Right-wing Justices on Supreme Court kill key provision of voting rights act

[Craig234]

Against unequal treatment of the States, against some States being guilty until proven innocent. Yes, I stand against that. You want to enforce "rights of people" then make it a national precedent that all must follow, OR take violators of the law to court.

You know, follow a legal and due process instead of a discriminatory process.

Interesting that you chose to focus on that when I clearly declared the SCOTUS's flippant disregard for its own reasoning. A stance which hurts their legitimacy and their own ruling here.

States don't go to criminal trial and jail, so yes, they are determined guilty by their actions.

They're not 'presumed' guilty, they're found to have done what they did, fairly.

'Taking the violators to court' is not effective for this. We had that law for a century that resulted in great discrimination.

A 'discriminatory process' is sometimes justified. Discrimination is not always a bad word.

If a state secedes form the union, we 'discrimiinate' against them by using force.

If a state ignores federal law, we 'discriminate' against them with various actions.

If a state lets mobs threaten blacks from going to school, we can discriminate against them by nationalizing their national guard to follow the federal law.

 

[ciba]

To clarify my point about the Justice Department no longer being able to stop the racist practices, they can no longer stop them before they are implemented.

Now they have to sue after they are implemented, which can take a long time to go through the courts, while elections are affected.

Two solutions:
1) Suck it up and deal with it like they do when districts in New York, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, or New Mexico need enforcement under section 2.

2) Use criteria that are not long-defunct.

The USSC gave a warning in 2009 that this could happen. I believe that absent the emergency that existed in 1965, there always were arguments about the constitutionality of Section 4 of the VRA. Once the emergency was gone, there was no longer a "lesser of two evils" choice.

 

[Jaskalas]

If a state...

If a state takes an action you can respond. Congratulations, you still can.

You just cannot preemptively act against them until due process judges them wrong. I think that falls under the notion of innocent til proven guilty. Where as you want them to prove their innocence.

 

[Craig234]

If a state takes an action you can respond. Congratulations, you still can.

You just cannot preemptively act against them until due process judges them wrong. I think that falls under the notion of innocent til proven guilty. Where as you want them to prove their innocence.

Sorry, that's not adequate. Elections are held and over with discrimnation that way.

 

[Craig234]

Two solutions:
1) Suck it up and deal with it like they do when districts in New York, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, or New Mexico need enforcement under section 2.

2) Use criteria that are not long-defunct.

The USSC gave a warning in 2009 that this could happen. I believe that absent the emergency that existed in 1965, there always were arguments about the constitutionality of Section 4 of the VRA. Once the emergency was gone, there was no longer a "lesser of two evils" choice.

The constitution doesn't say anything about an 'emergency'. Either it was constitutional then and now and the last 50 years, or it was uncponstitutional then as well.

Or, the constitution doesn't speak clearly to it and people make up the consitution for their politicis and situation. Which still leaves one of the above.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If a state takes an action you can respond. Congratulations, you still can.

You just cannot preemptively act against them until due process judges them wrong. I think that falls under the notion of innocent til proven guilty. Where as you want them to prove their innocence.

Additionally, courts can block the implementation of laws (like they did just prior to the 2012 election in what was it, PA?)

 

[Craig234]

Additionally, courts can block the implementation of laws (like they did just prior to the 2012 election in what was it, PA?)

Right, there's no need at all for the law! Just go back to pre-1965 with the courts when all the racist policies were blocked by the courts before they were implemented!

That's why out of the six states who have already announced that their banned voter id laws are now active, the courts have blocked all zero out of the six from implementing that.

 

[nehalem256]

The constitution doesn't say anything about an 'emergency'. Either it was constitutional then and now and the last 50 years, or it was uncponstitutional then as well.

Or, the constitution doesn't speak clearly to it and people make up the consitution for their politicis and situation. Which still leaves one of the above.

It was constitutional in 1965 because the data used was based on 1965.

If they used data from 2013 to come up with what states needing Preclearance it would be constitutional in 2013.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sorry, that's not adequate. Elections are held and over with discrimnation that way.

This nation is free to change the rules regarding all elections, to establish a process everyone must follow. That solves such claimed inadequacies.

 

[Pulsar]

The constitution doesn't say anything about an 'emergency'. Either it was constitutional then and now and the last 50 years, or it was uncponstitutional then as well.

Or, the constitution doesn't speak clearly to it and people make up the consitution for their politicis and situation. Which still leaves one of the above.

You are making several faulty assumptions in attempting to argue your emotional viewpoint.

From a rational side, the US culture has evolved substantially since 1965. Our supreme court rulings reflect that. The Constitution has, and always will be, open to some amount of interpretation. Your inability to understand that leads you to draw faulty conclusions.

Next, you are making the assumption that the Federal Government MUST have these laws in place or states will take advantage of the voters. With our level of media coverage and the rate at which information travels nowadays, this is another completely faulty assumption.

Your entire argument for this law hinges on the assumption that people will act like it's 1965. It isn't, and they won't. And since your next argument will likely be off on tangents with completely unrelated arguments, I'm done.

 

[Craig234]

This nation is free to change the rules regarding all elections, to establish a process everyone must follow. That solves such claimed inadequacies.

That doesn't even make any sense to response to.

For a start, 'the nation' doesn't set most election laws, states do. You'll have to repharase.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Right, there's no need at all for the law! Just go back to pre-1965 with the courts when all the racist policies were blocked by the courts before they were implemented!

That's why out of the six states who have already announced that their banned voter id laws are now active, the courts have blocked all zero out of the six from implementing that.

...Yes, because the entire voting rights act was struck down.

Wait, no it wasn't.

 

[Craig234]

...Yes, because the entire voting rights act was struck down.

Wait, no it wasn't.

You're not following the discussion.

I was responding to arguments implying that the act has no justifcation, because simply suing over wrongs meets any need for responding to them.

Those comments were responding to those posts, they did not say that the ruling struck down the entire act.

Read the topic: "... kill *key provision* of voting rights act". Plain English.

 

[eoniverse]

You are making several faulty assumptions in attempting to argue your emotional viewpoint.

From a rational side, the US culture has evolved substantially since 1965. Our supreme court rulings reflect that. The Constitution has, and always will be, open to some amount of interpretation. Your inability to understand that leads you to draw faulty conclusions.

Next, you are making the assumption that the Federal Government MUST have these laws in place or states will take advantage of the voters. With our level of media coverage and the rate at which information travels nowadays, this is another completely faulty assumption.

Your entire argument for this law hinges on the assumption that people will act like it's 1965. It isn't, and they won't. And since your next argument will likely be off on tangents with completely unrelated arguments, I'm done.

1. It has not evolved the point where districts don't try and succeed in disenfranchising voters. See Florida.... And not just for 'hanging chads' but for their registration time limits as only one example from one State.

2. The constitution is a living document and will continue to evolve (not necessarily progress). See 27 amendments....though I am not suggesting any were not progress in the least. Just that it evolves.

3. States have taken advantage of voters in every single recent election. And if not 'the States' then one of the major parties with influence in that State. Notwithstanding using Florida again. See PA. And the judge (who rightly) insisted the Obama mural be covered at the voting station.

4. Media coverage is useless. The media has turned into the 'glee club' of the people. Following ratings. In general. Sadly what was trusted is no longer to be trusted and is eyed with suspicion. So no. People no longer know what to believe and how to judge like they used to. In general.

5. People don't have to act like it's 1965 for there to be a need to have these key points remain (at least and only till Congress changed them. Not the judicial branch) And speaking of Congress... in this atmosphere of 'co-operation' they will never accomplish anything as polarized as they are.

While I do believe there was a need to update/amend/change some of the law.... what the court did was throw out the baby to clean the bathwater.

 

[Pulsar]

1. It has not evolved the point where districts don't try and succeed in disenfranchising voters. See Florida.... And not just for 'hanging chads' but for their registration time limits as only one example from one State.

2. The constitution is a living document and will continue to evolve (not necessarily progress). See 27 amendments....though I am not suggesting any were not progress in the least. Just that it evolves.

3. States have taken advantage of voters in every single recent election. And if not 'the States' then one of the major parties with influence in that State. Notwithstanding using Florida again. See PA. And the judge (who rightly) insisted the Obama mural be covered at the voting station.

4. Media coverage is useless. The media has turned into the 'glee club' of the people. Following ratings. In general. Sadly what was trusted is no longer to be trusted and is eyed with suspicion. So no. People no longer know what to believe and how to judge like they used to. In general.

5. People don't have to act like it's 1965 for there to be a need to have these key points remain (at least and only till Congress changed them. Not the judicial branch) And speaking of Congress... in this atmosphere of 'co-operation' they will never accomplish anything as polarized as they are.

While I do believe there was a need to update/amend/change some of the law.... what the court did was throw out the baby to clean the bathwater.

Individuals will always try to help their politician win. That doesn't make it a state effort to help those politicians win. You are talking about individual actions that were already illegal under a number of laws. Not necessarily the one we're talking about. In cases where issues were found, they were pursued through the legal system. None of which has any bearing on this law.

Media coverage is far from useless. After all, who blew up each of these voting issues? The media has a vested ($$$) interest in blowing these up into the biggest event since Hostess went bankrupt. They'll never give us fair and balance reporting, but when there is wrongdoing like this you can be sure the entire country will hear about it. That in itself will prompt legal action.

I'm not sure how you can say that last sentence. The problem with the law was that it had not been updated and changed since 1965, and wasn't slated to be changed. The court only threw a small portion of the law: the one that determined which states would be sanctioned.

It is not the court's problem if we've continued to elect idiots who get nothing done.

Throwing out the baby would have been ruling the entire law unconstitutional.

So really, this comes down to me not thinking this was such a huge ruling anyway. Congress and the Senate can go back and fix it in a couple of weeks if they so choose. If they don't, then people who are upset about this will be vindicated in the next set of elections when vote fixing in those few sanctioned states suddenly becomes epidemic. Or not.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[Greenman]

No, it doesn't. In the historic case for gay equality the Supreme Court just evaded ruling on, one of the two lawyers who tried the case was Bush's right-wing 2000 election lawyer.

It's perfectly possible for right-wingers to not oppose gay equality, if they had principles.

In practice, however, that is the de facto home for the bigots. Because in the past supporting discriminatory policies won them the votes of bigots, Repubicans have a long history of doing so, of putting gay discrimination into constitutions in order to bring out the bigot vote to help them win elections. Right now as immigration reform is being debated, it's Republicans who said they'll not support any reform if gay couples are treated equally.

So, they have 'corrupted' principles for political gain, denying people rights to get votes.

And the right has embraced 'social conservatives' who are the heart of the pro-discrimination movement, some of whom are bigots, some with misguided reliogious views.

Once again, it's agree with craig or you're a bigot. I find this attitude fundamentally off putting, it's empty arrogance, it's based in the very stupidity that you claim to stand against.

 

[Craig234]

Once again, it's agree with craig or you're a bigot. I find this attitude fundamentally off putting, it's empty arrogance, it's based in the very stupidity that you claim to stand against.

We've been through this. I've said that IMO generally bigots don't realize they are motivated by bigotry. So yes, it's 'off-putting' to hear the truth.

But it's still the truth. It doesn't get much clearer than when the Supreme Court asked the lawyer arguing for discriination for justification for it, and he had to say he has none.

No group has ever been bigoted if you ask them. Opposing inter-racial marriage, opposing admitting blacks to your church., opposing ending segregation, even if you ask Nazis about Jews (iw was self-defense - no, really) - or Indians about their 'untouchable class' - there are always explanations for the discrimination other than bigotry, that don't hold up.

The people who demand that gays be discriminated against, be given second class citizenship, in the words of Justice Kennedy have their marriages treated with less dignity, have had a very long time to come up with a rational basis for that discrimination. They have failed. Like the others in my list, they have only found spurious excuses that don't hold up. They've seized on the fact that there has been long-time discrimiination to claim they're defending 'tradition' as if there's something honorable about continuing wrong.

Bigotry has been proven clearly as the real motivation.

It's playing the victim to pretend the word bigotry is an unjustified criticism.

The facts support it. I know it's hard to hear. But you need to consider the facts. Bigots tens not to understand bigotry very well and realize they're afflicted by it. But they are.

Huge amounts of effort have put into finding alternative explanations. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" marketing. They don't hold up.

Perhaps one good example is the recent apology of the leading 'gay conversion' church admitting a zero percent success rate and apologizing for harm to gays.

They didn't use the word bigotry that I know of, but they essentially admitted they'd come to realize they had been afflicted by it.

It's not meant as an attack on you to say that bigotry is involved. It's simply the explanation of what's motivating you.

I'ts not easy to help bigots come to understand.

Here's one story that might help. It's about Mormon parents who fought for passing Proposition 8 against gay marriage, before finding out their son was gay.

After that, they've come to have different views on the issue. It's a pretty moving story about people who have come to grow and realize they had bigotry.

http://www.kvue.com/news/212506301.html

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We've been through this. I've said that IMO generally bigots don't realize they are motivated by bigotry.

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Which would seem to apply nicely to an individual who is unable to consider any motivation for an opposing viewpoint other than inherent racism.

As for lack of self-awareness, well, we can all consider the most rabid ideologue on this forum and the self-quote in his signature.

 

[Whiskey16]

Craig assumes that anyone who disagrees with him on this must be either a racist or an ignoramus. Knock me over with a feather.

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Which would seem to apply nicely to an individual who is unable to consider any motivation for an opposing viewpoint other than inherent racism.

As for lack of self-awareness, well, we can all consider the most rabid ideologue on this forum and the self-quote in his signature.

What's with the generalised personalised tirades against a specific user here, Charles?

Can you directly quote Craig to support your absolute denigration that any who disagree must be bigots (in the accurate context of presentation), or are you just motivated to sling personalised mud to disrupt the discussion?

As far as your lamely semantic argument for you above definition for 'bigot' just concerning that of opposing differing opinions, that is a concisely dishonest and disrupting misrepresentation of the thread. You know very well that the context is not that of generalised ideas, rather a specific description of expressed viewpoints and descriptions to prejudicially marginalise a targeted group.

You are now just slinging semantic mud for the sake of personally dismissing Craig with your disruptive argument, as I can prove in your recorded awareness of applying the word 'bigotry' in context of Craig's presentation:

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok
I don't know what "name-calling" you are referring to here. If you mean words like "bigot", well, sorry, but your position towards homosexuals qualifies.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What's with the generalised personalised tirades against a specific user here, Charles?

That specific user began the personal attacks in post #6 by directly implying that anyone who agrees with the SCOTUS decision is a racist. He's every bit as much a bigot as those he's accusing -- if not more.

As for the rest of your typical nonsense, if you don't like that definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

 

[Whiskey16]

Charles, rather than personal dismissals, attacks againts Craig's character, and semantic misrepresentations, why don't you try the counter argument to disprove Craig's portrayal that the opposition to homosexual marriage is from that of prejudicial bigotry?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Charles, rather than personal dismissals, attacks againts Craig's character, and semantic misrepresentations, why don't you try the counter argument to disprove Craig's portrayal that the opposition to homosexual marriage is from that of prejudicial bigotry?

Craig is the one engaging in "personal dismissals, attacks against character and semantic misrepresentations". I'm simply pointing out that he's doing the same thing he accuses others of doing.

This thread is not about opposition to SSM. And asking me to "disprove" Craig's allegations that others oppose the VRA solely due to bigotry is like me asking you to prove that you don't beat your wife. There are perfectly valid reasons to support this SCOTUS decision -- that Craig summarily dismisses them out of hand and labels all opponents as racists is pretty strong evidence that he is in fact the bigot here.

 

[Pulsar]

Charles, rather than personal dismissals, attacks againts Craig's character, and semantic misrepresentations, why don't you try the counter argument to disprove Craig's portrayal that the opposition to homosexual marriage is from that of prejudicial bigotry?

Frankly, it's because you can't hold a conversation with Craig. He can't stay on point: his arguments wander all over the spectrum. If you disprove a point, he either ignores it or runs off on another random tangent. He also seems to have unlimited time in which to post, and his walls of text make it nearly impossible to address any individual points.

In summary, it's impossible to have a give and take conversation with him, because NO one wants to read through 2 pages of words for the one cogent statement he might make.

His rabid anti-right monologues get pretty repetitive too.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Even ignoring all of that, it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who flatly says that you're automatically a racist because you disagree with him over a court decision.