Voting Right Act is going DOWN

[dblack]

Bipartisan or nonpartisan commission.

hmm... we've been trying that. Unfortunately, there's very little left in politics that is "non-partisan".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

hmm... we've been trying that. Unfortunately, there's very little left in politics that is "non-partisan".

The "problem" is that it is hard to get people on board because of the immediate result. It would probably hand the Dems all power for the first two cycles and those who typically side with partisan Republicans believe that the world will end if they temporarily allow Dems to "rule."

They cannot see or accept that it is a short-term loss for them.

 

[dblack]

The "problem" is that it is hard to get people on board because of the immediate result. It would probably hand the Dems all power for the first two cycles and those who typically side with partisan Republicans believe that the world will end if they temporarily allow Dems to "rule."

That's mostly ignorant paranoia. There's simply no reason to believe RCV would favor one party over another.

They cannot see or accept that it is a short-term loss for them.

Well, partisans don't seem to care about good governance. They just want to score points for their side at all cost.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's mostly ignorant paranoia. There's simply no reason to believe RCV would favor one party over another.

Well, partisans don't seem to care about good governance. They just want to score points for their side at all cost.

Right.

Because of their conditioning on the ultimate power of the duopoly's false dichotomy, they can't see that it will not matter which "party" is in office. Which is how it should be.

 

[Rogue AI]

That depends on the make up of the court....which should be problematic no matter which side you fall on

Wrong, Conservative justices can always justify their opinions by citing the Constitution. Liberal justices cite feelings, foreign laws, or fraud to justify violating the Constitution.

 

[Coyote]

The "problem" is that it is hard to get people on board because of the immediate result. It would probably hand the Dems all power for the first two cycles and those who typically side with partisan Republicans believe that the world will end if they temporarily allow Dems to "rule."

They cannot see or accept that it is a short-term loss for them.

I think it depends on where you are...we might see an evening out with few districts controlled by the more extreme elements on either side who don't represent a majority but are gerrymandered into safe districts solely to keep one or the other political party in power. I think too this could be a way along with ranked choice,to allow more thrid party candidates to be competitive.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Is it good that a mere change in the membership of the court can change our laws so drastically?

Goes to show you how fucked up the court used to be. Now it's getting back on the right path.

There should be NO "democrat" or "republican" judges. The law is the law. If you can't point to where the constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion, then she doesn't have that right on the federal level. PERIOD. Democrat or republican shouldn't matter. The law is the law.

For the record, I abhor their decision to keep the ban on bump stocks. That was wrong. They should be ashamed. A bump stock does not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon so the FFA of 1968 does not apply.

 

[Blaster]

Goes to show you how fucked up the court used to be. Now it's getting back on the right path.

There should be NO "democrat" or "republican" judges. The law is the law. If you can't point to where the constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion, then she doesn't have that right on the federal level. PERIOD. Democrat or republican shouldn't matter. The law is the law.

The problem is that there are activist judges that ignore the constitution.

 

[dblack]

There should be NO "democrat" or "republican" judges. The law is the law. If you can't point to where the constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion, then she doesn't have that right on the federal level.

If you think that rights require specific mention in the Constitution, then you don't understand how the Constitution works. See 9th Amendment for guidance.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If you think that rights require specific mention in the Constitution, then you don't understand how the Constitution works. See 9th Amendment for guidance.

.
Yea but WHAT rights its referring to is left unclear. Since abortion wasn't even a thing in the late 1700's you can't possibly make an argument that abortion was one of those rights. There is no place in the constitution where it states its ok for you to kill another innocent human being. So no way can the 9th be indicative of such. The 9th amendment has NEVER been used to argue a case by itself. Even in the past it's been labeled as the "mystery" amendment by a SCOTUS judge.

I mean, really, how much legal precedent does an amendment have that basically says "You got a right to do stuff"?

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court Is On The Verge Of Killing The Voting Rights Act

The beginning of the end for the Voting Rights Act started more than 30 years ago. On Oct. 4, the end of the end is likely to begin. This term, the Supreme Cour…

fivethirtyeight.com

Comment:
There is no need for race-based districting.

I am glad.

And fascism marches on.

 

[dblack]

.
Yea but WHAT rights its referring to is left unclear. Since abortion wasn't even a thing in the late 1700's you can't possibly make an argument that abortion was one of those rights.

You're missing the point. The ninth amendment was written specifically to address the mistake you're making. Read up on the history of it. Many of the founders thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. They worried that if they listed some rights, people would assume that those were the only rights protected by the Constitution. The Ninth was added to clarify that matter.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You're missing the point. The ninth amendment was written specifically to address the mistake you're making. Read up on the history of it. Many of the founders thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. They worried that if they listed some rights, people would assume that those were the only rights protected by the Constitution. The Ninth was added to clarify that matter.

No, you're missing the point. The 9th doesn't state what other rights you have so without something ELSE to back it up, it's meaningless.

"You can do stuff" is completely pointless. Because at what point do you NOT have a right to do something? There is no right in the bill of rights saying I can't take my neighbors car and go for a joyride. Does the 9th give me that right?

 

[dblack]

No, you're missing the point. The 9th doesn't state what other rights you have so without something ELSE to back it up, it's meaningless.

Wow. The founders were right to worry. Even when the spell it out, you make the exact assumption they were trying to guard against.

I don't even know why you'd want that. Do you think the only rights you have are those spelled out explicitly in the Constitution? Why would you want so few rights?

 

[bodecea]

Well, if we didn't know it before, we certainly know now that the MAGAt-GOP is Jim Crow.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wow. The founders were right to worry. Even when the spell it out, you make the exact assumption they were trying to guard against.

I don't even know why you'd want that. Do you think the only rights you have are those spelled out explicitly in the Constitution? Why would you want so few rights?

I don't want so few rights. I want freedom from gov't interference. The constitution is a large document. States have rights to allow or disallow different things. The constitution is only a federal guide, states can do what they want. So yea, if the federal constitution does not grant a right, you do not have that right UNDER FEDERAL LAW. It doesn't mean YOU CAN'T DO IT, because states might say you can. Look at how restrictive Illinois is on gun rights. They're impinging on the rights granted by the 2nd amendment. Why is that ok? Do the rights in the constitution not matter?

Name one right that you have that would not fall under one of the rights granted in the constitution already.

 

[dblack]

I don't want so few rights. I want freedom from gov't interference. The constitution is a large document. States have rights to allow or disallow different things. The constitution is only a federal guide, states can do what they want. So yea, if the federal constitution does not grant a right, you do not have that right UNDER FEDERAL LAW. It doesn't mean YOU CAN'T DO IT, because states might say you can. Look at how restrictive Illinois is on gun rights. They're impinging on the rights granted by the 2nd amendment. Why is that ok? Do the rights in the constitution not matter?

Name one right that you have that would not fall under one of the rights granted in the constitution already.

I don't believe the Constitution "grants" rights.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Voting Rights Act is racist.

Snob Rule

It's also anti-democratic, passed by elitist Liberals and Conservative totally against the will of the majority. The mantra of both cliques of pompous blowhards is "Democracy is mob rule."

Also "the tyranny of the majority," a slogan coined by a snooty French aristocrat whose parents unfortunately escaped the guillotine.

What kind of tyranny is this? Name a club that can't vote on who can be a new member; only the officers of the club can choose whom they want to force on the other members.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well, if we didn't know it before, we certainly know now that the MAGAt-GOP is Jim Crow.

The Dhimmicrats Worship Jamal Crow

 

[dblack]

Also "the tyranny of the majority," a slogan coined by a snooty French aristocrat whose parents unfortunately escaped the guillotine.

What kind of tyranny is this? Name a club that can't vote on who can be a new member; only the officers of the club can choose whom they want to force on the other members.

Put me down with the snooty aristocrat. Democracy is fine for certain decisions, where we all have to conform to one course of action. But for most decisions we face as a society it's inappropriate. In most situations it isn't necessary to force everyone to abide by the wishes of the majority.