Scalia Keeping It Real

[Polk]

how is this taking away their right to vote?

Huh?

simple question. how does this take away their right to vote?

The question places a lot of weight, unnecessarily, on form over function.

 

[Spoonman]

Huh?

simple question. how does this take away their right to vote?

The question places a lot of weight, unnecessarily, on form over function.

but it doesn not impact their right to vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No that's exactly the issue at hand.
Fail.

It's not the issue at hand, since:
1. Nothing in this case has to do with admission of new states to the Union.
2. Six of the states, in whole or part, the VRA applies to were among the original thirteen.

You really are rather ignorant, aren't you? At least Justice Kennedy thinks so.

2. “I don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out States by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper.”

Justice Kennedy's Voting Rights Act Comments Worry Progressives

 

[Polk]

simple question. how does this take away their right to vote?

The question places a lot of weight, unnecessarily, on form over function.

but it doesn not impact their right to vote.

It may not in a formal sense, but when it has the same practical impact, that's worth considering.

 

[Spoonman]

The question places a lot of weight, unnecessarily, on form over function.

but it doesn not impact their right to vote.

It may not in a formal sense, but when it has the same practical impact, that's worth considering.

so explain to me how this impacts their right to vote

 

[jwoodie]

Canada has voter ID laws...

 

[Polk]

No that's exactly the issue at hand.
Fail.

It's not the issue at hand, since:
1. Nothing in this case has to do with admission of new states to the Union.
2. Six of the states, in whole or part, the VRA applies to were among the original thirteen.

You really are rather ignorant, aren't you? At least Justice Kennedy thinks so.

2. “I don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out States by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper.”

Justice Kennedy's Voting Rights Act Comments Worry Progressives

Equal footing doctrine has nothing to do with what Justice Kennedy is talking about. Why Justice Kennedy used the wrong term of art is something you'd have to take up with him.

 

[Polk]

but it doesn not impact their right to vote.

It may not in a formal sense, but when it has the same practical impact, that's worth considering.

so explain to me how this impacts their right to vote

Denial of access. The same reason literacy tests didn't directly impact the right to vote, but had that effect in practice.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I guess all of this 'debate' puts to rest the GOP's publicity campaign that it is a party with a Big Tent and filled by compassionate conservatives.

 

[kwc57]

I guess all of this 'debate' puts to rest the GOP's publicity campaign that it is a party with a Big Tent and filled by compassionate conservatives.

Only in small minds like yours.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not the issue at hand, since:
1. Nothing in this case has to do with admission of new states to the Union.
2. Six of the states, in whole or part, the VRA applies to were among the original thirteen.

You really are rather ignorant, aren't you? At least Justice Kennedy thinks so.

2. “I don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out States by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper.”

Justice Kennedy's Voting Rights Act Comments Worry Progressives

Equal footing doctrine has nothing to do with what Justice Kennedy is talking about. Why Justice Kennedy used the wrong term of art is something you'd have to take up with him.

Maybe you could send a note to Justice Kennedy instructing him in the constitutional questions in this case. :rofl

 

[Polk]

That assumes Justice Kennedy and his fellow conservatives care about what the Constitution says.

 

[Spoonman]

It may not in a formal sense, but when it has the same practical impact, that's worth considering.

so explain to me how this impacts their right to vote

Denial of access. The same reason literacy tests didn't directly impact the right to vote, but had that effect in practice.

ok, then let me ask another very simple question. how does it deny anyone access?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

I'm sure you can provide the exact-quote you're referring-to!!!

GO!!!!!


<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>.....

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>.....

 

[OKTexas]

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

The VRA which is the subject of the thread empowers the AG office to bypass judicial review and unilaterally set aside a law properly passed by a state. A prime example as to how this power is used as a political weapon is when AG Holder waited 2 years till just prior to the elections to set aside the TX voter ID law, where that decision couldn't be challenged in the courts prior to the election. The same law has been upheld by SCOTUS in other states and I'm sure TX will prevail in their challenge, but at what cost?

And Texas went for the Dems? Grow up.

OMG, how could anyone counter such an intelligent, well reasoned response. ROFLMAO

 

[OKTexas]

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...



It protects people, not the states. In fact, the language specifically singles out violations of rights by the states as the concern.

Excuse me, are the states not comprised of people? Are you saying the federal government has the right to treat the people in the various states differently from other states. You do understand the concept of a republican form of government, don't you?

The federal government treats people in different states differently all the time.

How could I possibly argue with the fine examples you provided to support your statement. I just have one small question, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The core issue is whether or not we can trust the deep south to maintain a level playing field for minorities in terms of voting rights.

In the past, that answer was a resounding no.

In the present ... it seems to me that I've seen just as many efforts to restrict voting rights in the midwest and in the rust belt. If current laws are sufficient to foil these efforts at voter supression, then they should be sufficient when applied to the deep south.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

It is possible to take an unconstitutional voting law to court without the Voting Rights Act.

And how do we know this?

Because states that are not subject to the Act have done so.

The Voting Rights Act achieved what it was meant to achieve. It is time to celebrate it and put it to bed.

Of course they can take an unconstitutional voting law to court. And while that possibly drags on for years, scores of minorities are disenfranchised.

Uh-uh. Forget it. For once in the entire history of the US Federal Government, they pass a proactive law nipping a potential problem in the bud from the onset. I think every state in the union should be subject to the Voting Rights Act actually.

I guess you're unfamiliar with injunctive relief available to a plaintiff. A court can stop a law from taking effect until it is fully reviewed by the court. There is no reason for a prosecutor to have that authority.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think every state in the union should be subject to the Voting Rights Act actually.

Then let's pass the voting rights amendment - I'll vote yea.
But in the meantime, you have to meet a pretty high standard to justify enforcing it on some states and not others.

Just MHO

 

[Spoonman]

The core issue is whether or not we can trust the deep south to maintain a level playing field for minorities in terms of voting rights.

In the past, that answer was a resounding no.

In the present ... it seems to me that I've seen just as many efforts to restrict voting rights in the midwest and in the rust belt. If current laws are sufficient to foil these efforts at voter supression, then they should be sufficient when applied to the deep south.

or blue states to respect 2nd amendment rights