PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act



Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 04:28 PM
15 states are now free to change their voting laws without Federal oversight. Once again, the Fed must challenge state/local laws in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan instead of the other way around.... That isn't to say that they can't be restricted again, the Fed just has to make rules that apply today instead of using the ones created as an emergency response back in 1965....

CYBERFX1024
06-25-2013, 09:28 PM
Personally i agree with the SC on this one.

I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.

garhkal
06-25-2013, 09:39 PM
15 states are now free to change their voting laws without Federal oversight. Once again, the Fed must challenge state/local laws in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan instead of the other way around.... That isn't to say that they can't be restricted again, the Fed just has to make rules that apply today instead of using the ones created as an emergency response back in 1965....

Personally i agree with the SC on this one.

CYBERFX1024
06-25-2013, 09:42 PM
Personally i agree with the SC on this one.

I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.

Measure Man
06-25-2013, 10:14 PM
I don't think I get the significance of this decision.

garhkal
06-25-2013, 10:34 PM
Basically the way i read it;
the way the voting rights act laws were wrote out, the states covered need to get the FEDERAL govt's ok, before they can change any state specific laws in regards to voting. So a state say wants to put in a law that you need id to vote (to prove who you say you are), or that you can get X number of days to vote if using an absentee ballot, need to go "Please federal daddy, can I" before hand..

Which to me is stepping all over the state's rights to govern themselves.

Rusty Jones
06-25-2013, 10:35 PM
Basically the way i read it;
the way the voting rights act laws were wrote out, the states covered need to get the FEDERAL govt's ok, before they can change any state specific laws in regards to voting. So a state say wants to put in a law that you need id to vote (to prove who you say you are), or that you can get X number of days to vote if using an absentee ballot, need to go "Please federal daddy, can I" before hand..

Which to me is stepping all over the state's rights to govern themselves.

If they want to govern themselves so badly, maybe they should secede.

efmbman
06-25-2013, 10:41 PM
I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.


Personally i agree with the SC on this one.

Agreed.

imnohero
06-26-2013, 12:08 AM
I don't think I get the significance of this decision.

The significance is that

a) the court asserted that the states equal sovereignty prevents the federal government from enforcing section 4 of the EVR Act as written because the exigent circumstances that made the Section 4 formula valid no longer exist.

b) this means that congress MUST update section 4

c) congress is utterly incapable of accomplishing b), given the current political climate

Therefore, the practical impact is that the Act is virtually unenforceable. Despite the rhetoric excess on both sides, this is actually something to worry about, because it has 15th amendment implications.

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 01:26 PM
If they want to govern themselves so badly, maybe they should secede.

That is an asinine statement. 35 other states had complete autonomy to change their voting laws without clearing them through the Federal Gov..only 15 did not. The justification formula to not allow them to exercise their Constitutional authority was neraly 50 years old. So you think that states that want the Federal Government to follow the Constitution should secede?

TSgt"M"
06-26-2013, 03:54 PM
I have to show an ID in my township of MI. Never had a problem with it.

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 06:08 PM
A Democrat (Ryan Winkler) called Justice Thomas an "Uncle Thomas" and said he had no idea it was racist...and was trying to make a point about racism... Think anyone would believe him if he were a Republican? Keep in mind this uniformed Democrat has a history degree from Harvard....

Banned
06-26-2013, 07:34 PM
A Democrat (Ryan Winkler) called Justice Thomas an "Uncle Thomas" and said he had no idea it was racist...and was trying to make a point about racism... Think anyone would believe him if he were a Republican? Keep in mind this uniformed Democrat has a history degree from Harvard....

Yeah, that was dumb. He should have stood by his statement. Justice Thomas IS an Uncle Tom.

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 07:44 PM
Yeah, that was dumb. He should have stood by his statement. Justice Thomas IS an Uncle Tom.

Seems a bit harsh to call him an Uncle Tom because he agreed that the 50 year old formula should be revised BEFORE the restrictions imposed IAW it are extended on these locations for another 25 years. No?

Banned
06-26-2013, 08:07 PM
Seems a bit harsh to call him an Uncle Tom because he agreed that the 50 year old formula should be revised BEFORE the restrictions imposed IAW it are extended on these locations for another 25 years. No?

The states that were racist pricks 50 years ago are still pretty much racist pricks now.

Calmo70
06-26-2013, 08:35 PM
The states that were racist pricks 50 years ago are still pretty much racist pricks now.

As are the states that were not under the federal oversight under this act. Most racist people I've met were in the north (New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan - a few places I was stationed). The only difference was there were not large minority populations in those states (will except Michigan) - but they didn't need to create laws to limit minority voting.

Either way - racists are everywhere - but I agree with the decision as the justification for Federal oversight needs to fit the current times. Alabama and Mississppi has some of the largest miniority voting percentages than anywhere else in the country.

HMT
06-27-2013, 01:15 AM
The SC have to do what is right for the country. Unfortunately the country is torn on what's "right". As long as every American citizen (legal) and of age has the opportunity to vote with no hassle, I see no problem with the decision. It just means more court battles before and after elections.

garhkal
06-27-2013, 03:57 AM
I have to show an ID in my township of MI. Never had a problem with it.

I honestly have no idea why more places don't require it. You need an id for so many things these days, i can't see how people of consenting age (which is the same age as voting is) don't have one.


A Democrat (Ryan Winkler) called Justice Thomas an "Uncle Thomas" and said he had no idea it was racist...and was trying to make a point about racism... Think anyone would believe him if he were a Republican? Keep in mind this uniformed Democrat has a history degree from Harvard....

I was actually surprised that MSNBC called his ass on it..

Pullinteeth
06-27-2013, 01:03 PM
The states that were racist pricks 50 years ago are still pretty much racist pricks now.

Yet only 15 of them are punished. Statistics show that Massachusets has more racial issues than Mississippi yet they have no restrictions....

garhkal
06-27-2013, 07:27 PM
Yet only 15 of them are punished. Statistics show that Massachusets has more racial issues than Mississippi yet they have no restrictions....

And as already mentioned, some of those in the list have more Minority voters registered than they do whites...

Juggs
06-28-2013, 11:53 AM
If they want to govern themselves so badly, maybe they should secede.

Thats just a dumb statement. Because tbey want to exercise their right they should secede?

Juggs
06-28-2013, 12:40 PM
I'm just saying; if they don't like the fact that they have to answer to a higher level government, then they should be shown the door and be told not to let it hit their ass on the way out.

You exercising constitutional authority. Ok you dont like them exercising their authority. Perhaps you would like a country where on the feds run everything.

Rusty Jones
06-28-2013, 12:51 PM
Thats just a dumb statement. Because tbey want to exercise their right they should secede?

I'm just saying; if they don't like the fact that they have to answer to a higher level government, then they should be shown the door and be told not to let it hit their ass on the way out.

garhkal
06-28-2013, 09:01 PM
In some ways i agree with Rusty. But in others i disagree. The constitution allows for states to govern themselves on some levels, and the fed oversees things for other levels...