{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
6/25/2013 5:34:06 PM
16
SCOTUS strikes down Voting Rights Act
What the -blam!- is wrong with them? Did they not see all of the bullshit people tried to pull in the last presidential election and now they decide to remove the protections? This is so -blam!-ing stupid.
-
1 ReplyI'm unfamiliar with this issue, can some explain the gist of it? I believe you should have to be a citizen to vote.
-
I hope that Congress can pass a criteria for approving states to change their voting laws. But they're Congress, so I don't have too much hope. I think that the courts are going to have to slowly and painfully clarify what is OK now.
-
I don't empathize much with the argument that the federal government is sticking its nose into states' business. But I can understand the argument that the coverage map for federal oversight isn't as applicable today as it was decades ago. Unfortunately, federal oversight is nothing without a coverage map, and that's something Congress has to work out. Which is not going to happen; in fact, Congressmen will only become more rigid along party lines, as polarization increases.
-
3 RepliesStates need less power, not more. God, they're already like miniature countries as it is.
-
2 RepliesCan someone break this down for me?
-
13 Repliesso...less federal bureaucracy, and more efficient state governments?
-
That's an incredibly misleading title. They struck down a provision that required preclearance for specific states to change their voter requirements. The majority of the act remains intact, including the part that makes it illegal to make your laws discriminate against certain demographic groups. The only thing that changes is that the act will now be enforced the same way in all states, rather than differently in several southern states than in the rest of the country.
-
Nice title there, totally accurate, bro.
-
10 RepliesThis is bad for select groups of voters in general, but this could be potentially good for the Democratic party.
-
Hate to point fingers, but who got to elect two new Supreme Court Justices and created a conservative and public-hostile panel? [b]George[/b] Derbleya [b]Bush[/b] himself. Hurray for Corporations getting rights and the death of civil liberties.
-
2 RepliesWell, the Senate said they will do something about it. But that doesn't mean much.
-
It should be noted that nowhere in the ruling did Chief Justice Roberts say what part of the Constitution the VRA violated.
-
Republicans are getting.desperate.
-
[quote]The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. [/quote] Full steam ahead with Jim Crow Laws and gerrymandering the districts to negate the will of the people. Because this is apparently the only way that Republicans can win anymore. Not by talking about the issues and taking a reasonable stance. But by cheating the system. This on top of Citizens United makes me wonder if we need to purge the Supreme Court as well as Congress and replace them with newly elected officials.
-
Edited by Porsche 914: 6/26/2013 1:51:59 AMI know this is off topic but I really wish we role call it Supreme Republican Court Of The United States.
-
2 RepliesI'm waiting for the Prop 8 and DOMA ruling. God, I hope they strike both down.
