American judgments are much less formally written than judgments here in Australia. Both have their pros and cons.
But one of the big pros for your way of doing things is that when a judge is mad at some bullshit they can just fill their judgment in bile and passive aggression. It makes for better reading material.
This particular Judge is kinda famous for writing stuff like this. Not all judges have such...personality in their opinions.
And I still want to send them a gift basket regardless.
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
The most interesting thing to me about Posner's opinion is how little it relies on Windsor. He talks about it in asides at the beginning and end, but the bulk of his reason is traditional overinclusive/underinclusive analysis.
American judgments are much less formally written than judgments here in Australia. Both have their pros and cons.
One of the big pros for your way of doing things is that when a judge is mad at some bullshit they can just fill their judgment in bile and passive aggression. It makes for better reading material.
SCOTUS rules Ohio can restrict early voting. 5-4, surprise!
Let me guess: Anything besides the first tuesday of november is a voting luxury and so there is no constitutional requirement to make early or absentee voting even and available for everyone.
SCOTUS rules Ohio can restrict early voting. 5-4, surprise!
Let me guess: Anything besides the first tuesday of november is a voting luxury and so there is no constitutional requirement to make early or absentee voting even and available for everyone.
Seriously, fuck this court. I would be so happy when one of the five fucking shitheads on it is gone, assuming the fucker doesn't get replaced by an equally shitty human being.
Upside, there is still some hope for Ohio. The lower courts can still rule the law unconstitutional.
You all make it sound like Ohio prohibits early voting. That's not the case here. Instead Ohio reduced the early voting time frame from 35 days to 28 days. Thus, early voting will start on October 7, rather than on September 30.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I like early voting and anything that makes voting easier, but there's no constitutional right to early voting so...
You all make it sound like Ohio prohibits early voting. That's not the case here. Instead Ohio reduced the early voting time frame from 35 days to 28 days. Thus, early voting will start on October 7, rather than on September 30.
If my memory is correct, It's not when it starts that is a problem but the specific time of day they allow early voting to happen (8-5, M-F, No weekends [you know, when people who live paycheck-to-paycheck generally aren't available]) and the state wont allow the local election officials to be open any longer if demand calls for it.
It always amazes me how the party of small government really really likes it's government to be big and imposing.
In addition to what Veevee said, I also don't like how this is bringing an effective change that restricts voting so close to the elections. It's within one day of when Ohioans would been able to go the polls to vote.
It's pretty fucking sad that it looks like this country needs an amendment that explicitly states, "in order ensure fair elections, there will be no fucking bullshit changes that restrict voting 100 days of normally schedules elections." Of course, if we could ever get that on the books, we should totally, also include that if someone wants to restrict voting, they can pass the law (assuming it's constitutional), but it can't go into a effect until four years later. That way, next time, when the voters decided to fucking fail and send the next tea party/fucking-hypocritical-moral-majority into office, well the ratfuckers will have to win more than one election before they can even hope to have a shot making any restrictive voting measures stick (also four years should be plenty for people to prepare and make sure they can work around any restrictions that might stick).
If this court had any fucking sense, they should have stated that it's too close to the elections to lift the injunction. Granted if they had any fucking sense, we wouldn't have gotten CU, Hobby Lobby or a partial gutting of the VRA.
I mean, I like early voting and anything that makes voting easier, but there's no constitutional right to early voting so...
There's no constitutional right to voting period. Just prohibitions on specific restrictions to exercising the franchise. But seeing how voting is the bedrock upon which self government rests...
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I like early voting and anything that makes voting easier, but there's no constitutional right to early voting so...
There's no constitutional right to voting period. Just prohibitions on specific restrictions to exercising the franchise. But seeing how voting is the bedrock upon which self government rests...
Sure.
But since that's not what SCOTUS is
Never mind.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually no that's bullshit.
There are voting rights enumerated in the constitution.
Early voting isn't one of them. In my opinion it should be, but you'd really need a wide lens to find this thing unconstitutional, even if it is fucking stupid.
There are voting rights enumerated in the constitution.
Early voting isn't one of them. In my opinion it should be, but you'd really need a wide lens to find this thing unconstitutional, even if it is fucking stupid.
Sorry.
There are prohibitions on restrictions to voting enumerated in the Constitution. Everything else is set by statute.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It implies a right to access to the ballot, which many people functionally do not have. Early voting, particularly weekend early voting, is a good remedy to this problem.
But yes, we should make the guarantee explicit.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So do I but until that's changed this court decision neither surprises nor makes me believe in a vast right wing conspiracy.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
Remember, the constitution did not set up a system focused on ease of access for the common man AT ALL. Direct elections of senators and the president are later innovations, and, quite frankly, kludges that don't work well. The founding fathers absolutely did not believe that the ability of individuals to vote was the foundation of legitimacy.
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
Remember, the constitution did not set up a system focused on ease of access for the common man AT ALL. Direct elections of senators and the president are later innovations, and, quite frankly, kludges that don't work well. The founding fathers absolutely did not believe that the ability of individuals to vote was the foundation of legitimacy.
Yeah, they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of stuff, which isn't all that surprising considering. And right about a lot of things as well, fortunately.
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
Remember, the constitution did not set up a system focused on ease of access for the common man AT ALL. Direct elections of senators and the president are later innovations, and, quite frankly, kludges that don't work well. The founding fathers absolutely did not believe that the ability of individuals to vote was the foundation of legitimacy.
Yeah, they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of stuff, which isn't all that surprising considering. And right about a lot of things as well, fortunately.
I agree, but, unfortunately the court is not approaching these issues from a good governance standpoint because that is not the standpoint the document adopts.
I wonder if you might do a thing to voting laws like they do for Congressional pay: no changes to voting rules can go into effect until after an election has passed.
Of course, I have no idea if the 27th Amendment has had the desired impact on Congress raising their own pay, so maybe not.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
who cares what the founding fathers thought regarding our modern society?
who cares what the founding fathers thought regarding our modern society?
Scalia
Ah, Scalia.
The court therefore agrees with the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence in which Justice Scalia stated that the Court’s reasoning logically extends to protect an individual’s right to marry a person of the same sex:
Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribingthat conduct, . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”?
Id. at 604-05 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.
That implies a right to vote. It does not imply a right to early vote or online vote or vote by mail or even voting in person.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
Remember, the constitution did not set up a system focused on ease of access for the common man AT ALL. Direct elections of senators and the president are later innovations, and, quite frankly, kludges that don't work well. The founding fathers absolutely did not believe that the ability of individuals to vote was the foundation of legitimacy.
Yeah, they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of stuff, which isn't all that surprising considering. And right about a lot of things as well, fortunately.
I agree, but, unfortunately the court is not approaching these issues from a good governance standpoint because that is not the standpoint the document adopts.
Except that the Constitution is not the end all be all document. Like I said, the Constitution itself is silent on the right to vote so long as certain restrictions are not imposed. Everything else is decided by statute. And the Voting Rights Act is a pretty good statute. The Ohio law arguably disproportionately targets and affects minority groups in a variety of ways which would run afoul of Section 2.
Posts
This particular Judge is kinda famous for writing stuff like this. Not all judges have such...personality in their opinions.
It is, however, a pretty accurate summary
My favorites are the opinions written as poetry.
Edit: Or better yet:
http://lawhaha.com/strange-judicial-opinions/poetic-judges/
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
SCOTUS rules Ohio can restrict early voting. 5-4, surprise!
Let me guess: Anything besides the first tuesday of november is a voting luxury and so there is no constitutional requirement to make early or absentee voting even and available for everyone.
Nothing yet, they just lifted the injunction.
Upside, there is still some hope for Ohio. The lower courts can still rule the law unconstitutional.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
If my memory is correct, It's not when it starts that is a problem but the specific time of day they allow early voting to happen (8-5, M-F, No weekends [you know, when people who live paycheck-to-paycheck generally aren't available]) and the state wont allow the local election officials to be open any longer if demand calls for it.
It always amazes me how the party of small government really really likes it's government to be big and imposing.
It's pretty fucking sad that it looks like this country needs an amendment that explicitly states, "in order ensure fair elections, there will be no fucking bullshit changes that restrict voting 100 days of normally schedules elections." Of course, if we could ever get that on the books, we should totally, also include that if someone wants to restrict voting, they can pass the law (assuming it's constitutional), but it can't go into a effect until four years later. That way, next time, when the voters decided to fucking fail and send the next tea party/fucking-hypocritical-moral-majority into office, well the ratfuckers will have to win more than one election before they can even hope to have a shot making any restrictive voting measures stick (also four years should be plenty for people to prepare and make sure they can work around any restrictions that might stick).
If this court had any fucking sense, they should have stated that it's too close to the elections to lift the injunction. Granted if they had any fucking sense, we wouldn't have gotten CU, Hobby Lobby or a partial gutting of the VRA.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There's no constitutional right to voting period. Just prohibitions on specific restrictions to exercising the franchise. But seeing how voting is the bedrock upon which self government rests...
Sure.
But since that's not what SCOTUS is
Never mind.
There are voting rights enumerated in the constitution.
Early voting isn't one of them. In my opinion it should be, but you'd really need a wide lens to find this thing unconstitutional, even if it is fucking stupid.
Sorry.
There are prohibitions on restrictions to voting enumerated in the Constitution. Everything else is set by statute.
We can't just pretend the constitution says things because it pleases us to.
It's not the bible.
But yes, we should make the guarantee explicit.
It is implicit, but not enumerated. Which is why there are numerous restrictions on the right of US citizens to cast a ballot that have survived a Court challenge. I find that to be reprehensible because of the very implicit nature of the importance of voting in participatory self government.
Remember, the constitution did not set up a system focused on ease of access for the common man AT ALL. Direct elections of senators and the president are later innovations, and, quite frankly, kludges that don't work well. The founding fathers absolutely did not believe that the ability of individuals to vote was the foundation of legitimacy.
Yeah, they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of stuff, which isn't all that surprising considering. And right about a lot of things as well, fortunately.
I agree, but, unfortunately the court is not approaching these issues from a good governance standpoint because that is not the standpoint the document adopts.
Of course, I have no idea if the 27th Amendment has had the desired impact on Congress raising their own pay, so maybe not.
Scalia
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Ah, Scalia.
My favorite Judge.
Aside from the near-deification of a document in and of itself.
Except that the Constitution is not the end all be all document. Like I said, the Constitution itself is silent on the right to vote so long as certain restrictions are not imposed. Everything else is decided by statute. And the Voting Rights Act is a pretty good statute. The Ohio law arguably disproportionately targets and affects minority groups in a variety of ways which would run afoul of Section 2.
11 States won't allow felons to vote without the issuance of a pardon.
me
I'll admit I would like to see Ben Franklin tell ComEd to go fuck itself.
Man, Ben Franklin born again would be boss.
Haha, sorry, I thought the question was "Who thinks they know what the founding fathers think regarding our modern society?"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar