NBC: Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case

[twa]

You assume that those pushing voter ID are doing so because they are sincerely trying to stop voter fraud rather than ctual disenfranchisement.

Put them all under review f the Justice Dept and Courts....it's only fair, and then you don't have to assume anything.

Or just keep preaching equal under the law w/o supporting it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Put them all under review f the Justice Dept and Courts....it's only fair, and then you don't have to assume anything.

Or just keep preaching equal under the law w/o supporting it.

So you didn't read my earlier post....k

[twa]

So you didn't read my earlier post....k

I did miss it, sorry

[AsburySkinsFan]

I did miss it, sorry

No worries

[skinsmarydu]

huh?

Look slim, its not that serious. You said the VRA only applies to those southern states. I just said it applies to all. You never said, "this section of the VRA only applies to southern states." I dont know why you didnt, so I corrected that part of your post.

It wasnt meant to cause any conflict or even move the topic. In fact, I said that I feel the VRA should still apply because we have incidences of state governments attempting to suppress the vote just this year. I am not moving the topic to anywhere else.

Which one ?...the mostly white or the Hispanic?

equal under the law should mean everyone should be under them....even the recent arrivals

however, your STATE government had a different opinion...your quote in your sig...think about it. I really wish you would. You sometimes have the alien ability to talk out of both sides of your ass. Notice I said "sometimes"...it's really most of the time, but nevermind that now...

[twa]

however, your STATE government had a different opinion...your quote in your sig...think about it. I really wish you would. You sometimes have the alien ability to talk out of both sides of your ass. Notice I said "sometimes"...it's really most of the time, but nevermind that now...

needless to say things are more complicated than my opinion
you will need to clarify on the sig,they are rather broad...unlike my ass

[skinsmarydu]

needless to say things are more complicated than my opinion
you will need to clarify on the sig,they are rather broad...unlike my ass

I took my crappy work day out on you, and I shouldn't have.
I was referring to the sheep/wolf quote. And it is a broad topic.

[twa]

working for a living sucks at times,but I haven't found a better alternative ...hope today is better

[Larry]

Yahoo/Reuters: Justices poised to query voting rights focus on South

Looks like they're getting ready to hear arguments this week.

A nice article with lots of generalities, mostly review of the respective positions. (Which I think we've somewhat debated. I've expressed my own (admittedly somewhat conflicting) positions.)

Observing that we're apparently debating whether Congress had a good enough reason to renew this law, in the shadows of an election in which multiple jurisdictions (both in and outside of the South) were found guilty of intentionally attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

[Duckus]

While it is impossible to really predict anything the Supreme Court will do, my bet is the court guts the law.

While conservatives will cheer . . . it couldn't come at a worse time for GOP politically.

The reaction, and backlash, is going to be massive. Very angry. This is not going to help the GOPs attempt to desperately change the perception that it is a party of white, old, men.

Fair or not for the GOP, the fallout from the controversial ruling will fall on them more than the court - especially candidates in 2014 who will be forced to defend the ruling in debates/ads.

We shall see, it will be interesting regardless.

[Larry]

I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for Divine Retribution.

We just saw an election in which the GOP, across the country, passed law after law, specifically designed to help their Party by suppressing minority votes.

And they got caught at it.

And there was no backlash whatsoever.

And, before the newly-elected government even took office, they started in on the NEXT round of "if you can't win elections, let's change the rules to make it more in our favor".

Right out in the open.

(Frankly, to me, I look at the majority-GOP House, and the majority-Dem Senate, and part of me says that the only possible explanation for this, is that you can't gerrymander Senate districts. (But then, it also occurs to me that the only way these "states that vote Dem, but the legislature is GOP" states can gerrymander the state, is if they have a GOP Governor.))

But I think that the voters have made it pretty plain that "trying to win elections by changing the rules to favor your side" isn't considered a Big Deal.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...rights-act.php

Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is A ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’


In expressing his deep skepticism Wednesday for the constitutionality of a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned the motivations of Congress for repeatedly reauthorizing it since it was initially passed in 1965.

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said during oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department prior to enacting them.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 99-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

[Larry]

Perhaps, Mr. Justice, it would be easier to convince people to get rid of this "racial entitlement", if the states involved didn't keep getting caught trying to disenfranchise minority voters.

Still, my gut says this law is about to get gutted. People are arguing simultaneously, that no one tries to disenfranchise minorities any more, and "look, these other states disenfranchised their minorities, and this law wasn't there to stop THEM".

[twa]

seems a reasonable description from where I sit....a state that has a minority majority has no need for carved out minority seats

equal rights should be equal

[nonniey]

it does


as for this case, unfortunately we just had a year where states tried to disenfranchise voters so I feel this has to stay.

Except the courts didn't find the Voter ID laws to be disenfranchising voters, but the Justice department did.