Senate The Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    And let me guess, your next canard will be that its all Bush's and the nasty GOP's fault right? I am a psychic!
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Bush's fault? W doesn't even remotely make the list of people who are at fault for voter suppression. He had nothing to do with the most recent attempts, and made inroads into the hispanic community. I would say he had nothing to do with it in general.

    Shane, I understand that you decline to recognize the reality of voter suppression attempts and acts over the past several years. That's fine. Just don't act like it's some kind of odd thing to recognize it for what it was and is. It's a fact, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/

    http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-vi...arly-voting-saying-it-helps-african-americans

    And so on.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  3. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    So how did that voter suppression work for Romney?

    I'm glad the SCOTUS vacated that part of the VRA. Times change and so do people and attitudes.
    Last edited by ShaneP, Jun 25, 2013
  4. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Right. Except that a lot of people in power across the country have the same attitude as their parents and grandparents, and are doing everything they can to block certain people from voting.

    I hope you're not ignorant to the point of believing that it's only voter suppression if it actually succeeds in accomplishing what it sets out to do.

    You're hopeless, Shane. Believe what you want. I'm pretty sure history will recognize that Republicans throughout the country have set out to suppress the vote as much as possible, wherever and whenever possible. Good night to you.
    Last edited by KnightWriter, Jun 25, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  5. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    And then if there are issues that arise then we can have new ways of dealing with it and not 60 year old ways. Hopeless is clinging to old legislation in an ever changing world when apparently it wasn't able to stop attempts at voter suppression(if it exists).

    You habe to think of new ways of dealing with things. The world has changed. We need a new paradigm.
    GenAntilles likes this.
  6. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Do you feel the same way about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its provisions? It's a year older than the VRA. They're 50 (not 60) years old, so they should be thrown out?
  7. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    No. They work. What Knightwriter is suggesting, by implying attempts at voter suppression, was that it wasn't getting any media attention or really any legal prosecutions.

    So, if it was still working, why was it failing at what it was supposed to do? Knightwriter just linked to instances of attempted voter suppression.

    Is it possible the law just wasn't working any more?

    What is wrong with reconsideration and reworking a law to be more effective?

    And I don't understand the defeatist attitude. Just because the VRA section was vacated doesn't mean you and KW and others cannot push for a new law. Just because the SCOTUS says so on this specific area doesn't mean this is the end of the issue.

    Democracies are always in flux. Always changing. So, help change it.
    Last edited by ShaneP, Jun 25, 2013
  8. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Yeah, I can send my lobbyists to Congress. I can write my representative, the honorable (not really) Ed Royce. Democrats would be hard enough to kick in the ass to un-gut a Great Society law, let alone white Republicans.

    And it "wasn't working" because there were states to which it did not apply. The U.S. Department of Justice had the power to rectify that on its own with the approval of a federal judge as it has before.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jun 25, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  9. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 7
    So then it wasn't working. It only applied to certain states. That seems to be its own built-in flaw. But if you believe the issue exists then it can still be brought to the attention of legislators. I doubt the old guard of the civil rights era is just moving on from this.
  10. Jabba-wocky Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    The law already had provisions that allowed areas to be both added and removed from the preclearance list, based on their actual and ongoing history of voter suppression (or lack thereof). That already answers your concern. If it was not a problem anymore, all voting districts should have been able to successfully qualify for removal, based on a lack of new incidents. That they couldn't, and the law had to be repeatedly invoked up to and including the 2012 elections, demonstrates its continued need.
  11. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 10
    WHY ARE PEOPLE ON SCOTUSBLOG WHO DON'T KNOW WHO THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS?!?
    MrZAP, Juliet316 and heels1785 like this.
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except you are overlooking a key point about Section 4. What they overturned was the formula used to decide which states and counties required preclearance. That formula was created in 1965 based on data from 1965 and designed to be used for only 5 years (the initial term of the VRA). It has since remained unchanged, using the same data and criteria, for almost 50 years, and in its current form it was authorized through 2031 (making it 65 years using the same data).

    Essentially, the Supreme Court said that if you are going to codify criteria for who will be singled out for special treatment, you need to use somewhat current data to base that criteria on. I don't see what the problem with that is. Both Section 2 and Section 5 are still valid, and if Congress can agree on criteria that uses modern data (instead of data from when my Social Security-receiving parents were in their teens) to single out specific jurisdictions for greater scrutiny. It simply restores a presumption of innocence until there is evidence to prove otherwise.

    If there is evidence of specific acts of violating people's voting rights, the exact same remedies are still available. It simply means that all states and counties operate under the same rules, instead of certain states and counties being forced to jump through additional hoops.
  13. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 10
  14. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    DOMA struck down in a very broad equal protection ruling, 5-4 decision by Kennedy.


    EDIT: maybe I'm mishearing, but is it the entire law struck down??? (If it's all unconstitutional, it would make gay marriage basically legal nationwide, because all states would be forced to be recognized gay marriages performed in US states where it's legal)


    from the ruling:

    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Jun 26, 2013
  15. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 10
    10:03
    Amy Howe:
    DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

    Wednesday June 26, 2013 10:03 Amy Howe
    10:03
    Amy Howe:
    "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."
  16. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 6
  17. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The ruling says the entire law is unconstitutional, not just the federal benefits part... unless I'm missing something. It doesn't specify one section by name.

    That would be VERY big news, like I said above.

    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Jun 26, 2013
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    From Kennedy's ruling, it looks like it only applies to Section 3:
    By specifically saying that Section 2 is not challenged here, it narrows the ruling to only Section 3 (as rulings do not cover matters not explicitly before the Court unless they say so).
  19. Ghost Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Oh ok, it was confusing since the conclusion seemed to be talking about the entire law.

    But it seems the new standard Kennedy created could apply to future cases regarding gay marriage and discrimination issues.



    Also, SCOTUS says the Proposition 8 case lacks standing, which makes Gay Marriage legal again in California.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Jun 26, 2013
  20. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of CT, SW Saga and Lucasfilm Ltd

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    What a fantastic day. [face_party]

    With the Prop 8 ruling, I'm hoping someone will take North Carolina's Evilmendment One to the Supreme Court.

    I just watched Tony Perkins whine on the ABC News Special Report and am reminded of why I rarely turn on the news.
  21. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 6
    From Scalia's dissent:

    Sounds like he's a politician not a justice.
  22. timmoishere Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    So...defending marriage from what, exactly? Do gay couples somehow affect the marriages of straight couples?

    I am so glad DOMA is dead. It's about time!
  23. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of CT, SW Saga and Lucasfilm Ltd

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    Every time I see "Defense of Marriage Act," I think of my BFF from high school writing to Newt Gingrich asking him which if his marriages he wanted to defend.

    If that's the best that Scalia can come up with, that's hilarious.
  24. yankee8255 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6

    Not sure you're right about that. Kennedy says that at the beginning of the opinion, but for the rest of it he never specifies just Section 3, consistently refers to "DOMA". For example, on page 25, he states: "This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Roberts' dissent also states that it was only Section 3 that was struck down. The discussion of DOMA never mentions more than one state after specifying that Section 2 isn't being challenged.