Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   



(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a core part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination still persists rather than target former slaveholding states in the South. In a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices ruled that Congress had used outdated facts in continuing to force nine states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for voting rule changes affecting blacks and other minorities. The court ruled in favor of officials from Shelby County, Alabama, by declaring unconstitutional a section of the law - most recently updated by Congress in 2006 - that set the formula that decides which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval to change voting laws.

www.reuters.com...

While everyone is watching and worrying about Paula Dean this is where the real damage is being done,and some people say it's time to forget the past and move forward..Hah!.. look how hard they tried to suppress the vote last election,now they have a free and unhindered hand.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Spider879 because: edit




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
What damage is being done? Have you read the opinion? Do you know what was struck down? Do you know what is still intact? Or are you basing all your opinions off some video that someone else made to make you think like them?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What damage is being done? Have you read the opinion? Do you know what was struck down? Do you know what is still intact? Or are you basing all your opinions off some video that someone else made to make you think like them?


I read the article printed to make sure.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 

Congress passed a law using 40 year-old facts as their rationale, when the situation had clearly changed. I have no problem with the Court saying, "Hey, guys, that's just not right."

The Court also said that if Congress comes back with a law based on actual facts, then every thing will be peachy keen.

What's the problem?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Spider879
 

Congress passed a law using 40 year-old facts as their rationale, when the situation had clearly changed. I have no problem with the Court saying, "Hey, guys, that's just not right."

The Court also said that if Congress comes back with a law based on actual facts, then every thing will be peachy keen.

What's the problem?


Haven't you noticed in the last general election efforts to dampened minority votes especially swing states Florida and Pennsylvania this is the Supreme court doing a political thing watch and wait for the mid terms see how things turns out and I'll be back to say i told you so.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 

Dear Spider879,

That's fine with me. I hope Congress does look at the last election, or even the last two or three to find out what the situation is now. The problem was that the 2006 Act was based on information that occured 20 elections before. The Court said "You guys are making up laws that have nothing to do with the real world."

If there is a showing of violations going on now, I'm fine with Congress trying to fix it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


While we are at it, let's look at what crimes your family comitted in the last 400 years and try and convict you based on facts from 400 years ago.

That is essentially what you are arguing for.

Kind of stupid now right?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Ok I am gonna take a stab here and say most folks here are a lil to the right on any political issue, most would scream bloody murder and call for an armed rebellion if the govt even hint at gun registration,they see some thing ominous in any such move, they said there is nothing wrong with gun laws as it is and if anything we should make it easier to have more access to whatever arms on the market..fair enough, but they then turn around an support meddling in voting rights laws that ain't broke and hence no need to fix it considering this is the same court that made corporations people,this they can trust, their usual skepticism goes right out the _



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


Don't you think you may be jumping the gun here? As far as it looks, the Courts are just trying to get Congress to make a new law that uses factual information from the last few elections rather than from 40 years ago. If congress fails to do this then maybe you'd have a point, but until then you cannot denounce someone for failing to do something that they haven't even had a chance to even try to implement.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   


TextThe court struck down Section 4 of the law, which describes the coverage formula, and not Section 5, known as the preclearance provision, which is the general requirement that the covered states get approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making election-law changes

Federal courts still have to clear the law changes. Really don't see why this would be a problem. The formula was outdated.
I personally wish that laws start being removed that are no longer relevant. Maybe that would keep the idiots on the hill busy, and keep them from further destroying our country.

Also, That particular section does not even cover Pennsylvania or Florida which OP brought up in another post.


The nine fully covered states under the provisions of the law at issue were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.


edit on 26-6-2013 by Privateinquotations because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What damage is being done? Have you read the opinion? Do you know what was struck down? Do you know what is still intact? Or are you basing all your opinions off some video that someone else made to make you think like them?


I read the article printed to make sure.


Then I suggest you read the actual opinion...The Supreme Court didn't invalidate anything save the formula (which is Section 4 of the Act in question). Section Two and Five are fully intact and that is the teeth of the Voting Rights Act.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879
Ok I am gonna take a stab here and say most folks here are a lil to the right on any political issue, most would scream bloody murder and call for an armed rebellion if the govt even hint at gun registration,they see some thing ominous in any such move, they said there is nothing wrong with gun laws as it is and if anything we should make it easier to have more access to whatever arms on the market..fair enough, but they then turn around an support meddling in voting rights laws that ain't broke and hence no need to fix it considering this is the same court that made corporations people,this they can trust, their usual skepticism goes right out the _


Considering it was the Republican "right" like MLK and others that brought the civil rights issues into law despite Democrat opposition from the ilk of Al Gore, Sr. and others...

What are you getting at?


edit on 7/2/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   




Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina signed into law Monday one of the nation’s most wide-ranging voter-identification laws, just a few weeks after the Supreme Court opened the door for such changes by striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. The move by the Republican is expected to touch off a major court battle over voting rights, and the Justice Department is weighing a challenge to the new law. The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early-voting period from 17 days to 10. It also ends preregistration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day registration. Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority and youth vote as well as reduce Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud, the principal reason Republicans cite for the changes.

www.bostonglobe.com...< br /> Up-Date
Yeah this was the point of the thread that many here poo-pooed with willful ignorance by folks who should be paying attention to stuff like this, but I guess party affiliation trumps all ..TOLD YOU SO !!



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 

If I understand the article correctly, Democrats are saying that there is no proof of massive voter fraud, so there is no reason to have the bill. I would think the Republicans could say, with even greater accuracy, that there is no proof of voter suppression, so there is no reason to stop the bill.

My own opinion? Citizens have certain rights in this country, like voting. It seems reasonable to require us all to show that we are citizens, and have not lost that right by committing a felony.

It seems you are willing to believe the worst of Republicans and the best of Democrats. I can understand that as an opinion, but not as the basis for a rational argument.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Spider879
 

If I understand the article correctly, Democrats are saying that there is no proof of massive voter fraud, so there is no reason to have the bill. I would think the Republicans could say, with even greater accuracy, that there is no proof of voter suppression, so there is no reason to stop the bill.

My own opinion? Citizens have certain rights in this country, like voting. It seems reasonable to require us all to show that we are citizens, and have not lost that right by committing a felony.

It seems you are willing to believe the worst of Republicans and the best of Democrats. I can understand that as an opinion, but not as the basis for a rational argument.


And the Governor agreed,so this is/was a non issue, but really Charles do you not see the obvious efforts at voter suppression,student IDs are not good enough even??..yes I tend to be biased to progressive or lib thinking but I also step back and take a look at the entire picture they started doing this because their base is shrinking they have no new exciting ideas that appeals to non outside of their traditional base all they know is cut taxes and Obama care bad veto it for 40th time,,two trick ponies that they are, I am no big fan of most the current crop of Dem either including Obama for they are in fact massively right wing and corporatist dressed in progressive suits.
edit on 14-8-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 

Dear Spider879,

I had to give you a star, and your position another thought. Sometimes I do fly off the handle.


but really Charles do you not see the obvious efforts at voter suppression,student IDs are not good enough even??..
I wonder about student IDs. Are they supposed to show anything other than a person is enrolled at that school? Maybe, I don't remember mine well enough. Can people who are not eligible to vote get student IDs? I would think so. Didn't I hear that several states have been granting "undocumented workers" in-state tuition? And any felon can go to school. Besides, a college ID is a really expensive ID card, that the poor can't afford.


yes I tend to be biased to progressive or lib thinking but I also step back and take a look at the entire picture
Good for you.
I mean it. it's fine to have a bias one way or the other. Frankly, I don't trust people who don't. But real congrats on being able to step back and look at the whole picture.


they started doing this because their base is shrinking they have no new exciting ideas that appeals to non outside of their traditional base
You've got some points there. I keep hearing that the official party is drifting so far left that a lot of their supporters are just staying home. If Romney had the same number of votes as McCain, Obama would be out of office. But if you're right that their base is shrinking, voter suppression won't have any effect on the outcome. The numbers on the Democrat side would be lower, but so would the Republicans' so, no change.

As far as not having new exciting ideas go, I wonder about that. Certainly, they have new ideas. The Tea Party, and Ron Paul's ideas are largely far more Republican than Democrat. The #1 book on Amazon, in any category, is Mark Levin's book on adding ten new "Liberty Amendments" to the Constitution. As you may know, Levin is to the Right of the official Republican party. Paul Ryan's approach to Medicare and entitlements, was considered new and intriguing, even the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission guys thaought it could provide a base for serious improvements. (Simpson and Bowles were the guys Obama picked to head the commission, then he rejected all their recommendations.)

I think the idea that they are not "exciting" comes from the way those ideas are treated by the press.


all they know is cut taxes and Obama care bad veto it for 40th time,,two trick ponies that they are,
Which of those do you object to? Of course, Obamacare is bad, he's allowed millions of people in friendly companies, and unions to disregard it's mandates. He's said himself that he'll enforce part of it, but not the rest, until after the elections are over. (Which, of course, is a violation of his Constitutional duties.) There are other tricks for the ponies, but remember they can't get anything through the Senate, or past Obama's veto. Not much they can do.

But they can investigate. And from that we are learning that the present administration is more corrupt than Nixon's, or anybody else's that you can remember. But that may be another topic.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

A no joking matter but leave it up to John Stewart and Asif Mandvi to at-least get a laugh out of this.



A more sobering vid sorry I just can't let this go people died for this.
edit on 10-11-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If requiring ID is such an insurmountable financial burden and possibly even racist, perhaps we should make a law that bars requiring anyone asking to see Id for anything?

Think of all the malt liquor and menthol that isn't't sold because the poor don't have proper photo ID. And don't forget the Timberwolf chew and Natural Light that's left on the store counter because my white brethren are too low on the socioeconomic ladder to afford their vices AND a state issued ID.

There is no legitimate argument in favor of your stance. If you are so destitute, or confined that you cannot access the DMV in the four years between presidential elections then how are you existing in the first place?



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Spider879

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Spider879
 

Congress passed a law using 40 year-old facts as their rationale, when the situation had clearly changed. I have no problem with the Court saying, "Hey, guys, that's just not right."

The Court also said that if Congress comes back with a law based on actual facts, then every thing will be peachy keen.

What's the problem?


Haven't you noticed in the last general election efforts to dampened minority votes especially swing states Florida and Pennsylvania this is the Supreme court doing a political thing watch and wait for the mid terms see how things turns out and I'll be back to say i told you so.

I have noticed only that identification of VALID voters being established. Invalid and fraudulant votes disenfranchises valid votes and must be eliminated by never taking place.
edit on 11-11-2013 by tkwasny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Lipton
If requiring ID is such an insurmountable financial burden and possibly even racist, perhaps we should make a law that bars requiring anyone asking to see Id for anything?

Think of all the malt liquor and menthol that isn't't sold because the poor don't have proper photo ID. And don't forget the Timberwolf chew and Natural Light that's left on the store counter because my white brethren are too low on the socioeconomic ladder to afford their vices AND a state issued ID.

There is no legitimate argument in favor of your stance. If you are so destitute, or confined that you cannot access the DMV in the four years between presidential elections then how are you existing in the first place?


Not just voter I.Ds but a whole slue of voter restrictions combined with gerrymandering


And my argument still stand there were virtually no!! voter fraud and you just gonna gloss over the fact that the men in those vids admit to what they are doing is voter suppression.

Let me say this if they want to play those games it will come back and bite them in the anus for if you and they think we are just gonna sit back and get roll over like the pre civil rights days they got another thing coming,the problem is it may get ugly.





new topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join