Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 217

Thread: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

  1. #121
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Good grief, read the link, it's the VRA and a handy summary beforehand. It's all right there for you. But here you are again, asking me to prove what you've already admitted exists.
    I see you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas

    Again, no. There was no finding of guilt here and those special provisions under the VRA that create covered areas deal with historical behavior which precedes the act. Retroactivity in law, look into it.
    And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #122
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Then why not extend it to all 50 States instead? THe SC needs to stop legislating from the bench.
    It probably should be just so all states feel the pain. The Court has not ruled yet that I am aware of--just oral arguments.

    If you are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts, it can be a huge pain in the butt, especially if things happen at the last minute like a polling station floods or burns down. Dealing with that stuff requires approval--anything whatsoever you do requires approval and it does not always come that quickly.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So you admit that SCOTUS decided that VRA doesn't violate the 14th

    It's about time you acknowledged reality
    The reality that there is a strong possibility that section 5 will be ruled unconstitutional?

  4. #124
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    The reality that there is a strong possibility that section 5 will be ruled unconstitutional?
    No, the reality that SCOTUS has decided that VRA does not violate the 14th amend
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #125
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Civil Rights leaders get enraged if Scalia puts lemon curd on his morning crumpets instead of blackberry jam. Truthful, legitimate questions being asked or opinions given, that jeopordize political power obtained, will always find outrage and be deemed ill-suitable for public consumption.

  6. #126
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I see you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas



    And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
    Since you seem obstinantly unable to follow a link and actually read the act you are trying to defend - here, from the link itself:

    THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
    as amended by the
    VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970

    Prohibits the use for 5 years of literacy tests and other devices
    (found by Congress to be discriminatory) as qualifications for
    voting in any Federal, State, local, general, or primary election.
    Permits 18-year-olds to vote in any general or primary election
    for Federal office.

    Assures that residency requirements will no longer prevent citizens
    from voting for President and Vice President.

    Provides for the assignment of Federal examiners to conduct
    registration and of Federal observers to observe voting in States
    or counties covered by the special provisions of the act.


    Requires Federal clearance of new voting laws or procedures of
    States or counties covered by the special provisions of the act.
    Extends civil and criminal protection to qualified persons seeking
    to vote and to those who urge or aid others to vote.

    This publication is issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as part of
    its clearinghouse function. It discusses the coverage, administration, and other
    subjects covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act
    Amendments of 1970. The text of these acts appears on pp. 11-25.
    The text of the act follows and the special provisons sections are listed in multiple places throughout the act, some being a page or two long. Read the damn thing and stop playing games.

  7. #127
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, the reality that SCOTUS has decided that VRA does not violate the 14th amend
    Again, you have not shown that. The SCOTUS has taken up no such case for that decision to be made.

  8. #128
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Since you seem obstinantly unable to follow a link and actually read the act you are trying to defend - here, from the link itself:



    The text of the act follows and the special provisons sections are listed in multiple places throughout the act, some being a page or two long. Read the damn thing and stop playing games.
    The quote you posted does not say that it only applies certain specific states or areas
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I see you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas



    And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
    Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to
    which the prohibitions set forth in section 4 (a) are in effect shall
    enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to
    voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting
    different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,
    such
    State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States
    District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
    procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of
    denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,
    and unjess and until the court enters such judgment no person shall
    be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided,
    That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice^ or procedure
    may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by
    the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or
    subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has
    not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission,
    except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a
    declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite,
    standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall
    be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance
    with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States
    Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
    There ya go. As defined by the law, it specially covers any state or county who was in defiance of the law on Nov 1st, 1964. No where in the law does it state that that date should be updated every 5 years, or every 10 years, so therefore, we are still sanctioning states based solely on transgressions dating back to 1964. http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...ts/cr11032.pdf

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The quote you posted does not say that it only applies certain specific states or areas
    Does the word "special" mean anything to do? It means different. If I say a law is being applied to special states, are you really thinking that that wording means all states?

Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •