Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[Texashiker]

They are already making laws as we speak to prepare for the Guebernatorial races, and for 2016.

Its Texas, what do you expect?

We are always pushing the envelope on something. If Texas was not in the news the world would be a boring place.

 

[Oldgamer]

Let the huge march on our US streets begin, and watch when people will start rioting, it isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when. There will be bloodshed on this again, yes there will be blood.


*shakes head in sadness*

 

[sportage]

My opinion, the events you described should first be handled by the states attorney general, and then by the feds.

Yeah.... right....
And to what is he accountable? Or better yet, to whom?

 

[Oldgamer]

Its Texas, what do you expect?

We are always pushing the envelope on something. If Texas was not in the news the world would be a boring place.

Really? Thats it, you say? No, the 1965 law we had in place was working just fine, and those justices who voted to uppend it basically know that. This is leading the way for so much racism and discriminatory practices. It is not just in Texas, its Ohio, Pennsylvania, and S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Arizona, god the list goes on. There were 700 new voter restrictions laws that tried to pass last election. Or did we all just simply forget that?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I have to respectfully disagree.

The generation that harbored the majority of decriminalization is either dead, retired, or out of power.

So you don't know shit about RECENT attempts to disenfranchise minority voters in the Grand Ol' State of Texas? Guess your red neck is showing>

 

[Oldgamer]

This is what I called living in a Bubble by many. Including Clarance Thomas who has not had to be discriminated against, or treated the way that many of his fellow african americans have. It just strikes me as how totally disconnected he is from the real world. How soon he has forgotten that those rights given to him, helped to get him where he is. But now he and others have opened the doors and floodgates to discriminatory practices. He will live to regret this, and so will his family and extended family who will be treated in a fashion they probably haven't experienced in awhile. He is protected by the Robes he wears now, but his family and friends are not.

 

[Oldgamer]

Basically, until Congress decides which states need monitoring still, the federal government cannot really do much in the way of blocking laws (concering voting) until Congress does.

 

[sportage]

Not to change the subject, and this will be a quite heated topic I'm sure, I feel tomorrow will take a bad day for equal rights full circle.
Obviously, the court prefers police and police dogs, and fire hoses, attacking protesting crowds, the random thrill cracking of heads in Gay bars by police thugs, and WHITES ONLY / COLOREDS drinking fountains / restrooms.
Because THAT is where we are heading.
BACK, to the future........!!!!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Really? Thats it, you say? No, the 1965 law we had in place was working just fine, and those justices who voted to uppend it basically know that. This is leading the way for so much racism and discriminatory practices. It is not just in Texas, its Ohio, Pennsylvania, and S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Arizona, god the list goes on. There were 700 new voter restrictions laws that tried to pass last election. Or did we all just simply forget that?

I'm sure you and others ranted when the punishment tax concept for the ACA was approved. Sure you did.

If the SCOTUS wanted to end the voting rights they did a crappy job since Congress can use other means than an almost 60 year old test. Your abusive government still retains power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not to change the subject, and this will be a quite heated topic I'm sure, I feel tomorrow will take a bad day for equal rights full circle.
Obviously, the court prefers police and police dogs, and fire hoses, attacking protesting crowds, the random thrill cracking of heads in Gay bars by police thugs, and WHITES ONLY / COLOREDS drinking fountains / restrooms.
Because THAT is where we are heading.
BACK, to the future........!!!!!!

Yeah because that's what they did. No but it's always good to have riots and death by lying about it then you can sit smugly while others suffer for your crass disregard for truth. Haven't you some phone calls to listen in on?

 

[glenn1]

Maddow (MSNBC) last night had a perfect example of why this law was and is needed. In I believe it was west Texas or Huston, the republicans revamped the number of polling places from a total of 84 down to 12. Yes, just 12 polling places reduced from the previous 84 polling places. And the way these 12 polling places were divided up? They were stacked or revamped so that 6500 whites would be served by available polling locations. And the blacks? 67,000 would be served by the republican revamped poll location placing.
So as Maddow said, whites? They don't have to stand in line.
Blacks?
67,000 will be lining up to vote at their share of the 12 polling places.
Yes kiddies... thats 6500 whites served vs 67,000 blacks standing in line.

Well... thanks to the federal "voting rights law", that attempt to play this little game with poll location placing in Texas was stopped! Halted. Nixed!

Yeah, they nixed it alright - after the district submitted their pre-clearance request well ahead of time, the DOJ lodged their objection on the Friday afternoon a whopping 8 days before the scheduled election. And then sued them afterwards for committing a Section 5 violation when they postponed the election due to lack of time to adjust their plans, hire additional election judges, etc.

BTW, the polling district covered 1,000 square miles including Houston, so it's not any mystery that ones in more populated areas would service more people. Or is it your position that all the voting stations should have been in Houston? Or that minority voters should have been bused out to outlying districts, or force the voters in Willis, TX to drive 50 miles to vote in order that the polling stations serve equal numbers of people?


http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/nharrismont_cd.php

 

[PokerGuy]

Basically, until Congress decides which states need monitoring still, the federal government cannot really do much in the way of blocking laws (concering voting) until Congress does.

What are you babbling on about? The requirements around what changes are allowed under federal law have not changed. What has changed is the part about having to "pre-clear" any changes with the feds. If some place puts in place some discriminatory rule or practice, the feds can throw it out just the same as before.

The pre-clearance was based on some archaic data from 1965 that was demonstrated in court to be completely worthless currently.

 

[Texashiker]

So you don't know shit about RECENT attempts to disenfranchise minority voters in the Grand Ol' State of Texas? Guess your red neck is showing>

I do not know what you are talking about.

Nobody I know has ever had an issue voting, I also stand in lines next to all other races in order to vote.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm sure you and others ranted when the punishment tax concept for the ACA was approved. Sure you did.

If the SCOTUS wanted to end the voting rights they did a crappy job since Congress can use other means than an almost 60 year old test. Your abusive government still retains power.

Apples and oranges. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law. In 2006 the VRA was renewed almost unanimously and now SCOTUS has placed a dagger into it.

 

[Sonikku]

Getting real tired of all the Liberals going on about race. This has nothing to do with racism. It's just us wanting to win when the black vote always goes squarely to our opponents. If they just voted Republican in the numbers they voted Democrat there wouldn't be any trouble. But no. They just gotta' vote for that uppity president fellow and his kin like clock work.

 

[PokerGuy]

Apples and oranges. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law. In 2006 the VRA was renewed almost unanimously and now SCOTUS has placed a dagger into it.

They did not put a dagger in anything. All they did was throw out the use of ancient meaningless data to govern a different set of requirements for certain jurisdictions/states. Congress can apply the same rules to all jurisdictions, or they can use current information to make a determination of what jurisdictions should be subject to additional scrutiny. Either way, the standards for what jurisdictions can or can not do have not changed.

 

[Oldgamer]

I'm sure you and others ranted when the punishment tax concept for the ACA was approved. Sure you did.

If the SCOTUS wanted to end the voting rights they did a crappy job since Congress can use other means than an almost 60 year old test. Your abusive government still retains power.

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??

 

[Oldgamer]

What are you babbling on about? The requirements around what changes are allowed under federal law have not changed. What has changed is the part about having to "pre-clear" any changes with the feds. If some place puts in place some discriminatory rule or practice, the feds can throw it out just the same as before.

The pre-clearance was based on some archaic data from 1965 that was demonstrated in court to be completely worthless currently.

You obviously are not paying attention.. the pre-clear and the requirement by the feds to hold up any voter rights laws that might be implemented, has come to a grinding halt. Until Congress re-formulates and re-draws those states that they think need to be monitored (good luck with that btw), these states can effectively push their laws and not be challenged. The Feds, the DOJ will be powerless to do anything at this point.

The VRA is not dead, just rendered inoperable.

 

[MovingTarget]

This doesn't strike down the VRA, which is a good thing. I'm honestly not surprised that this decision was reached. Despite my progressive leanings, I do feel that this is the correct decision. Those in the South should not be held accountable for the policies of their grandfathers. A lot has changed down here, and yes, a lot still needs to change. We shouldn't be subjecting some counties (and not others) counties to pre-clearance based on data that predates the Reagan administration. Many of these places should still need pre-clearance, but not in perpetuity.

Those that see this as a blow to civil rights (which it is to some extent) should realize that the 2006 congress is the one that screwed the pooch here. They had the opportunity to fix this obvious flaw in the legislation and update it for the 21st century. I hope that the current congress would do something, but I don't hold out hope that the current House of Representatives would do anything other than try to gut the VRA even further.

 

[Oldgamer]

Apples and oranges. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law. In 2006 the VRA was renewed almost unanimously and now SCOTUS has placed a dagger into it.

That is the very hypocritical message of the Justices who did this today, (telling Congress they can't handle this yet telling the to handle it?),

they didn't use any real evidence for their decision, just the censas bureau and how many minorities voted in the last election, to basically say "hey black people didn't have a problem voting, look how many voted in the last election, look how many black people we have today, since 1965"... in other words they are saying racism doesn't exist now? WTF? Oh, I see, because we have a black president this means no one is a racist, and racist policies won't happen. That is truly living in a bubble and hiding behind robes and power. Its appalling, and utterly disgusting. We are about to see some very scary things happen here soon folks.. like I said its not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when".. and anyone who thinks that racial disciminatory practices are a thing of the past needs to take a look at what was going on in the last election. Look at how many states tried to push restrictive and totally racist type voting policies and laws. This is what the SCOTUS needed to be looking at, is the behavior of these states from this past election, and all those laws that had to be blocked and struck down. Clearly we are dealing with very insidious behavior on the court.

 

[Oldgamer]

This doesn't strike down the VRA, which is a good thing.

No but their decision today has rendered it inoperable....

 

[fskimospy]

That is the very hypocritical message of the Justices who did this today, (telling Congress they can't handle this yet telling the to handle it?),

they didn't use any real evidence for their decision, just the censas bureau and how many minorities voted in the last election, to basically say "hey black people didn't have a problem voting, look how many voted in the last election, look how many black people we have today, since 1965"... in other words they are saying racism doesn't exist now? WTF? Oh, I see, because we have a black president this means no one is a racist, and racist policies won't happen. That is truly living in a bubble and hiding behind robes and power. Its appalling, and utterly disgusting. We are about to see some very scary things happen here soon folks.. like I said its not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when".. and anyone who thinks that racial disciminatory practices are a thing of the past needs to take a look at what was going on in the last election. Look at how many states tried to push restrictive and totally racist type voting policies and laws. This is what the SCOTUS needed to be looking at, is the behavior of these states from this past election, and all those laws that had to be blocked and struck down. Clearly we are dealing with very insidious behavior on the court.

This was raised before, but Ginsberg put it best. The conservatives on the court simply put forth an impossible standard and then claimed that the law didn't meet it.

1.) If significant racial disparities in voting still existed, that means the law was ineffective. Congress could keep renewing it, but in that case they were just renewing worthless legislation so it should be eliminated.

2.) If racial disparities have been eliminated or significantly lessened, that means there's no need for the law anymore therefore it should be eliminated.

No matter what the situation the answer was always the same. I imagine they were attempting to avoid blowback from simply stating that it should be gotten rid of no matter if it is needed or not, but the reasoning they used to cover it up is so transparently poor that they just came out looking stupid and/or willfully ignorant.

 

[werepossum]

Actually SCOTUS only struck down the formula used to treat states differently, not the practice. Congress is still free to treat different states differently if it so chooses, as well it should.

It's a sad day because the arguments used by the conservative justices during oral arguments at least constituted a range of embarrassments from Roberts' basic lack of understanding of statistics and causality to Scalia's sudden embrace of judicial activism (for this case only) to save the poor legislature from the black person lobby.

Gross.

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?

 

[Oldgamer]

This was raised before, but Ginsberg put it best. The conservatives on the court simply put forth an impossible standard and then claimed that the law didn't meet it.

1.) If significant racial disparities in voting still existed, that means the law was ineffective. Congress could keep renewing it, but in that case they were just renewing worthless legislation so it should be eliminated.

2.) If racial disparities have been eliminated or significantly lessened, that means there's no need for the law anymore therefore it should be eliminated.

No matter what the situation the answer was always the same. I imagine they were attempting to avoid blowback from simply stating that it should be gotten rid of no matter if it is needed or not, but the reasoning they used to cover it up is so transparently poor that they just came out looking stupid and/or willfully ignorant.

Exactly, and I think this is a way for them to avoid some serious rioting, because many probably aren't educated enough to realize that what they did was basically kill it. It is a way for them to punt and wash their hands clean.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.

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?

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.