• 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!

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

Under VRA, any one of those 14 states can go to court and argue that they have changed enough to no longer warrant being subjected to the sanctions. If they prove their case, the court will lift the sanctions.

Which is how the current Supreme Court case came up.
 
Only 14 states were found, by due process, to have engaged in discrimination of voters, so only 14 states were sanctioned

Murder laws do not place sanctions on everyone. Only those found guilty, by due process, of engaging in illegal behavior

Unlike someone convicted of murder and given a fixed sentence, the VRA sentence is VARIABLE, indefinite and gets extended, so your 5 year "parole" then gets extended to 10 years, then extended again to 35 years and finally to 60 years (all without any reoffense or parole violation). Is that weird or what?
 
Wrong again

The courts have found that they continue to discriminate.

And every state that has discriminated after the law went into effect has be largely ignored.
 
There is a valid point that all states should be required to meet the same standard with regards to oversight of their voting practices. Scalia's baseless speculation as to why the bill was passed if the kind of partisan crap that makes him a very poor justice.
 
Wrong again

The courts have found that they continue to discriminate.

I'll tell you what. If you can show me a single one of these states that still have even a single member of their state congresses from 1964 then I'll consider your argument.
 
Can somebody explain what specifically the Voting Rights Act affords?
 
There is a valid point that all states should be required to meet the same standard with regards to oversight of their voting practices. Scalia's baseless speculation as to why the bill was passed if the kind of partisan crap that makes him a very poor justice.

Why do you assume it's baseless when it's well known that politicians often act in ways contrary to their own personal beliefs in favor of what they feel the most active of their voting constituents would favor? Why do you think so many Democrats in red states vote against gun control measures? You don't think it's possible that some members of congress vote on some measures simply to avoid having the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, etc. ragging on them and accusing them of racism?
 
Unlike someone convicted of murder and given a fixed sentence, the VRA sentence is VARIABLE, indefinite and gets extended, so your 5 year "parole" then gets extended to 10 years, then extended again to 35 years and finally to 60 years (all without any reoffense or parole violation). Is that weird or what?

AFAIK, most people convicted of murder are not given a fixed sentence and some people are incarcerated because they are a danger and kept incarerated, not for a fixed time, but for an indefinite time until they are deemed to no longer be a danger

There is nothing weird, unusual, or exceptional about VRA,
 
And every state that has discriminated after the law went into effect has be largely ignored.

Congress has decided that those offenses are not as severe, and it's not the courts place to second guess the findings of congress.
 
I'll tell you what. If you can show me a single one of these states that still have even a single member of their state congresses from 1964 then I'll consider your argument.

You are under no obligation to consider all of the facts
 
Can somebody explain what specifically the Voting Rights Act affords?

Okay, its seems the big fuss is over something called "Section 5" that places procedures on changing voter qualifications. Reading up on it.

If would seem making sure American can vote shouldn't have be a law that needs to be renewed every few years.
 
Last edited:
Congress has decided that those offenses are not as severe, and it's not the courts place to second guess the findings of congress.


The offenses are comparable to what is considered under section 5.
 
Okay, its seems the big fuss is over something called "Section 5" that places procedures on changing voter qualifications. Reading up on it.

If would seem making sure American can vote shouldn't have be a law that needs to be renewed every few years.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that it should either be the law for all 50 states, or not the law at all.
 
Nope, you haven't named one pgm that has never ended. Just ones that haven't ended yet

Nor have you shown that there's no longer any need for this law.

There isn't a ROFL large enough. I listed a program that was started for the sole purpose of bringing public electricity to to a specific region of the US. That was done, complete, about a decade in. The program still survives, fully government funded, for over half a century AFTER it's temporary mission has been completed.

As for our "need" for the VRA. Again, it was unconstitutional from day one. However, it was allowed to go on temporarily because of the need to reach a parity, a balance in equal protections regarding voting which were greatly out of whack. The need to allow this unconstitutional measure has passed.

At the very least, those who think the need still exists should be stumping for it to apply equally to all, bringing the VRA closer in line with constitutional requirements.
 
So the laws crminalizing murder are not laws? :screwy

And the jurisdictions these laws applies to were subject to due process, AKA the legislative process

The laws apply to all equally. What you are trying to mangle in here are the penaties applied to those who break the law.
 
There isn't a ROFL large enough. I listed a program that was started for the sole purpose of bringing public electricity to to a specific region of the US. That was done, complete, about a decade in. The program still survives, fully government funded, for over half a century AFTER it's temporary mission has been completed.

As for our "need" for the VRA. Again, it was unconstitutional from day one. However, it was allowed to go on temporarily because of the need to reach a parity, a balance in equal protections regarding voting which were greatly out of whack. The need to allow this unconstitutional measure has passed.

At the very least, those who think the need still exists should be stumping for it to apply equally to all, bringing the VRA closer in line with constitutional requirements.

You haven't proven that their only mission was to "bring" electricity to a certain region

And SCOTUS has decided that VRA is constitutional, therefore it is.

And VRA applies to every state
 
Back
Top Bottom