Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[PokerGuy]

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.

Well put. I'll be holding my breath on that one

 

[fskimospy]

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 . . .

They most certainly did not address her criticisms. If you believe they did, please quote the passage.

As for the Paranoid Style in American Politics, you will notice that I do not attribute such qualities to the South at all. They do not possess some special power, denying representation to minorities is not subverting our political system (it's just unconstitutional and shitty), I do not believe them to be thoroughly evil (just racist in this case), etc, etc. I attribute none of the cartoonish villainy to them that you apply to progressives on a regular basis, nor do I view them as this all-encompassing threat as you do progressives. Sure they have a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but that's just the result of ignorance, not some nefarious cabal.

What's funny is that you appeared to miss the part of that piece that talks about how the paranoid projects his own view of the world on others, believing they are cut from the same cloth. You just did it here with me, which is pretty unintentionally telling on your part.

It's almost like someone read that piece and created a parody account with your name on it to prove this piece right. It reads like an almost word-for-word bio of your posting MO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

That's terrific. Are the states currently being punished for today's misdeeds or the sins of the fathers?

 

[fskimospy]

That's terrific. Are the states currently being punished for today's misdeeds or the sins of the fathers?

In the near-unanimous judgment of the US Congress, today's misdeeds.

 

[Riparian]

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.

I know you want to keep repeating the phrase "50 year old data" but people have already put forth that the renewal of the Act was not based only on 50 year old data. Here's just a quick article addressing modern violations of the VRA and the percentage of those cases that are filed in the states or jurisdictions covered by section 5 of the VRA:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/

 

[Oldgamer]

I know you want to keep repeating the phrase "50 year old data" but people have already put forth that the renewal of the Act was not based only on 50 year old data. Here's just a quick article addressing modern violations of the VRA and the percentage of those cases that are filed in the states or jurisdictions covered by section 5 of the VRA:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/

Thanks for posting that link *thumbs up*

 

[werepossum]

They most certainly did not address her criticisms. If you believe they did, please quote the passage.

As for the Paranoid Style in American Politics, you will notice that I do not attribute such qualities to the South at all. They do not possess some special power, denying representation to minorities is not subverting our political system (it's just unconstitutional and shitty), I do not believe them to be thoroughly evil (just racist in this case), etc, etc. I attribute none of the cartoonish villainy to them that you apply to progressives on a regular basis, nor do I view them as this all-encompassing threat as you do progressives. Sure they have a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but that's just the result of ignorance, not some nefarious cabal.

What's funny is that you appeared to miss the part of that piece that talks about how the paranoid projects his own view of the world on others, believing they are cut from the same cloth. You just did it here with me, which is pretty unintentionally telling on your part.

It's almost like someone read that piece and created a parody account with your name on it to prove this piece right. It reads like an almost word-for-word bio of your posting MO.

How on Earth is it "pretty telling" for me to do it with you but not for you to do it with me? Is it because you "know" you are correct on every issue? Remember that you are the guy who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the left is morally correct and the right is morally wrong on every single issue, before the issue arises, whereas I am the guy who thinks the left is sometimes morally correct and the right is sometimes morally correct.

You claim to not believe that the South is thoroughly evil, we're just racist. Is being racist not evil? You think the South has "a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but that's just the result of ignorance". Fair enough. I think progressives have a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but also some good ones. Which one of us is cartoonish, the one that finds 100 million people to be "ignorant" because they disagree with him on any issue, or the one who thinks a smaller number are wrong on most issues but right on some?

Your entire world view is based on the assumption that conservatives and Republicans are evil; you said as much to Charles. How could one possibly be any more cartoonish than that? How can one maintain that over 60 million voters are either evil or ignorant and still feel he is a thinking, rational being?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the near-unanimous judgment of the US Congress, today's misdeeds.

According to Congress we're entitled to the Patriot act and Prism. What recent events make abuse unique to the states determined to be systematically chosen? Other states have no issues? A claim has been made that history is the reason for these actions. How long does it take to get off the bad list? Precisely what specific criteria has to be met?

I'm asking these questions because there seems to be no concrete criteria that one can use for a definitive answer to a question like "when does state X be treated like the others. "

When is Alabama free?

 

[DCal430]

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!

The feds took a close look at this little abortion attempt in Texas pulled by the republican controlled government, because... the federal law allowed them to, and the feds said "wait, stop, no you don't, Texas.
And the scheme failed, that time around.

Next time, however, thanks to the ruling today, you better damn well believe this same Texas congress controlled by republicans will pull this very same poll placing scheme, again, and ASAP.
And the difference next time?
Next time, they will get away with it.

Justice Thomas should be ashamed.
If voting rights laws along with civil rights laws had not been established, that damn sexually perverted freak of a justice Thomas would still to this day be back a-pick-in cotton down on some southern plantation.

Ps...
As with that line in the movie Django, ""all the black folk best get away from all the white folks, except for Justice Thomas. He is right where he belongs"".
.
.

You are only giving a minor part of the story about the 12 polling place.

First it wasn't for any major election, it is was for a single election of board members for a community college, and that was it. And it wasn't a republican plan at all, in fact the plan was supported by the minorities them self. So that is an outright lie. It was a plan by the Houston Community College District board members, who are mostly African American or Hispanic.

 

[HomerJS]

That's terrific. Are the states currently being punished for today's misdeeds or the sins of the fathers?

Not true. If states do no wrong over time they are lifted from pre-authorization

 

[Incorruptible]

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

I am just stating the truth. Why does an atheist such as yourself care what Jesus thinks?

 

[rudder]

this is the formula that hasn't been updated in like 40 years?

Yes. And this ruling changes nothing. Now if there is a state that is in violation of the voting rights act, that state will then have to get congressional approval to make changes to the voter law. Despite what all the liberals are crying about... nothing here has changed. Some people realized that the formula and resultant data was from like 1972.

 

[HomerJS]

Yes. And this ruling changes nothing. Now if there is a state that is in violation of the voting rights act, that state will then have to get congressional approval to make changes to the voter law. Despite what all the liberals are crying about... nothing here has changed. Some people realized that the formula and resultant data was from like 1972.

Bullshit! If the ruling changes nothing there would not have been a case.

 

[fskimospy]

How on Earth is it "pretty telling" for me to do it with you but not for you to do it with me? Is it because you "know" you are correct on every issue? Remember that you are the guy who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the left is morally correct and the right is morally wrong on every single issue, before the issue arises, whereas I am the guy who thinks the left is sometimes morally correct and the right is sometimes morally correct.

You claim to not believe that the South is thoroughly evil, we're just racist. Is being racist not evil? You think the South has "a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but that's just the result of ignorance". Fair enough. I think progressives have a lot of naive and bad ideas that need to be opposed, but also some good ones. Which one of us is cartoonish, the one that finds 100 million people to be "ignorant" because they disagree with him on any issue, or the one who thinks a smaller number are wrong on most issues but right on some?

Your entire world view is based on the assumption that conservatives and Republicans are evil; you said as much to Charles. How could one possibly be any more cartoonish than that? How can one maintain that over 60 million voters are either evil or ignorant and still feel he is a thinking, rational being?

You're still doing it, projecting your issues on to me. Look at my posts about Republicans and then yours about progressives and get back to me. You have some serious paranoid delusions. Go look at all the times you've described the nefarious progressive cabal, then compare your writings to the part i quoted. The resemblance is uncanny.

 

[pcgeek11]

It is about time the Supreme Court made a half way decent ruling. They should have done away with this unjust practice entirely.

 

[Riparian]

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.

Section 2 challenges are after-the-fact challenges with this exception:

The statute continues to prohibit state and local officials from adopting or maintaining voting laws or procedures that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. In a case alleging a violation of Section 2 because of a discriminatory intent, the plaintiffs musst be prepared to proved, under the test established in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp, 429 U.S. 252, 264-68 (1977), that the challenged practice was adopted, at least in part, because it would harm minority voting strength, and not merely with an expectation that it would do so. See, e.g., Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts v. Fenney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).

So, you would have to show discriminatory intent, and not just discriminatory effect, in order to prevent new voting laws from going into effect pre-election. Showing discriminatory intent is generally very difficult to do and if you're waiting until after the election to show discriminatory effect, then much of the damage has already been done. Disenfranchisement is not a small matter.

Additionally, here's the first example of the aftermath from today's decision:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Hours-after-SCOTUS-ruling-Abbott-declares-voter-ID-law-effective-immediately-212994191.html

And here's some more background information regarding why the voter ID law that was being proposed in TX was blocked by Section 5 initially:

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=88a62b0c2

 

[lopri]

I now have gotten a chance to read the opinion (and the decent), and I am confident that this opinion by John Roberts will be remembered one of the worst in modern history, along with his opinion on Health Care Cases. I won't go into the details (you should be able to find such analysis elsewhere) but the opinion has almost no support from the Constitution or the court's precedents.

The whole opinion bases itself on invented notion of "equal sovereignty" of states (nothing in the Constitution says such) as well as on amorphous and malleable term "spirit of the Constitution." Understandably the opinion is extremely week on citation or evidence. It simply asserts the majority's political view on what the politics of today should be like.

Astounding judicial power grab, and unprecedent assault on such a monumental achievement in civil rights history. Roberts et al. will be judged in the history.

 

[PokerGuy]

I know you want to keep repeating the phrase "50 year old data" but people have already put forth that the renewal of the Act was not based only on 50 year old data. Here's just a quick article addressing modern violations of the VRA and the percentage of those cases that are filed in the states or jurisdictions covered by section 5 of the VRA:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/

I don't know specifically what congress did or didn't look at when renewing the act, but I do know that a formula based on 50 year old data is used to determine which jurisdictions are covered. As was made clear at trial, the end result of this archaic formula is that areas with parity in voter turnout are subject to additional scrutiny, while other areas where there is a great gap between turnout are not. Basically, it comes down to people like eskimospy who say "I don't care what the current reality is, I think you're all a bunch of racist rednecks and always will be, so you need my OK before making any changes". The court correctly tossed that notion.

Further, the information about percentage of cases that occur in areas covered by section 5 is complete crap because those areas are automatically subject to pre-clearance and thus more likely to have violations compared to other areas where a lot of changes are simply not challenged.

That blog is worthless, nice try tough.

 

[PokerGuy]

Additionally, here's the first example of the aftermath from today's decision:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Hours-aft...r-ID-law-effective-immediately-212994191.html

LOL, it's great that you cite a good outcome as one of the horrible things that this ruling could lead to Good stuff.

Yet another reason why this ruling was an excellent one - states that were being punished for the actions of their grandfathers (like Texas) are free to do the right thing without needing prior clearance.

 

[lopri]

this is the formula that hasn't been updated in like 40 years?

So what? Do you think every law has expiration date, and the courts are empowered to strike down on laws that are over x-years old?

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.

Unfortunately, no. Even if somehow Congress manage to come up with a new formula by divine intervention, Roberts et al. didn't say Section 5 is constitutional. ("we hold no view on Section 5's validity..") So they can still strike down the whole scheme, regardless of how rational a new formula is. (and they WILL) Clarence Thomas left no doubt about that in his concurrence.

This is, again, unprecedented bait-and-switch by most politically motivated court in my memory. This court is worse than the current Congress with its political and ideological manipulation.

It's a disgrace. The majority is completely naked in history and I do not believe anyone from 30 years from now will look at this court any different from some other court in the past that rendered some of the most deplorable decisions in the U.S. history.

 

[PokerGuy]

So what? Do you think every law has expiration date, and the courts are empowered to strike down on laws that are over x-years old?

The age of the law is irrelevant. The data used to drive the what jurisdictions get singled out for additional scrutiny is 50+ years old. The court correctly threw it out, and by not throwing out section 5 left the door open to congress using current data to come up with a coverage map.

I know you, like eskimo, just want to permanently punish some states for the sins of their grandfathers, but using 50 year old information to drive the formula is ridiculous.

 

[lopri]

And who do you think make that determination? Do you believe the 5 justices are capable of vast amount of research necessary to make that judgement?

Answer is found in the constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

Congress amassed the record (some 15,000 pages) to re-authorize the law in 2006. The SCOTUS didn't even bother to pay any due deference to the Congress' work. (Of course, one should not be fooled that any record would have prevented this SCOTUS from striking down the VRA. They were determined to strike down the VRA for some other - nefarious - reasons)

Likewise, Roberts' opinion is almost void of discussion on the 14th and 15th amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know specifically what congress did or didn't look at when renewing the act, but I do know that a formula based on 50 year old data is used to determine which jurisdictions are covered. As was made clear at trial, the end result of this archaic formula is that areas with parity in voter turnout are subject to additional scrutiny, while other areas where there is a great gap between turnout are not. Basically, it comes down to people like eskimospy who say "I don't care what the current reality is, I think you're all a bunch of racist rednecks and always will be, so you need my OK before making any changes". The court correctly tossed that notion.

Further, the information about percentage of cases that occur in areas covered by section 5 is complete crap because those areas are automatically subject to pre-clearance and thus more likely to have violations compared to other areas where a lot of changes are simply not challenged.

That blog is worthless, nice try tough.

This post is hilarious. You use voter turnout parity, an argument you already admitted was illogical, then say you don't know what the other evidence is, and then accused others of not caring what the current reality is.

Are you a self parody account?

 

[PokerGuy]

And who do you think make that determination? Do you believe the 5 justices are capable of vast amount of research necessary to make that judgement?

LOL @ "vast amount of research". Voting against renewing the VRA would have been political suicide, so everyone votes to keep it, regardless of an research or information. I doubt anyone in congress actually read any of the research. Besides, the court doesn't need to do the research, they basically said the congress should do the research. Since they were basing the rules on 50 year old data to drive the formula, clearly they had not. The court just said "come back when you've actually done your homework".

Congress amassed the record (some 15,000 pages) to re-authorize the law in 2006. The SCOTUS didn't even bother to pay any due deference to the Congress' work.

Nor should they have. The work congress does is not the issue, the issue was the result: using 1960's demographic data to drive modern guidelines. Regardless of how they got there, that makes no sense so it got tossed.

They were determined to strike down the VRA for some other - nefarious - reasons)

Did you buy your mindreader/chrystal ball from Newegg?

 

[Brainonska511]

LOL @ "vast amount of research". Voting against renewing the VRA would have been political suicide, so everyone votes to keep it, regardless of an research or information. I doubt anyone in congress actually read any of the research. Besides, the court doesn't need to do the research, they basically said the congress should do the research. Since they were basing the rules on 50 year old data to drive the formula, clearly they had not. The court just said "come back when you've actually done your homework".

Or clearly, Congress did do the research and came to the conclusion that the existing formula was fine. Something being old does not mean it is wrong. If you have some better evidence as to why it was wrong (besides being old, which is not a good reason), please feel free to post it. I'll be waiting.