Ku Klux Kourt Kills King's Dream Law

[Cato]

I think a better analogy would be that they told Congress to no longer shit on the lawn because we now have indoor plumbing.

Shitting on the lawn? So that is what the original voting rights act was? Shitting on the lawn? Wow.

No Brian. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the VRA is substantially changed or has no teeth, balls or gasoline. Everything in the VRA that was illegal yesterday is still illegal.

Jesus isn't coming tomorrow and neither is Jim Crow.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Bullshit, you'd have me believe a republican party which has favored corporate America, has fucked workers rights over, has bowed to global corporatism, has attacked female control over reproductive rights and be trusted with voting rights considering they constantly over the past few years have mass produced voter ID laws and attempts to ban early voting and gerrymandered on a mafia scale, whose mantra since Obama's first election made their goal to prevent him from getting a second term, and announced so even before his first Inauguration.

You'd have me believe they have voters rights in our interest? No this is not Teddy Roosevelt's republican party, it isn't even Reagan's republican party, this current bunch is a throwback to pre civil war era where only white rich guys had any rights. They are the bat shit crazy party.

I'm not trying to prove anything for the Republican Party. I agree that the Republican party is largely bought out (so are Democrats). But what does any of this have to do with the Voting Rights Act? The one thing that you have made clear in that rant is that you chose a side and will stick with it, and shout down the other side because they are the other side. My point is a broken clock can still be right twice, and though I agree that that section of the bill should have been knocked down, I don't agree with it for the same reasons the Republican Party does.

There is a very simple way that Congress can fix this problem. Create a federal holiday for elections, that requires businesses close for the day so all Americans can vote and/or volunteer at a voting center. Keep in mind that many minorities work lower wage jobs, that require longer hours to provide sufficiently for their families. Which is why early voting is such a popular trend amongst minority voters, it allows them to vote without the major interference of having to take a day off to go to the polls. It can be done in a more flexible fashion.

You make a federal holiday and chances are you probably wouldn't even need early voting at all. But ultimately a voting holiday gives everyone an equal chance to vote. And besides, what better way to show our support for the democratic values we love than to devote a whole day to it?

Do you think Judge Ginsburg who has spent her life studying case law and precedence called the majority's decision "demolition" for nothing?

This is silly. I could say the same thing about any of the other justices.

"Do you think Judge Roberts who has spent his life studying case law and precedence called the majority's decision "good" for nothing?"

[Brian37]

Shitting on the lawn? So that is what the original voting rights act was? Shitting on the lawn? Wow.

No Brian. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the VRA is substantially changed or has no teeth, balls or gasoline. Everything in the VRA that was illegal yesterday is still illegal.

Jesus isn't coming tomorrow and neither is Jim Crow.

Yea, and we never had a a majority of our congress KKK members, that must have been a figment of my......oops, nope that was true.

I am sorry, but our right wingers ARE attempting to turn back the clock and for you to say "that's impossible" is utter and outright bull fucking shit. Considering they have thrown the car in reverse full speed since Obama's election.

The only saving grace in this is that the youth of our society are much wiser and more pluralistic in mindset then these right wing thugs who have held progress hostage.

Ginsburg is absolutely right this is "demolition" and again, what you are trying to claim is that "the building is still in tact" failing to see long term even if this congress saves it for now, the main pillars which have upheld that building have been severely damaged by today's decision.


Jim Crow is a possibility again, those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

---

Seriously, do you think this same court, if the issue was women's right to vote, which at one time was not a right women had, do you think this same court is willing to reverse the voting rights of women?

The voter ID laws made today are intended to directly affect liberal voters like college students, hispanics and minorities and the poor more likely to vote liberal, and no different than the poll tax laws and literacy crap thrown at blacks back then.

[Minimalist]

I think we'll soon see. In 2006 the vote to extend the Voting Rights Act was 98-0 in the Senate and 393-33 in the House. (One of the 33 was the Divine Tiberius' hero, Ron Paul, who, while he is a scumbag is at least a consistent scumbag.)

Of course, that was 4 years before the Tea Bagging Shitheads lost their ever-loving minds because a black guy got elected president. I don't think they are over it yet.

I don't think we'll have long to wait.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...medium=RSS

Within two hours of the court’s ruling, Democrats from President Obama to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a key committee chairman, had said Congress must take the court up on its invitation to act.

But there was almost complete silence from House Republicans.

“As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.

House Speaker John A. Boehner deferred to his committee chairman, who gave little indication they see the need for action. And Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who spearheaded renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, was silent, with his office not responding to requests for comment.

[Brian37]

One location in Texas had tried to overload black voting polls by limiting the locations and the day before yesterday lower courts had deemed this tactic discriminatory, but now with no map, it is fine so Texas can go ahead in that location and limit poling places.

But even the movement back then wasn't just about blacks, they were the targets of discrimination back then, so even if right wingers want to claim there is no current discrimination I call bullshit on that. The republican party now has free reign to gerrymander laws and polling places that discriminate against any location that has a high population of likely liberal voters, including college students and Hispanics and working poor.

Whites back then made it about blacks but the new discrimination is basically gerrymandering against any political opposition. Voting rights is a human rights issue, not a race issue.

If in Texas the rolls were reversed and democrats limited republican polling places to the same lopsided degree Texas has allowed against liberals, republicans would be crying voter suppression.

What good does this law now do when there is no current map and to expect the right wing nuts to make a new one is patently absurd. They might put on a show and write bills for show but put poison pills in them so they can say "I tried".

Like I said, having the building doesn't mean jack shit if the pillars that hold it up are damaged. I am not trusting the party that has attacked the middle class and poor, women and minorities.

Republicans are dying as a party and are desperate and cheating is the only way now they can win.

[Doubting Thomas]

Of course the Republicans have to try to limit minority voters. They obviously can't appeal to them in order to win votes; that would mean having to give up a lot of core party beliefs and values. So faced with the dilemma of minorities wanting to vote the only alternative is to try every means possible in order to prevent that.

[Minimalist]

Tell me again how wonderful the republicunts are, Cato.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013062...DGPG1.html

ATLANTA (AP) - Across the South, Republicans are working to take advantage of a new political landscape after a divided U.S. Supreme Court freed all or part of 15 states, many of them in the old Confederacy, from having to ask Washington's permission before changing election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.

[Minimalist]

And the Daily Show weighs in with its own particular style.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-ju...rights-act

[Cato]

Tell me again how wonderful the republicunts are, Cato.

Huge stretch, you know damn well I made no such claim. I even quoted Roberts directly giving tacit agreement to the fact that the discrimination exists.

I didn't read the entire article, but have some observations regarding some of the initial claims.

The author invoked states wanting to implement voter identification requirements to get a ballot as demonstration of violation of the VRA. The established law on this is quite clear which is why even Georgia has a voter ID law in place. States have a legitimate concern that the person casting the ballot is who they say they are, one person one vote. To me this is the only legitimate reason for voter picture identification and something I support. I also agree with the court's previous rulings on this matter relative to the VRA. The first is that there cannot be any undue burden on the voter for acquiring appropriate identification which is why states are obligated to issue a voter ID card if the citizen does not have a driver's license, passport, military ID, etc. The Votor ID must also not have a cost, as the court has rightly interpreted any such fee as a poll tax. My point here is that voter ID laws serve a valid purpose so long as they don't run afoul of the VRA. The precedent is clear and most cases appealed to the Supreme Court by the idiots enacting bad ID legislation have lower court rulings upheld without a hearing.

The author also gives an example of Florida wanting to arbitrarily change early voting hours. The reason is obvious, and is the same reason why the Supreme Court stomped Ohio's dick for the same violation during last year's election. Ohio is not a preclearance state. The Supreme Court also swatted Pennsylvania last year (I can't recall the specific violation), again not a preclearance state.

Gerrymandering. Necessary evil and why the state legislature swing in 2010 was critical. There was a study conducted looking at the number of seats that swung due to gerrymandering. Democratic controlled redistricting resulted in two additional seats, nonpartisan redistricting resulted in 4 additional Democrat seats, and Republican controlled redisctricing resulted in 13 additional seats. This can be used as a clear indication of which party is more nefarious than the other. Something that isn't as obvious is the Democrats picking up 4 seats when the redistricting is nonpartisan. As a generalization, I can conclude that the populace as a whole shifted Democrat, not just a party motivated attempt to make sure the votes are in the right place.

[Minimalist]

States have a legitimate concern that the person casting the ballot is who they say they are, one person one vote.

Stop right there.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/vote...ctZ5Jz2RZg

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

I insist on applying the "What is More Likely" test here.

Is it more likely that states are actually worried about "voter fraud" OR, are they trying to depress minority voting?

I think you know my answer.