Will SCOTUS Strike Down Voting Rights Act?

[drebo]

However at what point do you say okay black people were discriminated against 50 years ago it has been long enough.

The point at which a black person becomes the POTUS. At that point, it's no longer possible to say that blacks can't rise to the same level as whites.

Not to mention the many black cabinet members, chiefs of staff, congressmen, senators, etc...

No, the time for affirmative action and racial favoratism is over. 50 years ago was 50 years ago. The same artificial barriers no longer exist. To claim otherwise is nothing more than white guilt, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[trenchfoot]

The point at which a black person becomes the POTUS. At that point, it's no longer possible to say that blacks can't rise to the same level as whites.

Not to mention the many black cabinet members, chiefs of staff, congressmen, senators, etc...

No, the time for affirmative action and racial favoratism is over. 50 years ago was 50 years ago. The same artificial barriers no longer exist. To claim otherwise is nothing more than white guilt, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going to agree with you as far as the federal positions you have mentioned are concerned. However, it's at the state level that the VRA is, IMO, still needed, due to the numerous and blatant disnefranchisement and suppression tactics that many Repub controlled states (North and South) are attempting to or have passed in their state legislatures.

It seems to me the pattern that has been followed by many State Repub leaderships have been to use gerrymandering to lock in a majority in their legislatures/administrations and then proceed to further disadvantage their opposition through the use of the aforementioned disinfranchisement and suppression tactics in Dem heavy districts of which they can't acquire through gerrymandering. This is an excellent way for a minority party to defeat the opposition majority, something that given the current demographic trends, the Repubs will have to resort to to win future elections. If that ain't violating the intent of the VRA I don't know what is.

Getting rid of the VRA is a fairly obvious tactic that curiously, only the Repub state leaderships favor and more curiously, it just so happens that (correct me if I'm wrong) only Repub controlled states are required to comply with that Act, which, in and of itself is indicative of malfeasance on their part.

Looking at the larger picture, getting rid of the VRA fits in quite nicely with the overall Repub strategery for keeping control of their state governments even though in most cases they are eventually going to be the minority party.

Given the former, I'm going to have to conclude that to ignore the widespread use of these tactics at the state level to argue for the demise of the VRA just doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[IBMer]

People seem to really misunderstand the "Applies to all". Does laws against murder not apply to all because everyone isn't subject to the consequence? Just because a few states are under the consequence of the law doesn't mean that all states aren't subject to the law...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

People seem to really misunderstand the "Applies to all". Does laws against murder not apply to all because everyone isn't subject to the consequence? Just because a few states are under the consequence of the law doesn't mean that all states aren't subject to the law...

What does that even mean?

 

[nehalem256]

Getting rid of the VRA is a fairly obvious tactic that curiously, only the Repub state leaderships favor and more curiously, it just so happens that (correct me if I'm wrong) only Repub controlled states are required to comply with that Act, which, in and of itself is indicative of malfeasance on their part.

So you are saying Democrats are in favor of the VRA because it doesn't affect them? :hmm:

And you do realize that Mississippi has a higher relative minority turnout than Massachusetts. I think if you are losing to Mississippi at anything that is indicative of malfeasance on your part.

 

[lopri]

Roberts apparently (mistakenly) believed incorrect data during the oral argument to bolster his hostility towards the VRA. It really shows how strong a confirmation bias can be.

Massachusetts official challenges Chief Justice Roberts’ claim about voting

Roberts later asked if Verrilli knew which state has the greatest disparity in registration. Again, Roberts said it was Massachusetts.

The problem is, Roberts is woefully wrong on those points, according to Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who on Thursday branded Roberts’s assertion a slur and made a declaration of his own. “I’m calling him out,” Galvin said.[/url]

 

[trenchfoot]

So you are saying Democrats are in favor of the VRA because it doesn't affect them? :hmm:

And you do realize that Mississippi has a higher relative minority turnout than Massachusetts. I think if you are losing to Mississippi at anything that is indicative of malfeasance on your part.

Not at all. Dems have nothing to do with this. The Repubs managed to get saddled with Sec. 5 regulations all on their own. They did it to themselves with their discriminatory practices right up to this very moment.

I haven't heard a single logical argument about why Dem controlled states needed to have Sec. 5 restrictions slapped on them, now or in the recent past.

About the Mississippi thingy, yeh, I have to admit that made me lol.