• 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!

US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

TacticalEvilDan said:
The Court -- but for it to decide on Constitutional grounds, it would need to specify those grounds, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

The court decided that the states affected were not given due consideration and were being unduly harmed by a law enacted over 40 years earlier...
 
good ruling.... the information they used to draw these maps was severely outdated.

one would think everybody would be on board with legislating such important things by using up to date and accurate information.... but it seems some people( namely ,the liberals who are throwing tizzy fits) don't like being accurate or up to date.<shrugs>

now it's up to Congress to either draw new maps, or kick the can down the road..... I think they are going to have an awfully tough time making their cases for racial discrimination in select jurisdictions, but I'm sure the cases will be made nonetheless.
 
Taylor said:
Right... reauthorization is essentially new legislation and that's what was deemed unconstitutional. So we can do away with the "they discarded the law because they decided it was no longer relevant" arguments.
Click to expand...

the voting rights act has been renewed multiple times since it was first signed into law, including the most recent renewal in 2006. so why is it that the states have only started to complain about it now, specifically provision number 4, the part of the law that was struck down?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The Court -- but for it to decide on Constitutional grounds, it would need to specify those grounds, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

well i would have said it like this ......."it would need to specify those grounds in the constitution"


one of the problems with the law is that it is not uniform, it only directed at a few southern states, and then only a few counties in those states, under constitutional law, all laws have to apply equally to every state, you cant single people or states out.
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, windowdressing! :2wave:

Congratulations on getting a new daughter, my friend! Best wishes to all of you! :peace:
Click to expand...

Good to "see" you again! Yes, they got hitched ... thank you for the good wishes ...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the voting rights act has been renewed multiple times since it was first signed into law, including the most recent renewal in 2006. so why is it that the states have only started to complain about it now, specifically provision number 4, the part of the law that was struck down?
Click to expand...


O.K., I'll take a stab at it ... Too many colored folk in the country now and it ain't gonna get better?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sounds to me your mad at conservatives.

so i guess, if the court had ruled the other way, which is the way liberals wanted it to be...it would be ok?.......and the court would be just in your eyes?
Click to expand...

I'm not mad at conservatives. Inconsistency makes me mad. What I want is for constitutionally-minded Conservatives to be offended by this because there are no legal grounds for discarding a law for being outmoded by social reality.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the voting rights act has been renewed multiple times since it was first signed into law, including the most recent renewal in 2006. so why is it that the states have only started to complain about it now, specifically provision number 4, the part of the law that was struck down?
Click to expand...

maybe it has something also to do with voter I.D. which was a topic of discussion about this court decision.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not mad at conservatives. Inconsistency makes me mad. What I want is for constitutionally-minded Conservatives to be offended by this because there are no legal grounds for discarding a law for being outmoded by social reality.
Click to expand...

well you know the courts have revisited issues many times, and overturned them.

why should they be mad, constitutionalists, libertarians, and some conservatives, are for state powers, being return to them.

this case says that a government bureaucrat( unelected official) does not get to decide what a states voting guidelines are.
 
because those you have mentioned broke the law--now Texas will continue their 27-9 gerry-mandered House map and ensure a Republican minority will be in power--true fascism--the South has risen again throught the SCOTUS CORRUPTUS and ensures the division in this Country will accelerate
ernst barkmann said:
well i would have said it like this ......."it would need to specify those grounds in the constitution"


one of the problems with the law is that it is not uniform, it only directed at a few southern states, and then only a few counties in those states, under constitutional law, all laws have to apply equally to every state, you cant single people or states out.
Click to expand...
 
state powers such as Indiana polluting Lake Michigan at 20 times the MERCURY level--these are states' wrongs not states' rights
ernst barkmann said:
well you know the courts have revisited issues many times, and overturned them.

why should they be mad, constitutionalists, libertarians, and some conservatives, are for state powers, being return to them.

this case says that a government bureaucrat( unelected official) does not get to decide what a states voting guidelines are.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
because those you have mentioned broke the law--now Texas will continue their 27-9 gerry-mandered House map and ensure a Republican minority will be in power--true fascism--the South has risen again throught the SCOTUS CORRUPTUS and ensures the division in this Country will accelerate
Click to expand...

tell me if some states broke the law, can the congress violate the constitution then, in what they determine to fix the problem
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You know, a new schtick would benefit your postings...
Click to expand...

Did you see the poster's question? Schtick? Paul, I'm afraid that you will continue to downplay the role race plays in our society until the day you die, but I'll do the same only when I see good reason to ... but don't call it a schtick ... that's insensitive to the people affected by it ...
 
windowdressing said:
Did you see the poster's question? Schtick? Paul, I'm afraid that you will continue to downplay the role race plays in our society until the day you die, but I'll do the same only when I see good reason to ... but don't call it a schtick ... that's insensitive to the people affected by it ...
Click to expand...

I do not downplay anything, and I don't use it as an excuse either...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom