As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

SCOTUS Ponders Killing VRA

Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-south-blacks-discrimination/1949719/
The nation's most revered civil rights law emerged from a Supreme Court oral argument in critical condition Wednesday, putting existing remedies to voting discrimination in the South and some other states in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

The conservative justices who hold a slim majority on the court expressed grave doubts that the landmark law can remain intact when its most powerful section is based on a formula devised by Congress nearly a half-century ago.

Should the court rule 5-4 this spring against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all or parts of 16 states to clear all voting changes with the federal government, it would silence a weapon used as recently as last year to beat back photo ID laws, redistricting plans and restrictions on early voting.

Fuck them. Seriously, fuck them. Can we advocate for violence yet, or will that still get me zinged? How long is this shit gonna last? Because I seriously cannot take much more of this. God damn, I want to explode. Seriously? Are they really gonna do this? Are we going down this road? Where the fuck is everyone who's supposed to be pissed off about this? Those fucking states lost their rights when they started a god damned war and caused the country to rip itself apart so they could keep their slaves. Forever and anon. Really struggling not to go over the line and say something fucked up here.

«1345678

Posts

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-south-blacks-discrimination/1949719/
    The nation's most revered civil rights law emerged from a Supreme Court oral argument in critical condition Wednesday, putting existing remedies to voting discrimination in the South and some other states in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

    The conservative justices who hold a slim majority on the court expressed grave doubts that the landmark law can remain intact when its most powerful section is based on a formula devised by Congress nearly a half-century ago.

    Should the court rule 5-4 this spring against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all or parts of 16 states to clear all voting changes with the federal government, it would silence a weapon used as recently as last year to beat back photo ID laws, redistricting plans and restrictions on early voting.

    Fuck them. Seriously, fuck them. Can we advocate for violence yet
    Christ.

    No you can't. Literally nothing has happened yet.

    Quire.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Scalia revealed himself again as a ridiculous hack. And 5/9 were definitely skeptical. Sotomayor is awesome though.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Maybe I'm worried too much... If Roberts cares anything about his legacy, he won't do it.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Roberts secured his legacy with Obamacare. Hard to say how he'll come down on this.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Roberts has spent most of his career trying to kill the VRA. He's voting it down. Kennedy's lame ass is back to the swing.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    How would Scalia* justify voting down the VRA now while claiming it was Constitutional then? If the Constitution is not a "living document", that which was Constitutional in the 1960s should be Constitutional now.

    *If Scalia wasn't a blatantly corrupt and partisan cryptofascist?

    I mean read Scalia's argument against it:
    The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.
    ...
    And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much he same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes

    First of all, which societies is he talking about that had a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" unless he's talking about Jim Crowe itself? He's talking out of his ass.
    Second, that's explicitly a political concern not a legal one.
    I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.

    That's the -- that's the concern that those of us who -- who have some questions about this statute have. It's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.

    The Court doesn't have the authority to say "we don't like this law, so fuck it." That's all Scalia is saying. "This law is incredibly popular and I don't like it so the only way to get rid of it is to say its Unconstitutional."

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    How would Scalia* justify voting down the VRA now while claiming it was Constitutional then? If the Constitution is not a "living document", that which was Constitutional in the 1960s should be Constitutional now.

    "It wasn't *really* constitutional back then. They said it was, but they were wrong. So says Scalia. So say we all."

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    How would Scalia* justify voting down the VRA now while claiming it was Constitutional then? If the Constitution is not a "living document", that which was Constitutional in the 1960s should be Constitutional now.

    Could it be argued that whatever need that was present then is no longer now?

    It's not that the Constitution necessarily changed, but rather that the circumstances warranting whatever policy that would otherwise be unconstitutional changed. We allow restrictions of basic rights, for instance, provided a compelling need is demonstrated and the law in question is properly tailored to that need. So if either the need subsides, or the landscape changes such that the law is no longer properly tailored to the need, what was once constitutional could become unconstitutional.

    Not sure how this applies to the VRA, if at all. But in general.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I'm trying to get away from lolscalia for a sec. Don't get me wrong, I'm the head coach of Team Fuck Scalia.

  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    I like how he doesn't even pretend to be anything but a hypocrite anymore.

    So do we have to rely on Kennedy again now? God damn it.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    As I said in the Obama thread, I wouldn't mind expanding section 5 to the entire nation for the following reasons:

    -Racism isn't tied to the soil.
    -GOP has shown that some will fuck others out of the vote for having what the deem the wrong opinion.
    -Might finally get the ball rolling on moving all districting out of state legislators and into the hands of non-partisan boards (given how half assed it is, that it's a major conflict of interest, this should have happened long ago).

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    I read a nice op ed article stating that the VRA section 5 was completely in line with the 15th Amendment to the constitution:
    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
    [edit]Histo

    It means that from a originalist perspective the VRA is exactly what the writers of the 15th wanted the federal government to do. To have congress pass laws that prevent citizens being denied rights by the states, preemptively if necessary. They obviously didn't want the same court that gave us Dred Scott to be the deciding factor.(the 15th was passed in 1869).

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    If this is struck down, I can see another march on Washington happening. This is a big deal and I can't see how anything positive can come about it being overturned.

    People literally died for the right to vote.

    Am I crazy to think that there will be serious consequences if they strike down the VRA?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    I read an interesting article on this recently. It pointed out the following: it is sometimes pointed out that racial participation in suffrage in the section-5 covered districts now approaches that of the nation as a whole, and it is sometimes held that this is a ground for getting rid of section-5 as unnecessary. But section-5, where it exists, is a huge discouragement from discriminatory tampering with the rules. If the places where there is a huge discouragement from tampering with the rules are only now approaching parity with the places where there is no such discouragement, that still indicates a rather large discrepancy in unregulated attitudes.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    I really wish we could apply the VRA to the nation at large. Federal regulation of all federal elections would be a great start.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    I like that one of the arguments to strike it down in this case boils down to "were totally not racist, how dare you, we elected some black guys in the past!"

    From what I heard on NPR, basically they recently(2006) tried to cut out the only African American member on the county(?) board during redistricting without even informing him of it.

    Plenty of areas have gotten off the list by not discriminating.

    A call to violence is never appropriate. But I am totally in the non-violent resistance camps so...

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    I wonder how apathetic people would be about it, if it happened. How long; how many?

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Sotomayor_zps67330e5f.png

    Taramoor on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The argument that every part of the USA is different now so the law is no longer needed can only be made by a person who has never been to certain parts of the south. We could just ignore how a lot of the restrictive voting laws just happen to mostly affect minorities, are made by the same areas that fucked over minorities previously, and are made by a group that has strong strategic reasons for wanting to fuck over minorities.

    Couscous on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    How would Scalia* justify voting down the VRA now while claiming it was Constitutional then? If the Constitution is not a "living document", that which was Constitutional in the 1960s should be Constitutional now.

    Could it be argued that whatever need that was present then is no longer now?

    I have heard people make exactly that point before, arguing that over the last fifteen years, the US DOJ has raised issue with less than 1% of all legislative changes dealing with electoral law in preclearance jurisdictions. In the point of view of those who argue in favor of repealing part or all of the VRA, that the DOJ must actively enforce the law but rarely is proof that the law is unnecessary.

    That's obviously bullshit, of course. That the overwhelming majority of districts do now attempt to actively comply with federal law is no basis for speculation as to how they might have behaved if the law didn't exist.

    SammyF on
  • ZephiranZephiran Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    As I said in the Obama thread, I wouldn't mind expanding section 5 to the entire nation for the following reasons:

    -Racism isn't tied to the soil.
    -GOP has shown that some will fuck others out of the vote for having what the deem the wrong opinion.
    -Might finally get the ball rolling on moving all districting out of state legislators and into the hands of non-partisan boards (given how half assed it is, that it's a major conflict of interest, this should have happened long ago).

    I hope I'm wrong, but I still wonder if that last bit could be construed as "Undermining States Rights". It's been a while since I had a look at the books, but doesn't the law say something to the effect of "The States shall make arrangements for elections"? Could be interpreted as "Only The States".

    Now I'm sad that I thought of the possibility that this line could be taken. Goddamnit.

    Nevertheless, fuck Scalia. I hope the law is upheld and this idea of his is forced to crawl back into the damp and moldy underdark whence it came.

    Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.

    I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    The argument that every part of the USA is different now so the law is no longer needed can only be made by a person who has never been to certain parts of the south. We could just ignore how a lot of the restrictive voting laws just happen to mostly affect minorities, are made by the same areas that fucked over minorities previously, and are made by a group that has strong strategic reasons for wanting to fuck over minorities.

    I think the last few years of Obama have been an object lesson that any hope that we've "moved past" racism is wishful thinking. Living in the South, one of the more disturbing trends that's come up since Bush II is a much more full-throated embrace of racism from conservatives.

    One thing Fox News and the other conservative media is retaught conservatives to be proud of their racism, after a few decades of hiding it. It's such a part of the conservative identity at this point that I take any conservative who claims not be racist to be either lying or the equivalent of a Log Cabin Republican.

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    A call to violence is never appropriate. But I am totally in the non-violent resistance camps so...

    It shouldn't be the first response, but it should definitely be an available option when someone is trying to disenfranchise you. When you're not allowed to vote, smashing the place up is one of the most effective methods of political discourse. But I am totally in the Wat Tyler/Captain Swing camps so...

    Clown Shoes on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    A call to violence is never appropriate. But I am totally in the non-violent resistance camps so...

    It shouldn't be the first response, but it should definitely be an available option when someone is trying to disenfranchise you. When you're not allowed to vote, smashing the place up is one of the most effective methods of political discourse. But I am totally in the Wat Tyler/Captain Swing camps so...

    It's funny, but even Gandhi didn't promote the abandonment of violence. In fact, it was always the veiled threat with him.

    One of the forgotten brilliant truths about Gandhi was that he mastered the ability to make a peaceful march seem threatening. When thousands of Indians sat unmoving as British troops walked among them beating them during the Salt Marches, Gandhi was the first to point out that the power and will of a people who could endure such abuse silently would be terrible if they decided to raise their hands.

  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    A call to violence is never appropriate. But I am totally in the non-violent resistance camps so...

    It shouldn't be the first response, but it should definitely be an available option when someone is trying to disenfranchise you. When you're not allowed to vote, smashing the place up is one of the most effective methods of political discourse. But I am totally in the Wat Tyler/Captain Swing camps so...

    It's funny, but even Gandhi didn't promote the abandonment of violence. In fact, it was always the veiled threat with him.

    One of the forgotten brilliant truths about Gandhi was that he mastered the ability to make a peaceful march seem threatening. When thousands of Indians sat unmoving as British troops walked among them beating them during the Salt Marches, Gandhi was the first to point out that the power and will of a people who could endure such abuse silently would be terrible if they decided to raise their hands.

    There's a difference between it being known violence is an option on the table and openly threatening violence when nothing has yet actually happened to provoke it.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • ArchangleArchangle Registered User regular
    Just so we're clear, SCOTUS isn't considering the whole VRA. They're looking at a very specific part of it.

    The part they're specifically looking at is the bit which says "If you're one of these states, you need approval before enacting any new voting laws".

    The reason why they're looking at it is because the question has been raised through the various channels "Why *THESE* states? Why not the other states?"

    The rebuttal has come forward "Because there are still a lot of racist geese out there".

    Now... discuss with less hyperbole!

  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Archangle wrote: »
    Just so we're clear, SCOTUS isn't considering the whole VRA. They're looking at a very specific part of it.

    The part they're specifically looking at is the bit which says "If you're one of these states, you need approval before enacting any new voting laws".

    The reason why they're looking at it is because the question has been raised through the various channels "Why *THESE* states? Why not the other states?"

    The rebuttal has come forward "Because there are still a lot of racist geese out there".

    Now... discuss with less hyperbole!

    The fact is, it should apply to all states equally.

    But the way to implement that is not to get rid of pre-clearance. It's to expand it.

    Pennsylvania isn't currently covered and it's pretty clear they should be, for example.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Archangle wrote: »
    Just so we're clear, SCOTUS isn't considering the whole VRA. They're looking at a very specific part of it.

    The part they're specifically looking at is the bit which says "If you're one of these states, you need approval before enacting any new voting laws".

    The reason why they're looking at it is because the question has been raised through the various channels "Why *THESE* states? Why not the other states?"

    The rebuttal has come forward "Because there are still a lot of racist geese out there".

    Now... discuss with less hyperbole!

    No. This is the Roberts Court. There's a very good chance that this narrow interpretation could be turned into a wholesale demolition of the VRA because "Fuck stare decisis!"

    This court is really good at doing that.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    It should be clear to anyone that - looking at the history of Civil Rights / Race Relations in America, specifically the period from ~1960 - 1970, violence is definitely on the table.

    It's very premature for anyone to start inciting that violence or acting on that violence. It should be a last resort, and the more it gets threatened the lower the threshold for that violence becomes.

    Don't be those guys talking about how many ATF agents are going to die if they try to take our guns. That 'just saying' stuff is a threat, and it would be nice to be able to deal with real issues without people immediately falling back on violence.

    For what it's worth, I think the provisions of the VRA should - definitely in any Federal Election or elections that would have bearing on Federal Elections (such as State Legislatures that control Federal districts...) should be expanded to cover all districts. The south is bad, but there are plenty of other places that are bad as well.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Archangle wrote: »
    Just so we're clear, SCOTUS isn't considering the whole VRA. They're looking at a very specific part of it.

    The part they're specifically looking at is the bit which says "If you're one of these states, you need approval before enacting any new voting laws".

    The reason why they're looking at it is because the question has been raised through the various channels "Why *THESE* states? Why not the other states?"

    The rebuttal has come forward "Because there are still a lot of racist geese out there".

    Now... discuss with less hyperbole!

    And that argument is bullshit with how they present it. They pointed out other states have enacted shitty legislation and that should mean they too should be able to enact shitty legislation. See how stupid that sounds? It's like a robbery suspect saying "Other people get away with robbing people, so I should be let go."

    Shelby County also could have gotten bailed out of this provision as other counties have, if they you know stopped being discriminatory, but as of 2008 they tried to redistrict the one black councilman out of existence! So progressive of them.

    On top of all that the VRA in its entirety was up for a vote in the house and senate in 2006 it passed the house with very few nays, and the senate with none, and was signed by GWB. Scalia argues we should throw out that vote because politicians are afraid to vote against minorities, how is that a fucking argument against legislation that does not violate the constitution and was voted in almost unanimously by the people's representatives?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I want to know how Section 5 can be considered a racial entitlement in any way that doesn't require raping the English language.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    I want to know how Section 5 can be considered a racial entitlement in any way that doesn't require raping the English language.

    Scalia's basically an old man watching Fox News and yelling at the TV at this point. The only difference is that he's also a sitting Supreme Court judge.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    If the last few years have shown us anything Section 5 needs ot be applied to more places not less

  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard Little Rock, ARRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    What we need is a law to stop the chipping away of voting rights of minorities and poor everywhere. The VRA should stay in place if that's the best we can get. But I have to say, the angry neo-Reconstructionist rhetoric is a bit odd considering the actual shit Republicans are pulling nationwide.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    It probably also needs to be expanded what with the whole gerrymandering of districts and needs to set a requirement for reasonable access to voting areas. Or something.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    From the OP article:
    Roberts went so far as to note that Massachusetts now has the worst black turnout in elections compared with whites — and Mississippi, the best
    Wikipedia wrote:
    percentage of Black population:

    26: Massachusetts 7%
    1: Mississippi 37%
    youdontsay.png

    Atomika on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The Reagan-appointed jurist said lawmakers keep reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act out of fear of political repercussions. In a sarcastic tone, he described it as odd that congressional renewal has passed with growing margins over the years in spite of the fact that racism is widely acknowledged to have become less severe in the covered jurisdictions since 1965.
    Wait, how is that odd? As racism becomes less popular, shit to fight racism will become more popular. That is perfectly normal.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Roberts went so far as to note that Massachusetts now has the worst black turnout in elections compared with whites — and Mississippi, the best
    Umm, couldn't this partly be attributed to section five?

    That and a bunch of other factors like the high black population meaning there is going to be a lot of get out the vote efforts targeted at them by the political party they support. The high black turnout would in turn be a reason for those who would benefit from discrimination to pass laws targeting minorities.

    Couscous on
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Could also be the fact that the party that blacks overwhelmingly vote for already has an overwhelming advantage in Massachusetts...pushing black turnout wouldn't really amount to more than running up the score.

    Insert Belichick joke here.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    How would Scalia* justify voting down the VRA now while claiming it was Constitutional then? If the Constitution is not a "living document", that which was Constitutional in the 1960s should be Constitutional now.

    Could it be argued that whatever need that was present then is no longer now?

    It's not that the Constitution necessarily changed, but rather that the circumstances warranting whatever policy that would otherwise be unconstitutional changed. We allow restrictions of basic rights, for instance, provided a compelling need is demonstrated and the law in question is properly tailored to that need. So if either the need subsides, or the landscape changes such that the law is no longer properly tailored to the need, what was once constitutional could become unconstitutional.

    Not sure how this applies to the VRA, if at all. But in general.

    Except Scalia is all about how the Constitution is a static document. If the VRA was Constitutional in 1965, according to his paradigm it should be Constitutional now. Otherwise, its an outcome based approach that he supposedly abhors.

    But even under living document theories, the challenge is bogus. If the Congress has authority to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments through appropriate legislation - which it explicitly does - then unless another Constitutional limit is applied Section 5 is applicable. Congress reviewed a large amount of evidence to justify the extension of the VRA including Section 5. That means that its not the Court's place to judge whether or not the law is a good law or not. Its their job to determine whether there is any rational basis for linking the legislation to the stated power. And there clearly is.
    (f) Congress, as against the reserved powers of the States, may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial voting discrimination. P. 383 U. S. 324.

    g) The Fifteenth Amendment, which is self-executing, supersedes contrary exertions of state power, and its enforcement is not confined to judicial invalidation of racially discriminatory state statutes and procedures or to general legislative prohibitions against violations of the Amendment. Pp. 383 U. S. 325, 383 U. S. 327.

    (h) Congress, whose power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment has repeatedly been upheld in the past, is free to use whatever means are appropriate to carry out the objects of the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 345-346. Pp. 383 U. S. 326-37.
    ..
    (j) Congress is well within its powers in focusing upon the geographic areas where substantial racial voting discrimination had occurred. Pp. 383 U. S. 328-329.

    (k) Congress had reliable evidence of voting discrimination in a great majority of the areas covered by § 4(b) of the Act, and is warranted in inferring a significant danger of racial voting discrimination in the few other areas to which the formula in § 4(b) applies. Pp. 383 U. S. 329-330.

    (l) The coverage formula is rational in theory, since tests or devices have so long been used for disenfranchisement, and a lower voting rate obviously results from such disenfranchisement. P. 383 U. S. 330.

    (m) The coverage formula is rational as being aimed at areas where widespread discrimination has existed through misuse of tests or devices even though it excludes certain areas where there is voting discrimination through other means. The Act, moreover, strengthens existing remedies for such discrimination in those other areas. Pp. 383 U. S. 330-331.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sign In or Register to comment.