Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[Oldgamer]

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?

Good gried are you even comprehending some of what has happened today? Are you reading Ginsbergs Dissent? Either your incredibly ignorant or you are one of those that lives in a bubble also.

 

[ivwshane]

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?

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

 

[glenn1]

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

Don't worry, Obama is working on it.

And if the DOJ can't enforce voting discrimination laws with Section 2 avenues now that Section 5 has been limited, perhaps the problem is with the Feds rather than the states.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't worry, Obama is working on it.

And if the DOJ can't enforce voting discrimination laws with Section 2 avenues now that Section 5 has been limited, perhaps the problem is with the Feds rather than the states.

No, the problem would definitely still be with the states. You realize why section 5 came into existence, right?

1.) A state would enact a racist voting law.
2.) People/feds would challenge it and win after a lengthy court battle.
3.) The state would enact a very slightly different racist voting law.
4.) People back at square 1.

 

[nehalem256]

No, the problem would definitely still be with the states. You realize why section 5 came into existence, right?

1.) A state would enact a racist voting law.
2.) People/feds would challenge it and win after a lengthy court battle.
3.) The state would enact a very slightly different racist voting law.
4.) People back at square 1.

Actually I think you mean now it would be something like

1.) A state would enact a law that made it harder for Democrats to vote(for instance requiring ID that for some reason Democrats are unable to acquire)
2.) Liberals would scream racism
3.) A conservative state(FL) would reduce early voting times to still be more than a liberal state(MN)
4.) Liberals would scream racism

 

[fskimospy]

Actually I think you mean now it would be something like

1.) A state would enact a law that made it harder for Democrats to vote(for instance requiring ID that for some reason Democrats are unable to acquire)
2.) Liberals would scream racism
3.) A conservative state(FL) would reduce early voting times to still be more than a liberal state(MN)
4.) Liberals would scream racism

Grow up.

 

[glenn1]

No, the problem would definitely still be with the states. You realize why section 5 came into existence, right?

1.) A state would enact a racist voting law.
2.) People/feds would challenge it and win after a lengthy court battle.
3.) The state would enact a very slightly different racist voting law.
4.) People back at square 1.

Apply it to all states then. Surely there's no compelling reason to allow some states an easier path to impose voter discrimination, regardless of whether they use it or not. There is absolutely no rational purpose for wanting the Feds to only be able to pre-emptively challenge voter discrimination laws in some states but not others. And fighting it when it does occur shouldn't require a lengthy court battle in one state but not another.

 

[fskimospy]

Apply it to all states then. Surely there's no compelling reason to allow some states an easier path to impose voter discrimination, regardless of whether they use it or not. There is absolutely no rational purpose for wanting the Feds to only be able to pre-emptively challenge voter discrimination laws in some states but not others. And fighting it when it does occur shouldn't require a lengthy court battle in one state but not another.

Of course there is.

This law was specifically enacted due to repeated race-based lawlessness by a specific subset of states. All federal laws such as this should be tailored to only those areas that exhibited bad enough behavior to merit such an intervention.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course there is.

This law was specifically enacted due to repeated race-based lawlessness by a specific subset of states. All federal laws such as this should be tailored to only those areas that exhibited bad enough behavior to merit such an intervention.

And of course there is no evidence of race-based lawlessness anymore

There is however ample evidence of liberals claiming that everything Republicans do is race based.

 

[ivwshane]

And of course there is no evidence of race-based lawlessness anymore

There is however ample evidence of liberals claiming that everything Republicans do is race based.

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).

 

[glenn1]

Of course there is.

This law was specifically enacted due to repeated race-based lawlessness by a specific subset of states. All federal laws such as this should be tailored to only those areas that exhibited bad enough behavior to merit such an intervention.

Fine with me. Net effect is that you're not willing to not preempt voter discrimination laws in northern states. I guess you must want to reserve the right to pass them in the future without intervention from the Fed.

It will also be fun to see which other federal laws should apply to only "specific subsets of states which exhibited bad enough behavior to merit such intervention." I wonder which states will be exempt from womens' equality laws for example.

 

[HomerJS]

And of course there is no evidence of race-based lawlessness anymore

There is however ample evidence of liberals claiming that everything Republicans do is race based.

Their ratification of the VRA in 2006 wasn't

 

[fskimospy]

Fine with me. Net effect is that you're not willing to not preempt voter discrimination laws in northern states. I guess you must want to reserve the right to pass them in the future without intervention from the Fed.

It will also be fun to see which other federal laws should apply to only specific subsets of states which exhibited bad enough behavior to merit such intervention. I wonder which states will be exempt from womens' equality laws for example.

No state is exempt from the equality mandates of the law and any state can be sued equally for violating them.

Certain states specifically, repeatedly, and willfully violated the law and did so in a manner designed to defeat its intended purpose. That is why they were required to pre-clear their voting law changes.

The law puts the same equality requirements on all states, its matter of implementation was just modified to deal with states intent on being racist anyway. You reap what you sow.

 

[Oldgamer]

No, the problem would definitely still be with the states. You realize why section 5 came into existence, right?

1.) A state would enact a racist voting law.
2.) People/feds would challenge it and win after a lengthy court battle.
3.) The state would enact a very slightly different racist voting law.
4.) People back at square 1.

Yes this is called a "whack a mole" method, and that is why they should not have gutted the section 4 in VRA. We are now going back to that.

 

[Oldgamer]

Actually I think you mean now it would be something like

1.) A state would enact a law that made it harder for Democrats to vote(for instance requiring ID that for some reason Democrats are unable to acquire)
2.) Liberals would scream racism
3.) A conservative state(FL) would reduce early voting times to still be more than a liberal state(MN)
4.) Liberals would scream racism

Seriously what is wrong with you, you sound like a 10 year old kid.

 

[HomerJS]

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...

A recent FBI investigation provides a further windowinto the persistence of racial discrimination in state politics. See United States v. McGregor, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1344–1348 (MD Ala. 2011). Recording devices worn bystate legislators cooperating with the FBI’s investigation captured conversations between members of the state legislature and their political allies. The recorded conversations are shocking. Members of the state Senate derisively refer to African-Americans as “Aborigines” and talk openly of their aim to quash a particular gambling-relatedreferendum because the referendum, if placed on the ballot, might increase African-American voter turnout. Id., at 1345–1346 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also id., at 1345 (legislators and their allies expressed concern that if the referendum were placed on the ballot,“‘[e]very black, every illiterate’ would be ‘bused [to thepolls] on HUD financed buses’”). These conversations occurred not in the 1870’s, or even in the 1960’s, they took place in 2010.

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

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Again, you are completely clueless. There is nothing stopping anyone from challenging changes in laws and regulations in federal court under the CRA and a host of other federal laws. The only thing that has changed is the requirement for pre-clearance. Nothing has changed as far as the ability to challenge changes in court, the court just threw out pre-clearance requirements based on absurd 60 year old data that has been shown to be worthless at this point.

 

[PokerGuy]

No state is exempt from the equality mandates of the law and any state can be sued equally for violating them.

Exactly, so why all the whining and gnashing of teeth? Nothing has changed. Anyone can still challenge any laws and rules, just as they could before. It doesn't make sense to impose special requirements on areas because their grandfathers may have done something wrong. Using 50+ year old data to drive the process is idiotic.

 

[glenn1]

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??

And yet if the same conversation occured across the border in Tennessee, Section 5 wouldn't have applied and the "aboriginies" in question would have no recourse until after the fact. I guess to progressives, the old line from Orwell is true, "All aboriginies are equal, but some are more equal than others."

 

[HomerJS]

Again, you are completely clueless. There is nothing stopping anyone from challenging changes in laws and regulations in federal court under the CRA and a host of other federal laws. The only thing that has changed is the requirement for pre-clearance. Nothing has changed as far as the ability to challenge changes in court, the court just threw out pre-clearance requirements based on absurd 60 year old data that has been shown to be worthless at this point.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly, so why all the whining and gnashing of teeth? Nothing has changed. Anyone can still challenge any laws and rules, just as they could before.

That's discussed in other posts in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet if the same conversation occured across the border in Tennessee, Section 5 wouldn't have applied and the "aboriginies" in question would have no recourse until after the fact. I guess to progressives, the old line from Orwell is true, "All aboriginies are equal, but some are more equal than others."

What would be really crazy is to see a handful of states deliberately trying to subvert the law and then impose requirements on other states that weren't engaging in that behavior.

 

[Incorruptible]

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??

The only ones with their heads in their asses are liberals

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

That's obviously plain wrong. You can challenge laws and regulations in advance (as was done in Ohio with the poll open times this last election), you don't have to wait until after the election (or for the harm to occur) before you can challenge laws in court. Nice try though.

 

[HomerJS]

Using 50+ year old data to drive the process is idiotic.

That 50+ year old data didn't stop Alabama in 2010