• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act

It came from the hearing. Copied directly from the link you provided. She was questioning the solicitor representing Shelby Co. Didn't you read the transcript fully?



IMO, no it is not their purpose or intention nor do I believe they will overthrow the law. The question here is about preclearance which can certainly be a matter of constutionality especially considering it is not evenly applied to all the states. A few years back (2005 i think) this came up and it was stated that Congress would need to take up some 'trigger' to alleviate the requirements...or not. I believe Kagen brought it up again in this hearing.

No I dind't read the whole transcript fully. But I'm not asking who she was talking to but what incident she was referring to that they hadn't changed.
 
The onus should not be on those to prove "time have changed" but on those who suggest conditions continue to be so much worse in eight states that they need to jump through hoops that other states do not. Simply assuming it to be the case is not justifiable.

This is why I believe that no criminal should be held for more than ten years unless the govt can show that they would commit another crime once they're released. Why should those prisoners have to jump through hoops to be free when others do not. Simply assuming that they will commit another crime is not justifiable.
 
This is why I believe that no criminal should be held for more than ten years unless the govt can show that they would commit another crime once they're released. Why should those prisoners have to jump through hoops to be free when others do not. Simply assuming that they will commit another crime is not justifiable.

Criminals should be punished. States should not be. If you punish a state you largely punish citizens that had no involvement in the wrongdoing.
 
Criminals should be punished. States should not be. If you punish a state you largely punish citizens that had no involvement in the wrongdoing.

When state govts commit crimes, they should be sanctioned too.

And VRA does not punish the citizens of a state in any way.
 
I am watching this very closely as it has me worried. If this goes through and Section 5 is struck down, then that will allow for Republican politicians to do away with early voting, put up insane voter ID laws, and the like. Not only will that hurt black people, it will hurt other racial minorities, poor people, and students.

Well, there's a simple remedy. Congress can amend the act to end the unequal apllication and make preclearance the law of the land.

And ID laws don't affect anyone negatively but the bone stupid and the illegal voter.
 
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.


Being on the side of the constitution is not always the right place to be if you support equal rights and a level playing field.

Did you know that a while back the U.S. Constitution permitted slavery and denied women the vote?



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for your self." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
So, that means that your ok with the ghetto system that is created and made legal by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act? Racial gerrymandering, basically? Election rigging?

Personally, I'm not ok with it.


As I understand it, Justice Scalia's position is that it's wrong to stop Black people from voting because they're Black, but OK to stop them from voting because they're Democrats.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
. It is easy to make demorat districts, simply load them with minorities, it is not quite so easy to do the same for republicants.



Time and demographic change will eventually take care of that problem.

Wait and see.



No one can stop time and/or change.
 
Obviously any change in Texas voting law is assumed to be discriminatory unless proven otherwise, it has to be "precleared" and tus judges rather than our elected officials then get to make the district boundary lines. What goes unsaid is that reace and ethnicity are the primary factors used in that alleged "colorblind" and "outside" decision.



It kind of sounds like how it would be if you had to prove yourself innocent instead of the state having to prove you guilty.

Sounds to me like maybe the law is upside down.

The Feds should have to prove that a change in the law discriminates.

I totally support protection of everyone's right to vote.

But the laws need to be fair and not place an undue burden on anyone.
 
Fair and balanced; demorats and republicants - neither capitalized for proper disrespect. ;)



I'm down with that.

Give both parties the disrespect that they deserve. :lol:
 
US Constitution Article I Section IV

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.​

So... the question is, why is the SCOTUS legislating from the bench when the Constitution right there states that its a matter of congress to decide?



Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure does sounds like legislating from the bench to me.

Maybe we need a little Constitutional Amendment to stop that kind of thing.
 
Congress would have to do it for all states, not just specific ones they arbitrarily select. People can't be treated differently just because they reside in different states.



Maybe they can't be, but it kind of looks like they are being treated differently now.

I'm beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, that is neither right or fair.
 
It is possible that this could fall under the equal protection clause.



Maybe that will be mentioned in the Court's decision.

I'm totally down with equal rights for everyone.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Time and demographic change will eventually take care of that problem.

Wait and see.

No one can stop time and/or change.

Quite true, one needs only to look at Detriot, MI.
 
This is why I believe that no criminal should be held for more than ten years unless the govt can show that they would commit another crime once they're released. Why should those prisoners have to jump through hoops to be free when others do not. Simply assuming that they will commit another crime is not justifiable.
I don't know about some arbitrary 10 year interval, but I certainly agree that prisoners should not be continuously jailed simply because its politically expedient.
 
I think Republican efforts regarding voter ID laws are sufficient proof the law is still required.

Yes, let's require ID's to "secure the election." And just by pure coincidence, we'll scale back services at the facilities where you'd get these ID's in heavily minority/Democrat districts. Surely they wont need the office open more than 5 days a year, right? Closing down at 4pm?

Meanwhile, we'll completely ignore absentee ballots, which result in the majority of actual voter fraud but happen to lean slightly Republican.



Hmm.

I wonder why these things are going on.

Maybe, just maybe, to keep those who some think shouldn't be voting from tilting the election in the wrong direction, eh?



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for those in today's GOP who are out of touch, and quickly running out of time.
 
doing away with the VRA does not equate to doing away with voting rights..supporting the act being overturned does not equate to supporting discrimination either.



It may not equate to or support those things, but it will allow them to happen.

To me that's a distinction without a difference.

Kind of like how some people (Rand Paul for example.) are on record as supporting leaving who gets served in restaurants totally up to the owners. Does that make them racists? No, but it allows others to practice their racism with zero consequences.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
It may not equate to or support those things, but it will allow them to happen.

To me that's a distinction without a difference.

Kind of like how some people (Rand Paul for example.) are on record as supporting leaving who gets served in restaurants totally up to the owners. Does that make them racists? No, but it allows others to practice their racism with zero consequence



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Technically ( btw minority here) isn't it someone's right to discriminate.it is a form of expression. If the act isn't violent or violates their rights(could always go to another restaurant) why shouldn't a owner say who and who's not allowed in their stores.....btw i will stand on record saying racism will end in 10 or 20 years.
 
As I understand it, Justice Scalia's position is that it's wrong to stop Black people from voting because they're Black, but OK to stop them from voting because they're Democrats.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

There were some people kicked out of a Philadelphia polling house, because they were Repubkicans. Why aren't you outraged?
 
It may not equate to or support those things, but it will allow them to happen.

To me that's a distinction without a difference.

Kind of like how some people (Rand Paul for example.) are on record as supporting leaving who gets served in restaurants totally up to the owners. Does that make them racists? No, but it allows others to practice their racism with zero consequences.
...

Paul's idea would be much more effective than legislating it. Consider given the current prevalence of folks against racism if a restaurant did 'practice their racism'. Presumably this information would infiltrate throughout the community promoting the ostrization of the establishment and reducing there revenue...ultimately to the point of closure disabling the ability to 'practice their racism' AND strengthening the ones who do not.
 
It may not equate to or support those things, but it will allow them to happen.

To me that's a distinction without a difference.

Kind of like how some people (Rand Paul for example.) are on record as supporting leaving who gets served in restaurants totally up to the owners. Does that make them racists? No, but it allows others to practice their racism with zero consequences.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

really? it allows them to happen?....

is the 15th amendment still in effect?
 
As I understand it, Justice Scalia's position is that it's wrong to stop Black people from voting because they're Black, but OK to stop them from voting because they're Democrats.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

I'd love for you to explain how you reached that "understanding"....it wasn't based on anything Scalia has said or done, so i'm wondering where that "understanding" came from
 
Unless those DMV locations were established with or after the voter ID legislation, I don't see how they could possibly be connected. Overall population is far more likely.

All they need is for the voter ID laws to slightly disproportionately affect people who vote blue.
 
. So if the minority voters can neither be split up, nor strewn together, then what exactly should we do with them? :roll:


How about if we just let them and everyone else in the USA live wherever they want to live and eliminate gerrymandering for any purpose?

What's wrong with that idea?



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Back
Top Bottom