Supreme Court weighs new look at voting rights law

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2009
51,322
6,469
1,860
San Francisco Bay Area
Yeah, sure they are. They may look at voting but rights isn't likely to be part of their agenda. We are either a nation which, "...hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among theses are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or we are not. Voting for the government most likely to support a persons safety and liberty is a right, but does Chief Justice Roberts?

Congress compiled a 15,000-page record and documented hundreds of instances of apparent voting discrimination in the states covered by the law dating to 1982, the last time it had been extended.

Among the incidents in the congressional record:

—In 1998, Webster County, Ga., tried to reduce the black population in several school board districts after citizens elected a majority-black school board for the first time.

—In 2001, Kilmichael, Miss., canceled an election when a large number of African-American candidates sought local office following 2000 census results that showed blacks had become the majority in the city.

—In 2004, Waller County, Texas, sought to limit early voting near a historically black college and threatened to prosecute students for illegal voting after two black students said they would run for office.

But in 2009, Roberts indicated the court was troubled about the ongoing need for a law in the face of dramatically improved conditions, including increased minority voter registration and turnout rates. Roberts attributed part of the change to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements," he said.


See full report here:

Supreme Court weighs new look at voting rights law - Yahoo! News

It begins:

"Three years ago, the Supreme Court warned there could be constitutional problems with a landmark civil rights law that has opened voting booths to millions of African-Americans. Now, opponents of a key part of the Voting Rights Act are asking the high court to finish off that provision.

"The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

"Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight."

It obvious the racists who post on this message board are also anti democratic and many seek an autocratic if not theocratic form of government. Let's hope they remain a minority on the fringe of political thought in our nation and let us further hope that the monied interests who are flooding this campaign do not prevail.
 
There is absolutely no reason in the 21st century for states to get federal permission before making changes in elections. That provision served its purpose and is now antiquated. All this has done is result in gerrymandered districts that have become uncompetitive. If we are all supposed to be equal, then there is no reason why blacks can't be adequately represented by whites or vice versa.
 
Last edited:
It obvious the racists who post on this message board are also anti democratic ...

Aw come on, you're not that bad. That you suck up to any central planner promising more 'feel good' legislation only makes you confused and misguided, not necessarily anti democratic. That you insist on keeping minorities on the dole, ignorant, and under your thumb...that does make you a racist.

So, you're only half fucked up.

Good luck with all that...
 
Yeah, sure they are. They may look at voting but rights isn't likely to be part of their agenda. We are either a nation which, "...hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among theses are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or we are not. Voting for the government most likely to support a persons safety and liberty is a right, but does Chief Justice Roberts?

Congress compiled a 15,000-page record and documented hundreds of instances of apparent voting discrimination in the states covered by the law dating to 1982, the last time it had been extended.

Among the incidents in the congressional record:

—In 1998, Webster County, Ga., tried to reduce the black population in several school board districts after citizens elected a majority-black school board for the first time.

—In 2001, Kilmichael, Miss., canceled an election when a large number of African-American candidates sought local office following 2000 census results that showed blacks had become the majority in the city.

—In 2004, Waller County, Texas, sought to limit early voting near a historically black college and threatened to prosecute students for illegal voting after two black students said they would run for office.

But in 2009, Roberts indicated the court was troubled about the ongoing need for a law in the face of dramatically improved conditions, including increased minority voter registration and turnout rates. Roberts attributed part of the change to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements," he said.


See full report here:

Supreme Court weighs new look at voting rights law - Yahoo! News

It begins:

"Three years ago, the Supreme Court warned there could be constitutional problems with a landmark civil rights law that has opened voting booths to millions of African-Americans. Now, opponents of a key part of the Voting Rights Act are asking the high court to finish off that provision.

"The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

"Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight."

It obvious the racists who post on this message board are also anti democratic and many seek an autocratic if not theocratic form of government. Let's hope they remain a minority on the fringe of political thought in our nation and let us further hope that the monied interests who are flooding this campaign do not prevail.

"Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight."

Part of the problem is that republicans have found subtle, yet effective, ways to discourage minority voting without raising the red flag of ‘discrimination.’ Chief among such tactics are voter ‘ID’ laws, reducing or eliminating early voting, and enacting measures designed to hamstring voter registration efforts, as found in Florida, for example:

Judge to lift restrictions on Florida voter registration | Reuters
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
It obvious the racists who post on this message board are also anti democratic ...

Aw come on, you're not that bad. That you suck up to any central planner promising more 'feel good' legislation only makes you confused and misguided, not necessarily anti democratic. That you insist on keeping minorities on the dole, ignorant, and under your thumb...that does make you a racist.

So, you're only half fucked up.

Good luck with all that...

In the land of the fucked up the half fucked up is king. That I believe your kind is fucked up and anti American does not equate to my sucking up to central planners. I don't insist on anything you suggest I do, which makes you a fucked up liar.

Have a nice evening. GO SF GIANTS!
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
There is absolutely no reason in the 21st century for states to get federal permission before making changes in elections. That provision served its purpose and is now antiquated. All this has done is result in gerrymandered districts that have become uncompetitive. If we are all supposed to be equal, then there is no reason why blacks can't be adequately represented by whites or vice versa.

You're either dumb or a pratisan liar (IMO you're both).

Have a nice evening, GO SF GIANTS!
 
sucking up to central planners

It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.
 
The states are sovereign countries and can make any voting law they wish as long as it doesn't violate the 15th amendment.
 
Part of the problem is that republicans have found subtle, yet effective, ways to discourage minority voting without raising the red flag of ‘discrimination.’ Chief among such tactics are voter ‘ID’ laws, reducing or eliminating early voting, and enacting measures designed to hamstring voter registration efforts, as found in Florida, for example:

You left out the most obvious one and that is laws that ban felons from voting. Many states have that and it really hurts blacks since our drug laws are so anti-black. Crack possession is usually tried as a felony while the extremely violent drug crime of drunk driving seldom is since whites do it.
 
sucking up to central planners

It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.

Yeah, I believe the Obama haters are racist, and I believe government has a purpose. You've bought the libertarian kool-aid and spew the talking points well; I doubt very much you've examined the consequences if the ideology you hold dear ever came to power.

Tell me, where in history free markets existed?

Tell me, where have humans lived alone, didn't form bonds with others or build villages, towns, cities and nations?
 
sucking up to central planners

It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.

Yeah, I believe the Obama haters are racist, and I believe government has a purpose. You've bought the libertarian kool-aid and spew the talking points well; I doubt very much you've examined the consequences if the ideology you hold dear ever came to power.

Tell me, where in history free markets existed?

Tell me, where have humans lived alone, didn't form bonds with others or build villages, towns, cities and nations?

if a black person hates Obama are they a racist?

If a white person hates Bush are they a racist?

If a black person hates Bush are they a racist?
 
If Blacks in the USA becomes disenfranchised from the vote by racist states or communities, then I think we can expect revolution in the not too distant future.

FWIW, in that case I think I'd have to take the side of the Blacks, too.
 
sucking up to central planners

It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.

Yeah, I believe the Obama haters are racist,

Of course you do. It's all you've got. Pathetic, really.

Tell me, where in history free markets existed?

The first half of America's existence, during which more poor people became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in the history of the world.

Tell me, where have humans lived alone, didn't form bonds with others or build villages, towns, cities and nations?

Somebody suggesting "humans live alone"? Try to stay focused.

Voluntary bonds with others is what what we're advocating, not the forced "bonding" you stand for.

Anyway, thanks for demonstrating my point, that you are just another central planner suck up. Good luck with that.
 
sucking up to central planners

It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.

Keep repeating yourself, it makes you appear really really smart.

BTW, the Bavarian Purity Law, for example, was passed in Germany in 1516 - you need to post real examples from colonial America showing unregulated markets existed, for how long and why such 'free' markets became regulated.
 
Last edited:
It's just what you do. You look to government to solve all your problems, real or perceived, while those that advocate personal responsibility and voluntary, free markets, why we're just racists!

Again, it's what you do.

Yeah, I believe the Obama haters are racist,

Of course you do. It's all you've got. Pathetic, really.

Tell me, where in history free markets existed?

The first half of America's existence, during which more poor people became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in the history of the world.

Tell me, where have humans lived alone, didn't form bonds with others or build villages, towns, cities and nations?

Somebody suggesting "humans live alone"? Try to stay focused.

Voluntary bonds with others is what what we're advocating, not the forced "bonding" you stand for.

Anyway, thanks for demonstrating my point, that you are just another central planner suck up. Good luck with that.

You're really not very bright and have little knowledge of history. But, thanks so much for participating. I've always believed we can learn much from fools.
 
Yeah, I believe the Obama haters are racist,

Of course you do. It's all you've got. Pathetic, really.



The first half of America's existence, during which more poor people became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in the history of the world.

Tell me, where have humans lived alone, didn't form bonds with others or build villages, towns, cities and nations?

Somebody suggesting "humans live alone"? Try to stay focused.

Voluntary bonds with others is what what we're advocating, not the forced "bonding" you stand for.

Anyway, thanks for demonstrating my point, that you are just another central planner suck up. Good luck with that.

You're really not very bright and have little knowledge of history. But, thanks so much for participating. I've always believed we can learn much from fools.

Well there's a shocker! When you can't respond with specificity, logic and reason, launch an ad hominem attack. Typical.

Nearly 50 years of the so called 'great society' with the goal of eliminating poverty and racial injustice. Massive central intervention and trillions of dollars later...and poverty is UP. But hey, your meddling has done wonderful things for racial injustice. The Black man is thriving, right?

Just because you think you know what's best for everyone else does not make it so. You're doing far more harm than good, despite all the 'feel good' legislation and meddling.
 
Of course you do. It's all you've got. Pathetic, really.



The first half of America's existence, during which more poor people became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in the history of the world.



Somebody suggesting "humans live alone"? Try to stay focused.

Voluntary bonds with others is what what we're advocating, not the forced "bonding" you stand for.

Anyway, thanks for demonstrating my point, that you are just another central planner suck up. Good luck with that.

You're really not very bright and have little knowledge of history. But, thanks so much for participating. I've always believed we can learn much from fools.

Well there's a shocker! When you can't respond with specificity, logic and reason, launch an ad hominem attack. Typical.

That was not an ad hominem attack, it was a statement of fact. If you had made an argument and I ignored that argument and instead attacked you, and not your argument, that would be a personal attack. I'm not calling you an asshole or a conservatard or any of the usual silly pejoratives common on this forum. I truly believe you're not very bright and have never considered the consequences of the (IMO) ridiculous ideology held by libertarians. Now, that does need mean I don't cherish liberty and individual freedom, it means simply the libertarian movement is impractical and extreme.
Nearly 50 years of the so called 'great society' with the goal of eliminating poverty and racial injustice. Massive central intervention and trillions of dollars later...and poverty is UP. But hey, your meddling has done wonderful things for racial injustice. The Black man is thriving, right?

Now you inject race into the issue. Why? Poverty crosses all racial and ethnic lines in America.

Just because you think you know what's best for everyone else does not make it so. You're doing far more harm than good, despite all the 'feel good' legislation and meddling.

You don't know what I think. For my thinking on issues runs the course from very liberal to conservative - my politics are fairly simple: The Golden Rule; Government is best which governs least and implements policy which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens; and, a pragmatic approach to problems solving. Ideologues on the right and on the left strike me as not very bright.
 
You don't know what I think.

No, just what you write. Your posts advocate central planning.

For my thinking on issues runs the course from very liberal to conservative -

From very liberal to, at best, big government conservative...maybe.

my politics are fairly simple: The Golden Rule; Government is best which governs least

I wish I could believe that. If I'm wrong, I will happily admit it. Can you provide an example?

...and implements policy which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens; and, a pragmatic approach to problems solving.

I see. We're back to socialism/progressivism/central planning.

Ideologues on the right and on the left strike me as not very bright.

I feel the same way about big government ideologues on the left and right.
 
You don't know what I think.

No, just what you write. Your posts advocate central planning.

For my thinking on issues runs the course from very liberal to conservative -

From very liberal to, at best, big government conservative...maybe.



I wish I could believe that. If I'm wrong, I will happily admit it. Can you provide an example? (Sure, I'm fiscally solvent; haven't borrowed on my home equity to buy a car or go on vacation; I repair and maintain my property knowing that deferred maintenance is much more costly in the long term, for our homes and for the infrastructure of our country) This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs.
...and implements policy which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens; and, a pragmatic approach to problems solving.

I see. We're back to socialism/progressivism/central planning.

Ideologues on the right and on the left strike me as not very bright.

I feel the same way about big government ideologues on the left and right.

Yet you misuse words. You need to research the definitions of Socialism and the history - the failed history - of central planning, especially that within the Soviet Union which I infer was your meaning.

Yet a federal or state (even city and county) budget is planning. For a budget is nothing more than a plan which needs to be monitored and changed as situations occur. Watch what the darling of the right does in New Jersey if Sandy is as damaging as predicted. Gov. Chrisy will put ideology aside if the people of his state need aid, and if his ambitions do not make their plight a secondary consideration.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top