Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

SCOTUS Ponders Killing VRA

123457

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I have argued before that your country's modern liberal-democratic-capitalist-regulatory-welfare-state is, as a certain variety of Tenther might insist, wholly inconsistent with its constitutional pretensions and is built on a repeated layers of kludges and hacks

    of course, I think the logical response is: then so much the worse for constitutional pretensions

    Generally speaking, relying on a document agreed to by 13 entities that considered themselves sovereign mini-nations as a model for modern governance is kind of stupid.

    Antonin.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Hacksaw
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I have argued before that your country's modern liberal-democratic-capitalist-regulatory-welfare-state is, as a certain variety of Tenther might insist, wholly inconsistent with its constitutional pretensions and is built on a repeated layers of kludges and hacks

    of course, I think the logical response is: then so much the worse for constitutional pretensions

    The real world result of this has been a steady expansion of the power of the Executive over the 20th century. Unless something major changes, I can fully see a future America where we have a de facto elected dictator and a rump legislature and court system. That's not a good outcome, but it is where we are headed. And frankly, it seems to be how the average American already thinks the system works.
    Your guilty consciences may force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! - Sideshow Bob

    Hacksaw
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    hell, the creation of judicial review at all is, you may notice, completely absent from constitution and legislation. it just got wished into existence out of thin air by the court

    I agree 100%. The argument that I am making in this thread is about what the role of the court should be, acknowledging that there are competing views, and that the court itself is ulitmately the final arbiter on what it's role should be (absent an actual conflict with the executive branch over the enforcement of a judgement, which, ironically is precisely what Marbury was meant to avoid).

    (Of course, since I am SKFM, autocorrect went to change Marbury to Burberry)

    that would undermine the fiction that it is an apolitical arbitrator that continually reveals higher principle

    and that fiction is desperately important to the legitimacy of the court

    As we can see right now where I think most people find the idea that the court isn't highly political to be laughable.

    Well of course, but it's still far less partisan than our other branches of government.

    Really? Really?




    Really?

    I agree with that. That's not saying there aren't politics at play, but it's not like one group of Justices refuses completely to work with the other...

    Most people in the House and Senate don't even talk to each other anymore. Next time you swing through D.C., contact your Member's office for a Capitol tour and take a few minutes to sit in the gallery over the Senate chamber. It's frequently a tomb in there; occasionally someone heads down to read a speech, but he's giving it to a conspicuously empty chamber for the benefit of the CSPAN cameras.

    As much as people rightfully give Clarence Thomas shit for his refusal to engage during oral arguments, if one accepts the aphorism that 90% of life is just showing up, he's still doing about 85% more than your Representative most days. :?

    That's been going on for years, and it actually isn't as ugly or stupid as it appears.

    Congressmen making those speeches are actually just using the chambers as a backdrop for video that they send to local news organizations (and these days social media and Internet outlets). It's not meant to be a speech to a group and never has been. It's just nicer to give the speech in the Senate or House chambers visually than in their office.

    Not having the other members show up for those is no more odd than them not showing up for photo shoots or campaign videos.

    I am quite aware it's been going on for years, but I disagree that it isn't stupid. I am not alone among those who follow or have worked with the institution to think so; Tom Daschle's bemoaned the lack of direct member-to-member communication in chamber for a while, and I believe his criticisms of the speech-to-the-empty-chamber culture that CSPAN has engendered figures prominently in his new book (which I've not yet had time to read). And unlike me, Daschle was in Washington long enough to remember when people actually did go down to the Senate to listen to each others' speeches.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    It wouldn't really matter if they were in the chamber to listen. The problems in congress go beyond no one listening to speeches.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    It wouldn't really matter if they were in the chamber to listen. The problems in congress go beyond no one listening to speeches.

    It's not just the speeches, it's the lack of listening to each other generally and in any space, is the point.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    It wouldn't really matter if they were in the chamber to listen. The problems in congress go beyond no one listening to speeches.

    It's not just the speeches, it's the lack of listening to each other generally and in any space, is the point.

    Again, the DNC suggests new members spend 4 hours a day raising money when they're in DC.

    I've said it before, but fixing our government isn't that hard, theoretically. You make the Senate majoritarian and get the money out.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Which is more systemic of the party divide than anything. This has nothing to do with VRA though, it passed both houses of congress, was signed by a republican president, and will probably be struck down by Scalia and Roberts because GOP.

    So when the VRA falls and the exact reason it was put in place starts happening, do we wait to say I told you so, or do we just shake our heads and admit our country is headed for a second dark age.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    hell, the creation of judicial review at all is, you may notice, completely absent from constitution and legislation. it just got wished into existence out of thin air by the court

    I agree 100%. The argument that I am making in this thread is about what the role of the court should be, acknowledging that there are competing views, and that the court itself is ulitmately the final arbiter on what it's role should be (absent an actual conflict with the executive branch over the enforcement of a judgement, which, ironically is precisely what Marbury was meant to avoid).

    (Of course, since I am SKFM, autocorrect went to change Marbury to Burberry)

    that would undermine the fiction that it is an apolitical arbitrator that continually reveals higher principle

    and that fiction is desperately important to the legitimacy of the court

    As we can see right now where I think most people find the idea that the court isn't highly political to be laughable.

    Well of course, but it's still far less partisan than our other branches of government.

    Really? Really?




    Really?

    I agree with that. That's not saying there aren't politics at play, but it's not like one group of Justices refuses completely to work with the other...

    Most people in the House and Senate don't even talk to each other anymore. Next time you swing through D.C., contact your Member's office for a Capitol tour and take a few minutes to sit in the gallery over the Senate chamber. It's frequently a tomb in there; occasionally someone heads down to read a speech, but he's giving it to a conspicuously empty chamber for the benefit of the CSPAN cameras.

    As much as people rightfully give Clarence Thomas shit for his refusal to engage during oral arguments, if one accepts the aphorism that 90% of life is just showing up, he's still doing about 85% more than your Representative most days. :?

    That's been going on for years, and it actually isn't as ugly or stupid as it appears.

    Congressmen making those speeches are actually just using the chambers as a backdrop for video that they send to local news organizations (and these days social media and Internet outlets). It's not meant to be a speech to a group and never has been. It's just nicer to give the speech in the Senate or House chambers visually than in their office.

    Not having the other members show up for those is no more odd than them not showing up for photo shoots or campaign videos.

    I am quite aware it's been going on for years, but I disagree that it isn't stupid. I am not alone among those who follow or have worked with the institution to think so; Tom Daschle's bemoaned the lack of direct member-to-member communication in chamber for a while, and I believe his criticisms of the speech-to-the-empty-chamber culture that CSPAN has engendered figures prominently in his new book (which I've not yet had time to read). And unlike me, Daschle was in Washington long enough to remember when people actually did go down to the Senate to listen to each others' speeches.

    That's the standard Tip and Ronnie had drinks every night bullshit that the D.C. conventional wisdom loves. It is actually a paean to an era when both the Democrats and Republicans came together over sharing the filthy corporate lucre, bashing unions and minorities while starting dirty little foreign wars. The congenial 80s were actually a horrible time in our nation's governance, and the sad state of our nation is a direct result of those congenial times.

    In reality, the two parties should be at each other's throats. They have diametrically opposed - theoretically at least - views on what the priorities of the nation should be and who the government should work to benefit. I don't actually want my representatives getting buddy-buddy with each other, when that friendliness just leads to decades of policies that gradually undermine the well being of the majority of American citizens.

    HacksawHarry Dresden
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    hell, the creation of judicial review at all is, you may notice, completely absent from constitution and legislation. it just got wished into existence out of thin air by the court

    I agree 100%. The argument that I am making in this thread is about what the role of the court should be, acknowledging that there are competing views, and that the court itself is ulitmately the final arbiter on what it's role should be (absent an actual conflict with the executive branch over the enforcement of a judgement, which, ironically is precisely what Marbury was meant to avoid).

    (Of course, since I am SKFM, autocorrect went to change Marbury to Burberry)

    that would undermine the fiction that it is an apolitical arbitrator that continually reveals higher principle

    and that fiction is desperately important to the legitimacy of the court

    As we can see right now where I think most people find the idea that the court isn't highly political to be laughable.

    Well of course, but it's still far less partisan than our other branches of government.

    Really? Really?




    Really?

    I agree with that. That's not saying there aren't politics at play, but it's not like one group of Justices refuses completely to work with the other...

    Most people in the House and Senate don't even talk to each other anymore. Next time you swing through D.C., contact your Member's office for a Capitol tour and take a few minutes to sit in the gallery over the Senate chamber. It's frequently a tomb in there; occasionally someone heads down to read a speech, but he's giving it to a conspicuously empty chamber for the benefit of the CSPAN cameras.

    As much as people rightfully give Clarence Thomas shit for his refusal to engage during oral arguments, if one accepts the aphorism that 90% of life is just showing up, he's still doing about 85% more than your Representative most days. :?

    That's been going on for years, and it actually isn't as ugly or stupid as it appears.

    Congressmen making those speeches are actually just using the chambers as a backdrop for video that they send to local news organizations (and these days social media and Internet outlets). It's not meant to be a speech to a group and never has been. It's just nicer to give the speech in the Senate or House chambers visually than in their office.

    Not having the other members show up for those is no more odd than them not showing up for photo shoots or campaign videos.

    I am quite aware it's been going on for years, but I disagree that it isn't stupid. I am not alone among those who follow or have worked with the institution to think so; Tom Daschle's bemoaned the lack of direct member-to-member communication in chamber for a while, and I believe his criticisms of the speech-to-the-empty-chamber culture that CSPAN has engendered figures prominently in his new book (which I've not yet had time to read). And unlike me, Daschle was in Washington long enough to remember when people actually did go down to the Senate to listen to each others' speeches.

    That's the standard Tip and Ronnie had drinks every night bullshit that the D.C. conventional wisdom loves. It is actually a paean to an era when both the Democrats and Republicans came together over sharing the filthy corporate lucre, bashing unions and minorities while starting dirty little foreign wars. The congenial 80s were actually a horrible time in our nation's governance, and the sad state of our nation is a direct result of those congenial times.

    In reality, the two parties should be at each other's throats. They have diametrically opposed - theoretically at least - views on what the priorities of the nation should be and who the government should work to benefit. I don't actually want my representatives getting buddy-buddy with each other, when that friendliness just leads to decades of policies that gradually undermine the well being of the majority of American citizens.

    You really think that what we have now doesn't undermine the well being of the majority of American citizens?

    Not to mention that the founding fathers famously failed to account for political parties in the system they developed. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Which is more systemic of the party divide than anything. This has nothing to do with VRA though, it passed both houses of congress, was signed by a republican president, and will probably be struck down by Scalia and Roberts because GOP.

    So when the VRA falls and the exact reason it was put in place starts happening, do we wait to say I told you so, or do we just shake our heads and admit our country is headed for a second dark age.

    Like most abusive relationships, I think the problem would best be graphed as a downwards spiral instead of a straight line where A causes B without B having any ability to shape A. You're right that it doesn't have anything to do with the VRA, though.

    I was surprised enough by the ACA surviving the Roberts court that I'm willing to wait and see what they do with the VRA before I start freaking out. But ignoring the premise and going directly to your question: I'd suggest that the answer to that eventuality would be neither to say "I told you so" or to shake your head and slump your shoulders. It would in that case be incumbent upon us to actively strive to make sure that the electoral franchise of all Americans will continue to be zealously defended from those who would seek to undermine those rights by appropriate means.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    By a federal courts system that is struggling against republican filibusters and holds to get justices put in position.

    And if people say "Pass another VRA." That the supreme court could shut down again because again this VRA passed both houses of congress, and according to constitutional scholar Scalia those votes don't count.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I mean fuck this last election cycle shows how damaging waiting for the courts to act can be, how many different states not subject to the VRA had absolutely abysmally long lines and voter shenanigans to disenfranchise voters?

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Hacksaw
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    By a federal courts system that is struggling against republican filibusters and holds to get justices put in position.

    And if people say "Pass another VRA." That the supreme court could shut down again because again this VRA passed both houses of congress, and according to constitutional scholar Scalia those votes don't count.

    The benefit that second bill would have is that we'd have either Roberts or Scalia on-record about why, specifically, section five of the current VRA is unconstitutional, and we could tailor the new law around that language specifically. There are a few conservative justices who are just gonna do what they're gonna do -- Clarence Thomas explicitly doesn't give a shit about looking for points of view that don't reflect what he already happens to think -- but there are a couple who care about their own legacies as supposedly even-keeled judges or the legacy of the institution at large.

    But that's just step one.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    In the mean time minorities voters votes get suppressed, so more right wing people get elected and so no politician would actually be able to/care to fix the issues.

    When the right can't win, they cheat.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    HacksawMrVyngaard
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I have argued before that your country's modern liberal-democratic-capitalist-regulatory-welfare-state is, as a certain variety of Tenther might insist, wholly inconsistent with its constitutional pretensions and is built on a repeated layers of kludges and hacks

    of course, I think the logical response is: then so much the worse for constitutional pretensions

    The real world result of this has been a steady expansion of the power of the Executive over the 20th century. Unless something major changes, I can fully see a future America where we have a de facto elected dictator and a rump legislature and court system. That's not a good outcome, but it is where we are headed. And frankly, it seems to be how the average American already thinks the system works.

    yes, but you don't have choices there. regulatory states require legislatures to delegate enormous powers to the executive in practice, no matter what the US constitution may say. and you can't give up the regulatory state in an industrial society.

    parliamentary systems are exactly that: a powerful executive that does pretty much exactly what it wants, subject at best to an outrageousness limit imposed by its own majority. astonishingly enough, these do not descend into dictatorships.

    aRkpc.gif
    shryke
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    So does anybody know where the accusation of racial entitlement by Scalia comes from other than his own ass?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    So does anybody know where the accusation of racial entitlement by Scalia comes from other than his own ass?

    Strict originalist construction of the constitution.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Preacher wrote: »
    In the mean time minorities voters votes get suppressed, so more right wing people get elected and so no politician would actually be able to/care to fix the issues.

    When the right can't win, they cheat.

    I mean, I hope we can fix everything before things get that far because there's a large spectrum of steps one can take to try and redress such issues, but if we can't, then here's the thing, Preacher: no one promised you as an American that you'd never have to get hit in the face with a firehose while standing up for something you believe in. I hope you'll take solace in knowing that if things ever do get that bad, the person getting hit in the face with a firehose immediately before you shall be me.

    But goddammit, man, you better have my back beyond simply saying "I told you so" and shaking your head.

    SammyF on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I'll be there with you sammy, at the very least I've heard blind handjobs are almost as good as ones with sight. Sometimes you even give a handy to the right guy in a jail cell waiting trial in alabama.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I have argued before that your country's modern liberal-democratic-capitalist-regulatory-welfare-state is, as a certain variety of Tenther might insist, wholly inconsistent with its constitutional pretensions and is built on a repeated layers of kludges and hacks

    of course, I think the logical response is: then so much the worse for constitutional pretensions

    The real world result of this has been a steady expansion of the power of the Executive over the 20th century. Unless something major changes, I can fully see a future America where we have a de facto elected dictator and a rump legislature and court system. That's not a good outcome, but it is where we are headed. And frankly, it seems to be how the average American already thinks the system works.

    yes, but you don't have choices there. regulatory states require legislatures to delegate enormous powers to the executive in practice, no matter what the US constitution may say. and you can't give up the regulatory state in an industrial society.

    parliamentary systems are exactly that: a powerful executive that does pretty much exactly what it wants, subject at best to an outrageousness limit imposed by its own majority. astonishingly enough, these do not descend into dictatorships.

    One nice thing about parliamentary systems is that they allow for parties to define themselves by what their voters want. They are often imperfect, but you don't get this thing we have in America where both sides have to compromise their ideals into mush to get anything done. It happens - see UK Labour since Thatcher - but it is not an inevitable function of the system.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Scalia has made similar arguments before. The last time the Supreme Court heard arguments about the VRA, Scalia argued that the 98-0 vote was irrelevant because "The Israeli supreme court ... used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there." As is Scalia's trademark, the argument is a superficially clever one that collapses on the slightest inspection.
    That is one of the dumbest things ever.

    Also, don't expect covering every state to be necessarily OK.
    http://prospect.org/article/scalias-weird-vra-spat
    The rest of the points made by the conservative justices today made clear that not only are they likely to find Section 5 unconstitutional in this form, but in any possible form. They questioned whether a history of discrimination was sufficient reason to apply preclearance requirements to the nine states covered by Section 5. Could Congress avoid this problem by covering everyone? Apparently not. After the Solicitor General responded to Justice Kennedy's question about whether the "preclearance device could be enacted to the entire United States" by saying that this would not be justified based on the current record, Kennedy responded "there is a federalism interest in making each state responsible" for enforcing voting rights.

    Congress can't win—given that Kennedy is the swing vote, whether the legislative body applies preclearance selectively or uniformly, its actions will likely be struck down by a Court that values "states' rights" over fundamental human rights.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I have argued before that your country's modern liberal-democratic-capitalist-regulatory-welfare-state is, as a certain variety of Tenther might insist, wholly inconsistent with its constitutional pretensions and is built on a repeated layers of kludges and hacks

    of course, I think the logical response is: then so much the worse for constitutional pretensions

    The real world result of this has been a steady expansion of the power of the Executive over the 20th century. Unless something major changes, I can fully see a future America where we have a de facto elected dictator and a rump legislature and court system. That's not a good outcome, but it is where we are headed. And frankly, it seems to be how the average American already thinks the system works.

    yes, but you don't have choices there. regulatory states require legislatures to delegate enormous powers to the executive in practice, no matter what the US constitution may say. and you can't give up the regulatory state in an industrial society.

    parliamentary systems are exactly that: a powerful executive that does pretty much exactly what it wants, subject at best to an outrageousness limit imposed by its own majority. astonishingly enough, these do not descend into dictatorships.

    One nice thing about parliamentary systems is that they allow for parties to define themselves by what their voters want. They are often imperfect, but you don't get this thing we have in America where both sides have to compromise their ideals into mush to get anything done. It happens - see UK Labour since Thatcher - but it is not an inevitable function of the system.

    that is a symptom of first past the post voting, which the UK also has, not a characteristic of presidential systems

    aRkpc.gif
    SammyF
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    We may just need to accept that our voting system will never be good enough, because we have entrusted our national elections to the several states, instead of making the procedure for voting uniform. I'd love to see an amendment to address this issue (which is the real problem) but good luck getting the states to approve it!

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    you'll get it after the first election where a electoral winner fails to retain a majority, and it erupts into urban violence

    aRkpc.gif
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    you'll get it after the first election where a electoral winner fails to retain a majority, and it erupts into urban violence

    Well, we've had the first part, and I don't think the American people have the second part in them anymore so. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    you'll get it after the first election where a electoral winner fails to retain a majority, and it erupts into urban violence

    Well, we've had the first part, and I don't think the American people have the second part in them anymore so. . .

    I missed the part where Americans were genetically engineered to be different from every other human being on Earth. Because that's the only way this makes sense.

    Hell, American urban riots have happened in my lifetime. LA burned, remember?

    Gennenalyse RuebenHacksaw
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    aRkpc.gif
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Would not be shocked if Detroit burns in the next year.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    lonelyahavaHacksawMill
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    Lh96QHG.png
    Hacksaw
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    proportional voting would significantly alter the nature of american politics

    for the better - well, I dunno. Remember that PR also amplifies regionalism. The cities are nice and liberal and cosmopolitan, but you still have a heck of a lot of regionalists in your country

    aRkpc.gif
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    I think that the modern American people are too gripped by apathy and too enmeshed in crab bucket thinking to actually move towards violence (see the rift among OWS participants and OWS sympathizing students upset over loans), but regardless changing the administration of the voting process from a state run affair to a federal matter is the correct fix to this problem. The VRA is a bandaid.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    proportional voting would significantly alter the nature of american politics

    for the better - well, I dunno. Remember that PR also amplifies regionalism. The cities are nice and liberal and cosmopolitan, but you still have a heck of a lot of regionalists in your country

    Yes, that's why I think it's a bit of a nonsense position to take.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    proportional voting would significantly alter the nature of american politics

    for the better - well, I dunno. Remember that PR also amplifies regionalism. The cities are nice and liberal and cosmopolitan, but you still have a heck of a lot of regionalists in your country

    Yes, that's why I think it's a bit of a nonsense position to take.

    Why does this make it nonsense? Why should our votes be cut up and tallied in arbitrary state line based pools? I'd prefer to see more organic regional politics tackled anyway. I see no reason why the NYS house members should caucus together instead of the NYC, Long Island, West Chester, Northern NJ and Western Conn members caucusing together.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    proportional voting would significantly alter the nature of american politics

    for the better - well, I dunno. Remember that PR also amplifies regionalism. The cities are nice and liberal and cosmopolitan, but you still have a heck of a lot of regionalists in your country

    Yes, that's why I think it's a bit of a nonsense position to take.

    Why does this make it nonsense? Why should our votes be cut up and tallied in arbitrary state line based pools? I'd prefer to see more organic regional politics tackled anyway. I see no reason why the NYS house members should caucus together instead of the NYC, Long Island, West Chester, Northern NJ and Western Conn members caucusing together.

    The position "Changing the way we vote/allocate reps/etc will solve our problems" is nonsensical because we're still left with basically the divisions we have.

    I think you'll find, more often than not, that the coastal reps ARE working together already.

    See: Sandy Relief.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    proportional voting would significantly alter the nature of american politics

    for the better - well, I dunno. Remember that PR also amplifies regionalism. The cities are nice and liberal and cosmopolitan, but you still have a heck of a lot of regionalists in your country

    Yes, that's why I think it's a bit of a nonsense position to take.

    Why does this make it nonsense? Why should our votes be cut up and tallied in arbitrary state line based pools? I'd prefer to see more organic regional politics tackled anyway. I see no reason why the NYS house members should caucus together instead of the NYC, Long Island, West Chester, Northern NJ and Western Conn members caucusing together.

    The position "Changing the way we vote/allocate reps/etc will solve our problems" is nonsensical because we're still left with basically the divisions we have.

    I think you'll find, more often than not, that the coastal reps ARE working together already.

    See: Sandy Relief.

    Except for the electoral college, and Senators.

    And of course, giving the federal government control over elections just happens to completely eliminate the problem that the VRA is aimed at, which is kind of a big deal in a thread about the VRA. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    The two big changes we really need with elections are:

    1. non-partisan boards. I won't pretend that this will make all races competitive. You're still going to get places that will never vote for a certain party because the most logical way to draw up the district results in a very clear majority of the people not like a particular party. I do think this will make them ore responsive to their electorates needs though since their sorry asses can't pray for their party to win the state legislator during a census year and gerrymander the hell out of everything.

    2. kill CU and cut down on the ridiculous amount of money in politics. In the lower races, money does matter because it's all a matter of name recognition. Even if the money doesn't matter in some races you still have the following two issues. A) the donors expect favors and the candidates feel they owe favors. B) fundraising takes up time that could be devoted towards crafting policy (be it it writing bills or actually learning shit about something before rubber stamping a yes or no for a bill).

    I could think of many other changes but if I had to narrow the list down, I'd take those two. If I could get a few more.

    -Kill the EC and go to popular vote. We'd give less of fuck about regressive ass butt fuck nowheres since the game would shift to getting the most voters instead of the most ECVs. Consequently, that means some moderating on the GOP's part. Dems have have shifted to the right by picking up disaffected republicans and are fairly centrist, so I'm not sure they can really moderate.

    -Force everyone to take a basic high school level US government course before they can run fo any office and they have to prove they still know the material when they fill out their application. Christ, there is too much time and money wasted on shit that clearly shouldn't be debated because it should be obvious that it won't fly in court.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    which brings us back to the topic, viz., the VRA

    the situation on the ground is no longer desperate

    so scotus gets to decide whether it wants to remain as a court of civil rights. the argument in the 1960s was that this would be unrolled as soon as civil equality came along. but in the intervening decades americans have come to assign SCOTUS, rather than legislatures or constitutional amendment, as the ideal arena to wage civil rights disputes

    it might just punt and let the status quo persist, there is plenty of space for it to do so in this particular case

    Not really because the default position is the VRA is Constitutional. Its pretty clearly within the powers of the 15th Amendment, clause 2 and it has, including Section 5, been upheld repeatedly even by most of the sitting Justices. The SCotUS would not be giving appropriate deference if they decided they had to come to the same conclusions on the evidence as the Congress. They just have to judge whether the reasons appeared rational, which clearly has been met. The only argument that has been put forth is that a "congruence and proportionality test" invented for the 14th Amendment in 1997 that is widely derided by legal scholars on the left and the right could mean that the VRA is not Constitutional.

    For instance Scalia on that test (that he'll probably use to vote against VRA)
    The congruence and proportionality standard, like all such flabby tests, is a standing invitation to judicial arbitrariness and policy driven decisionmaking. Worse still, it casts this Court in the role of Congress’s taskmaster. Under it, the courts (and ultimately this Court) must regularly check Congress’s homework to make sure that it has identified sufficient constitutional violations to make its remedy congruent and proportional. As a general matter, we are ill advised to adopt or adhere to constitutional rules that bring us into constant conflict with a coequal branch of Government. And when conflict is unavoidable, we should not come to do battle with the United States Congress armed only with a test (congruence and proportionality) that has no demonstrable basis in the text of the Constitution and cannot objectively be shown to have been met or failed.
    Kagan is thought to oppose the standard for the 14th Amendment as well.

    The Right wing of the legal world is [url="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2013/02/where-are-all-the-conservative-election-law-academics-supporting-the-invalidity-of-section-5-of-the-.html]having a hard time finding any one to argue the point.[/url] Its just not good legal scholarship.


    A lot of the conservative arguments are clearly specious as well. Roberts claimed as part of his leading questions that the states the Legislature designated as historically and currently the most egregious and repeated violators were not any more discriminatory than the rest of the country:
    “Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout? Massachusetts.”
    The Secretary of State of Massachusetts William Galvin vehemently denied this:
    Galvin: I’m disturbed, first of all, that he is distorting information. You would expect better conduct from the chief justice of the United States. I’m a lawyer, he’s a lawyer, lawyers are not supposed to provide disinformation in the course of a case. It’s supposed to be based on truth.

    What’s really distressing is the deeper we looked into the facts, the more of a distortion his comments are. The only reference that we can find of any kind in any statistical chart is a Census Bureau study from 2010 where, if you included non-citizen blacks, then you would come up with a lower number. That’s the only way he could get to even make the bare-face claim that he made.
    ...
    Q:Do you think he’s just made a mistake or do you think he’s intentionally trying to influence this case before the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act?

    Well, first of all, I don’t know if he — let’s give him the best hope here that he made a mistake. Well, you don’t deliver a statement in the doctrinaire way he did if you have any doubt about your data. He didn’t say to the attorney representing the Justice Department defending the Voting Rights Act, “Can you give me any statistics or how does it compare?” He delivered the doctrinaire conclusion. So that lessens my belief that it was a mistake.

    Secondly, if you read the chart, right next to the non-citizen number that he appears to be relying upon, is the citizen number which obviously has Massachusetts with a much higher rate of participation. It’s right there, in black and white, so it would be very hard to miss. I’m very distressed.

    I’m also cognizant of the fact that one of his colleagues who is a supporter generally speaking of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Breyer, is a Massachusetts resident. Another of his colleagues, Justice Kagan, is a former dean of Harvard Law School. I have to mention that because therefore two of the justices that are sitting on this case that appear to be on the opposite side from him have deep Massachusetts connections.

    I’m also aware of the fact that when it comes to the national right-wing bashing, Massachusetts is a favorite target. The judge has the right to his point of view — obviously I don’t agree with it. But he has the right to his point of view, and he has the right to make an argument that remedial action is not necessary, which appears to be the underlining argument that he is making. He has the right to do that, but he doesn’t have the right to distort the facts and he doesn’t have the right to cast a slur on the black citizens of Massachusetts who do to vote.
    ...
    Q:Would you ask the chief justice, or demand from the chief justice, a correction? And I ask because in The Boston Globe Friday, a Supreme Court spokeswomen “declined to offer supporting evidence of ­Roberts’s view, referring a ­reporter to the court transcript.” Do you think he should issue a correction?

    I think he should definitely issue some sort of statement. He can do that numerous ways. He is the chief justice of the United States; presumably he can offer a footnote, he can offer whatever he is going to do. But I don’t think he ought to leave this uncorrected on the record. He either offer proof of his assertion, or he ought to apologize — it’s one or the other. You can’t have it both ways, even if you’re the chief justice of the United States.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    well it doesn't have to be a lot of violence! even a small riot by a disappointed election-watching crowd would probably suffice

    One shouldn't hold ones breath waiting for this. Electoral College wins and popular vote losses are only a marginal occurrence. We basically had a stolen election right after the Civil War and THAT didn't spark a revolt and it has only happened what, once or twice since then?

    But I always have to have a chuckle when I see people talking about IF ONLY we could change our voting system, why that would solve our ills.

    We'd still have the same people voting...

    I think that the modern American people are too gripped by apathy and too enmeshed in crab bucket thinking to actually move towards violence (see the rift among OWS participants and OWS sympathizing students upset over loans), but regardless changing the administration of the voting process from a state run affair to a federal matter is the correct fix to this problem. The VRA is a bandaid.

    You're hanging out with the wrong Americans.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    So It GoesMrVyngaardHarry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    We may just need to accept that our voting system will never be good enough, because we have entrusted our national elections to the several states, instead of making the procedure for voting uniform. I'd love to see an amendment to address this issue (which is the real problem) but good luck getting the states to approve it!

    Wouldn't it be simpler to over rule them on the federal level?
    SammyF wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    hell, the creation of judicial review at all is, you may notice, completely absent from constitution and legislation. it just got wished into existence out of thin air by the court

    I agree 100%. The argument that I am making in this thread is about what the role of the court should be, acknowledging that there are competing views, and that the court itself is ulitmately the final arbiter on what it's role should be (absent an actual conflict with the executive branch over the enforcement of a judgement, which, ironically is precisely what Marbury was meant to avoid).

    (Of course, since I am SKFM, autocorrect went to change Marbury to Burberry)

    that would undermine the fiction that it is an apolitical arbitrator that continually reveals higher principle

    and that fiction is desperately important to the legitimacy of the court

    As we can see right now where I think most people find the idea that the court isn't highly political to be laughable.

    Well of course, but it's still far less partisan than our other branches of government.

    Really? Really?




    Really?

    I agree with that. That's not saying there aren't politics at play, but it's not like one group of Justices refuses completely to work with the other...

    Most people in the House and Senate don't even talk to each other anymore. Next time you swing through D.C., contact your Member's office for a Capitol tour and take a few minutes to sit in the gallery over the Senate chamber. It's frequently a tomb in there; occasionally someone heads down to read a speech, but he's giving it to a conspicuously empty chamber for the benefit of the CSPAN cameras.

    As much as people rightfully give Clarence Thomas shit for his refusal to engage during oral arguments, if one accepts the aphorism that 90% of life is just showing up, he's still doing about 85% more than your Representative most days. :?

    That's been going on for years, and it actually isn't as ugly or stupid as it appears.

    Congressmen making those speeches are actually just using the chambers as a backdrop for video that they send to local news organizations (and these days social media and Internet outlets). It's not meant to be a speech to a group and never has been. It's just nicer to give the speech in the Senate or House chambers visually than in their office.

    Not having the other members show up for those is no more odd than them not showing up for photo shoots or campaign videos.

    I am quite aware it's been going on for years, but I disagree that it isn't stupid. I am not alone among those who follow or have worked with the institution to think so; Tom Daschle's bemoaned the lack of direct member-to-member communication in chamber for a while, and I believe his criticisms of the speech-to-the-empty-chamber culture that CSPAN has engendered figures prominently in his new book (which I've not yet had time to read). And unlike me, Daschle was in Washington long enough to remember when people actually did go down to the Senate to listen to each others' speeches.

    That's the standard Tip and Ronnie had drinks every night bullshit that the D.C. conventional wisdom loves. It is actually a paean to an era when both the Democrats and Republicans came together over sharing the filthy corporate lucre, bashing unions and minorities while starting dirty little foreign wars. The congenial 80s were actually a horrible time in our nation's governance, and the sad state of our nation is a direct result of those congenial times.

    In reality, the two parties should be at each other's throats. They have diametrically opposed - theoretically at least - views on what the priorities of the nation should be and who the government should work to benefit. I don't actually want my representatives getting buddy-buddy with each other, when that friendliness just leads to decades of policies that gradually undermine the well being of the majority of American citizens.

    You really think that what we have now doesn't undermine the well being of the majority of American citizens?

    Not as much as it did then. America is still recovering from that poisonous alliance made under Reagan's regime.
    Not to mention that the founding fathers famously failed to account for political parties in the system they developed. . .

    The Founding Fathers weren't deities or oracles. Like any country America needed to evolve over time and it's not like they didn't create a system with horrible flaws (slavery being legal, women not being able to vote etc).

    Harry Dresden on
    Hacksaw
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    which brings us back to the topic, viz., the VRA

    the situation on the ground is no longer desperate

    so scotus gets to decide whether it wants to remain as a court of civil rights. the argument in the 1960s was that this would be unrolled as soon as civil equality came along. but in the intervening decades americans have come to assign SCOTUS, rather than legislatures or constitutional amendment, as the ideal arena to wage civil rights disputes

    it might just punt and let the status quo persist, there is plenty of space for it to do so in this particular case

    Not really because the default position is the VRA is Constitutional. Its pretty clearly within the powers of the 15th Amendment, clause 2 and it has, including Section 5, been upheld repeatedly even by most of the sitting Justices. The SCotUS would not be giving appropriate deference if they decided they had to come to the same conclusions on the evidence as the Congress. They just have to judge whether the reasons appeared rational, which clearly has been met. The only argument that has been put forth is that a "congruence and proportionality test" invented for the 14th Amendment in 1997 that is widely derided by legal scholars on the left and the right could mean that the VRA is not Constitutional.

    [...]

    thanks, that was interesting reading

    but yes that is what I meant by space to punt; invoke the 15th and let the status quo wind on. Or more likely, cite some technicality to dismiss the suit, but use the space of the argument to savage the 15th, so that precedent is weakened without any political blowback

    aRkpc.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.