Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 429

Thread: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

  1. #31
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    QUOTE=TacticalEvilDan;1061971164]If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.[/QUOTE]

    Jim Crow is constitutional by that logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #32
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    So all of the intents, outcomes, and provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including its specific application to the specific states, stands. The only thing that this case said was that congress needs to update the methodology of determining bias in voting laws. Which means that congress is free to make even more effective standards to protect the voting rights of disenfranchised minorities. Well gee, what a big change. It's sad that we need the supreme court to force the congress to do things, but I have a bad feeling that Republicans will do whatever they can to block an updated method from passing through congress. Without that method, Republicans are free to continue their campaign to stop blacks, women, and latinos from voting, since no enforcement will be possible. This is an obvious decision, but with potentially serious consequences.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,217

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    So all of the intents, outcomes, and provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
    including its specific application to the specific states, stands. The only thing that this case said was that congress needs to update the methodology of determining bias in voting laws. Which means that congress is free to make even more effective standards to protect the voting rights of disenfranchised minorities. Well gee, what a big change. It's sad that we need the supreme court to force the congress to do things, but I have a bad feeling that Republicans will do whatever they can to block an updated method from passing through congress. Without that method, Republicans are free to continue their campaign to stop blacks, women, and latinos from voting, since no enforcement will be possible. This is an obvious decision, but with potentially serious consequences.
    THATS not going to happen so, say "ba-bye" to outdated methodology and draconian Federal Control.

  4. #34
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    It is when regular citizens question the actions and rationale of their congress.


    Tim-
    There is nothing wrong with questioning Congress. By all means, use the court system to challenge them when they do or authorize something illegal or unConstitutional -- this law was not judged to be either, in which case your recourse is to either to pressure your representative or vote for another candidate.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #35
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Had they been sticking to their "job", their oath of office, they would have never rulled it constitutional in the first place. Instead, they did as they've done in the past, allowed unconstitutional acts and provisions to be constitutional in the court's eyes TEMPORARILY, in order to engage in social engineering.
    Even if I agreed with you, that's besides the point since they didn't strike it down on Constitutional grounds.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #36
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The law was based on the idea that voting problems existed in certain states and counties that didn't exist in other states and counties. So those areas were subject to oversight while the others were not. Those problems disappeared long ago so it is discriminatory, unfair, unnecessary, and stigmatizing to continue to subject them to special oversight that is expensive and burdensome. Every little change in the voting process, such as moving a polling station down the street to another building, required them to get lawyers to draw up papers to be sent to Washington, DC, and then to wait up to 60 days for a reply. Very very few of the applications for changes are being denied, which lends support to the idea that the process isn't necessary any more.

    Meanwhile, it's still illegal to discriminate against minorities in the right to vote. But that won't stop radicals like Obama from demagoging the issue out the wazoo, trying to equate this with the end of voting rights.
    All of that is irrelevant. The law was not struck down on Constitutional grounds, not even based on a rickety BS argument. It was simply judged out-of-date, which is not a determination the Court can make.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #37
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    Wait.... you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to strike down laws that Congress passed and the President signed years ago? Are you sure you want to go down that path?
    That isn't what I said.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #38
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
    Jim Crow is constitutional by that logic.
    Er, no.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #39
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
    this explain this then, in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore, the USSC rules in a 5 -0 vote..only 5 judges then, that the u.s. bill of rights did not apply to the states, however after the civil war the USSC said it did.

    so according to your line of thinking the states dont have to obey the bill of rights.

  10. #40
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Wow, Texas and North Carolina didn't even wait a single day before declaring that they will push voter ID laws. The whole "win elections by having better ideas" method is just gone from the Republican party, it seems. Win by passing laws to strip American citizens of the right to vote is their policy now.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •