was simply nonsensical and Scalia's was ideologically inconsistent with basically all the rest of his jurisprudence.

You are asking why if I think that some southern jurisdictions still enact racist voting regulation that I wouldn't also endorse the forcible secession of about 100 million people, leading to a legal, political, and economic crisis? Because I'm not retarded, that's why.

By the way, did you read that passage I quoted to you on the paranoid style of American politics? I really think it fits you to a T.

I don't have to explain to Ginsberg why her understanding of the evidence was wrong; five other Supreme Court justices have already done so for me, much better than could I.

Yes, I read it and refuted it point by point. You probably couldn't see it since it disagrees with your beliefs, but it is there. If you can somehow overcome your dilemma in believing anyone who CAN see it, perhaps someone could verify that for you. I even think a couple of passages are especially relevant here:
"The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving."

"Very often, the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind; he has a special technique for seduction."

You are arguing that southern states are thoroughly evil, will always be thoroughly evil, and therefore must always labor under the standards of 1965, otherwise they will certainly subvert our very political system. (Which is odd considering that you still want us along for economic reasons, but whatever.) That fits the description to a T, but oddly enough you see it on the other side. But then, you see EVERY issue on the other side.

I'm continually amazed that someone who feels (and admits feeling) that one party is evil and always wrong on every single issue, and whose followers (comprising roughly 30 - 40% of our nation) are either also evil or poor deluded fools, can glibly accuse others of being paranoid for thinking that each party is right on some issues and wrong on others. With that level of self-awareness, can you even recognize your own image in the mirror? Doesn't seem likely . . .

Lol, our country has a history of ignoring or getting rid of legislation because it's old. We should do the same with the constitution, after all it's a 200+ year old god damn piece of paper!
/s

I'm glad to see you turned off the stupidity with "/s". Maybe now you can understand that no legislation was gotten rid of or ignored. What the justices did was to assert that one cannot blindly assume malfeasance in perpetuity, even for jurisdictions that <gasp> did not vote for Obama. The legislation remains and can be used wherever one can justify using it; the Dems simply cannot continue using it based on data a half century out of date.

You can only challenge in court after the fact. In other words the harm has to have occurred already. The result an incumbant would already be in place and its effectively too late. Under the old law feds are preventing harm before it happens based on history.

Bullshit. Judicial stays are amazingly common. When a law is proposed or enacted (assuming they have to pass the bill to find out what's in it - I hear that can happen) that one finds discriminatory, one is certainly free to take action, present your reasoning, and request a stay while the matter is adjudicated. Happens all the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What SCOTUS did today is not end VRA but made it inoperable, and I am really appalled and yes, completely surprised that this has come about. These States are already gearing a war on a bunch of laws concerning VRA. Please don't make assumptions about people concerning tax and the ACA, and what a nice way to deflect from the current conversation. Ad Hominem much??

If you were against the punishment tax as much as you are this then my apologies.

Nevertheless the act survives and requires that the formula be replaced by something else. Congress has that ability and should act to bring it ahead by the 60 years or so instead of perpetual punishment of people not even born when the formula was created. It's not "states" that are being punished or discriminated against. It's not minorities. It's the entire population which are hostage to any change, at least until now. Bring the act into the 20th century and have violations in ANY state punishable.

 

[werepossum]

Well, here's one old lady that is smarter than all of us; and fortunately, she has already answered this question of yours:

Does anyone here really believe that Congress "approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness"? Virtually no Congressman or Senator wants to be on the wrong side of voting against any traditional civil rights issue; such reauthorization bills routinely sail through because it's political suicide (in most districts) to oppose them regardless of whether they are still needed.

In any case, if Ginsberg is correct then no doubt Congress will swiftly act with similar "great care and seriousness" to determine where such extreme measures are needed today, as opposed to half a century ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, they most certainly needed to be educated better on the issues. That was also part of Ginsberg's dissent, the incredibly poor job the majority did of researching the topic as compared to the data assembled by the legislature. Maybe you would like to explain to that poor, dumb Supreme Court Justice why her understanding of the evidence was wrong?

Well you can educate the SCOTUS and offer your services as a Justice and I can take another seat and act against the punishment tax.

 

[PokerGuy]

Bring the act into the 20th century and have violations in ANY state punishable.

The act doesn't need to be brought into the 20th or any other century. Any and all rules/laws are subject to challenge and judicial review under a host of federal laws, as they've been for a long time. This ruling does absolutely nothing to those rules, they apply everywhere. All this ruling does it to throw out singling out of certain communities for punishment based on 50 year old data in a formula.

 

[fskimospy]

If you were against the punishment tax as much as you are this then my apologies.

Nevertheless the act survives and requires that the formula be replaced by something else. Congress has that ability and should act to bring it ahead by the 60 years or so instead of perpetual punishment of people not even born when the formula was created. It's not "states" that are being punished or discriminated against. It's not minorities. It's the entire population which are hostage to any change, at least until now. Bring the act into the 20th century and have violations in ANY state punishable.

I don't think you understand the statute. Violations in any state are already punishable and have been since the day the act was signed.

 

[werepossum]

If you were against the punishment tax as much as you are this then my apologies.

Nevertheless the act survives and requires that the formula be replaced by something else. Congress has that ability and should act to bring it ahead by the 60 years or so instead of perpetual punishment of people not even born when the formula was created. It's not "states" that are being punished or discriminated against. It's not minorities. It's the entire population which are hostage to any change, at least until now. Bring the act into the 20th century and have violations in ANY state punishable.

Well said.