Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:55 pm

No clue.

Presumably, if they try something, it has to go through the approval process under Section 5, and the opponents can convince whoever does the approving that it unfairly targets minorities, or they do something that does affect minorities in some way, e.g. early voting hours, districting, not providing translations in X language, getting dates wrong in the translation to X language, etc.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:16 pm

Aubade wrote:So today on my drive home, I saw a bumper sticker that said.

"Best Republican president
We've ever had
Barack Obama"

I'm confused, is this a passive agressive Conservative sticker?
A "Obama is a moderate" sticker? What is it? I'm lost.
It's a disgruntled liberal, complaining that Obama has been too conservative (or given in too much to the GOP).
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:55 pm

Fridmarr wrote:It's a disgruntled liberal, complaining that Obama has been too conservative (or given in too much to the GOP).


The first one. Remember that political chart we had some pages ago? Obama places in the upper right corner. It's not that he hasn't given in to the GOP, but simply the politics of the US today are so far right of where it was just twenty years ago.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:09 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/i ... astration/

Apparently, the GOP really does equate guns with penises, and seeing how they seem to overcompensate, they must have really small ones.
Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:18 pm

And a follow-up on Scalia being his usual douchecanoe
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/civi ... ction.html
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:23 pm

So what is it that you find so troubling about what he said?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Cogglamp » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:19 pm

I don't see where the outrage stems from here. Questioning the legitimacy of the law is what Chief Justices are supposed to do.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:26 pm

But most court-watchers emerged from the oral arguments believing the portion of the Voting Rights Act that singles out states and counties with a history of racial discrimination at the polls—most of them in the South—will be struck down. Discriminating against minority voters would still be illegal under the act, but people who hope to challenge discriminatory actions would have to do so through the regular court process, which takes longer than the special pathway set up under the law.


Yeah, I don't get it either. Scalia's arguing that the discriminatory sections of the law should be removed as they create a racial entitlement, it looks like the court agrees. Voting Rights still protected under the 14th and 15th ... so what's the rub, bub?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:27 pm

Sooo. Bob Woodward. Discuss.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:58 pm

Yeah, I don't get it either. Scalia's arguing that the discriminatory sections of the law should be removed as they create a racial entitlement, it looks like the court agrees. Voting Rights still protected under the 14th and 15th ... so what's the rub, bub?


One of the reasons people seem to be in a rub for the most part:
- So take the recent one, Florida wanted to do some stuff with early voting hours. It got blocked before it went into play because of this, a lot of fuss happened, but ultimately nothing changed.
- Put "Florida on an equal footing", and the early voting hours get changed, the people who previously blocked it go through a slower court system, where it might or might not actually get brought up/fixed before the election actually happens, and even if it does, might create enough confusion to achieve the effect of disrupting early voting hours anyway.

And of course, there's other people annoyed over the idea that protecting people's "right to vote" is a racial entitlement when it's basically accepted as something all citizens are entitled to, this step is just targetted at counties which have a history of specifically acting to curb that "right to vote" regarding a subset of the population. I don't know that the court actually agrees with the viewpoint either way.

Course, when you go the other aspect, Scalia's questioning is based on fairly odd logic. While it is possibly true that people may be continuing to vote for extending this law based on the idea that it would be political suicide not to, he's backing that up by comparing how racism is on a downward trend but support for this keeps increasing. The two aren't actually related in that way - racism can be on a downward trend and this have increased support simply because the people in Congress today are not the same people who had to be fought against for this kind of law to go into effect, and a greater awareness of racism in general.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:21 pm

Darielle wrote:And of course, there's other people annoyed over the idea that protecting people's "right to vote" is a racial entitlement
Do you have a quote where Scalia actually said that the right to vote was a racial entitlement? The first article Klaud linked constrained his racial entitlement comment to Section 5. Indeed Justice Sotomayor's supposed rebuke of Scalia's comments directly referenced Section 5.

The second article suggests that Scalia did say it was a racial entitlement by actually quoting someone else who made a comment as a direct retort of that notion. It also claims that Sotomayor's rebuke was about "the right to vote" but it doesn't actually show her quote. While the quote in the first article indicates that she specifically said "Section 5".

I haven't researched it so maybe there are some quotes I'm missing, but it doesn't look like to me he said that, or anything that a reasonable person could assume meant that.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:31 pm

http://www.stonekettle.com/2013/02/sequ ... ounds.html

Thank you Jim, for finally explaining to me wtf sequestration is.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Skye1013 wrote:http://www.stonekettle.com/2013/02/sequestration-and-self-inflicted-wounds.html

Thank you Jim, for finally explaining to me wtf sequestration is.

It does a reasonable job of explaining what sequestration is...but beyond that there is a heavy dose of rhetoric which is pretty questionable.

Some of that goes back to Fuzzy's so far ignored post about Bob Woodward, who ran an Op-Ed piece indicating how sequestration was an administration plan...and claims that he has since been "threatened" by the White House.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:36 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:Sooo. Bob Woodward. Discuss.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... reat-story
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:53 pm

That's why I quoted "threatened", I don't think it was a threat either.   But then that's not what the real story is.
 
Anyhow, I'm asking again Klaud.  What was it about Scalia's comments made him a douchcanoe?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:08 pm

Scalia signaled that he fears Section 5 will be repeatedly reauthorized into perpetuity, regardless of whether it’s justified, unless the courts step in.

“This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress,” he said.


15th Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Despite his claims, he's not a textualist, he's basically a The Onion parody (http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-m ... es-c,2849/) -- so wrapped up in his ideology, he cannot see beyond it, and warps reality until it fits his mold.

If you're a real, flesh and blood person, Scalia thinks you only get the rights specifically granted in the bill of rights. If you're a corporation though? Well...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... wild-west/

Yeah, you could say I'm going for a strawman, even ad hominem , but seriously... he has a very punchable face... =P

On the other hand, I am a bit sad no one commented on the republican representative that equated guns with penises.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:40 pm

Wow you did a massive jump there between two very unrelated topcis.  First I'll start with the current topic.  Section 5 is probably in violation of section 1 of the 15th amendment.  Race and color are being used to create "extra protections" through that provision.  Scalia isn't saying that congress doesn't have the authority to enforce the protections of the 15th amendment, he's saying that the setup here is so poor, that this quite probably unconstitutional legislation will continue to get approved by congress indefinitely.

Think about it, you have a  branch of gov't of whom 95% are not electable by the people who this legislation affects, exerting additional oversight on to their duely elected representatives.  And this is done under a particular provision of a law entitled the "Voting Rights Act".  What would be the motivation for a federal level congressman to vote against such a bill?  There's no reasonable check and balance here except the judicial branch. You may disagree, I happen to think he's almost certainly correct, but that hardly seems like an egregious position.

Now to the rest of your post, which is pretty far off topic.  I'm not sure what the value of your think"progress" link is, other than implying his citizen's united decision give corporations rights, and ignoring the reality of money in politics...which is pretty silly

I'm no expert on Scalia, but I think your characterization is pretty inaccurate.  His textual reading of the constitution almost certainly isn't meant to constrain your rights, it's meant to contrain governmental regulation.  Just like in this case.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:43 pm

Do you have a quote where Scalia actually said that the right to vote was a racial entitlement? The first article Klaud linked constrained his racial entitlement comment to Section 5. Indeed Justice Sotomayor's supposed rebuke of Scalia's comments directly referenced Section 5.


Scalia never said that, so if I seemed to imply it, my bad. Sotomayor bringing up the right to vote in relation to Section 5 is because that is what Section 5 is essentially about - protecting "the right to vote".

From the point of view of court involvement, if the counties had actual proof that they weren't discriminating, they could get out from Section 5 by simply getting the court to recognise that 10 years puts them into the Get-Out clause (and that some stamp-pusher in somewhere with a grudge wanted to keep them under). That's not quite the angle they're trying to go for though - largely because they can't quite claim that they haven't been pushing for discriminatory voting procedures in the last 10 years.

What would be the motivation for a federal level congressman to vote against such a bill? There's no reasonable check and balance here except the judicial branch. You may disagree, I happen to think he's almost certainly correct, but that hardly seems like an egregious position.


Congress would have zero reason to vote for a bill if no states qualified (aka, every state/county provided evidence that they haven't tried discriminatory voting procedures for 10 years).
It's an extremely hard sell to claim that this violates the first Amendment when it doesn't (and can't, in any way) deny or abridge the right to vote, and does the exact opposite - prevents a State from denying or abridging the right to vote.
Last edited by Darielle on Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Nobody can prove that they haven't discriminated in the last ten years though.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Nobody can prove that they haven't discriminated in the last ten years though.


"The term "bail out" refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage.[18] In order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.[5] Eighteen Virginia jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 Preclearance requirements have successfully "bailed out."[18]

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes.[18] First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities

On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of Virginia—Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia—successfully "bailed out" from Section 5 Preclearance requirements.[20] On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire sued to "bail out" from the requirements, which were originally imposed on ten towns that used a literacy test and had voting disparities when the Act was passed.
"
...
"In 2006, the United States Commission on Civil Rights reviewed the Justice Department Preclearance record and found that the percentage of DOJ objections to submitted changes has declined markedly throughout the 40-year period of the Act: from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Over the 10 years prior to the review, the overall objection rate was so low as to be practically negligible, at less than 0.1 percent.[15] The Commission's two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had "abandon[ed] the field of battle."[16]
In the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the district should have greater capability of applying for exemption from this section
"

Now, I imagine the process is certainly harder to get out of than it should be - and that might be a perfect place for the Supreme Court to set some pretty clear guidelines or rules.
But areas certainly can and have successfully bailed out, especially when a county can bail out without being shackled by other counties it may have no control over.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:11 pm

Of course they have reason to vote for it, it's political cover.  It shouldn't be, but in reality it is.  It will be highly controversial to ever not vote for this legislation.  And again, voting for it has almost zero political cost..
 
It's the 15th amendment and yes it can.  If in your example voting hours are unchanged when it adversely affects minority groups while the current hours adversely affects non minority groups...there there's the whole majority minority districting which I believe also falls under the act.
 
And why should properly elected representatives have to go through the hinderance of petitioning the court to simply do the job that others in their position can regularly do without such oversight?  Because someone a few generations ago implemented racist policies?  Is that the crimes of our father provision?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:28 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Of course they have reason to vote for it, it's political cover.  It shouldn't be, but in reality it is.  It will be highly controversial to ever not vote for this legislation.  And again, voting for it has almost zero political cost.. 


And yet you have people voting against things that make complete sense
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 26569.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -women-act
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... epublicans
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:31 pm

Thank you for proving my point.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:57 pm

Of course they have reason to vote for it, it's political cover. It shouldn't be, but in reality it is. It will be highly controversial to ever not vote for this legislation. And again, voting for it has almost zero political cost..


Hypothetically, when it next comes up, if there are zero counties that it can be applied to - they have zero reason to vote for it at that point.
If there are counties that it does apply to, that kinda, by default, justifies its existence.

It's the 15th amendment and yes it can. If in your example voting hours are unchanged when it adversely affects minority groups while the current hours adversely affects non minority groups...there there's the whole majority minority districting which I believe also falls under the act.


Being able to prove that would give a case to extend voting hours to cover both what is currently available on top of what you want to provide, not either/or. The Act doesn't stop the counties from extending/expanding procedures to make them better for everyone, but it will stop them from altering procedures to screw someone. It doesn't even actually care about who the minority or majority is.

It also includes stuff like providing Spanish or other translations on ballots based on the criteria of whether the language in that state/country crosses a threshold.

And why should properly elected representatives have to go through the hinderance of petitioning the court to simply do the job that others in their position can regularly do without such oversight? Because someone a few generations ago implemented racist policies? Is that the crimes of our father provision?


And that "characterisation is pretty inaccurate", because this isn't about a few generations ago. That generation is not only still alive, the counties are still currently pursuing discriminatory voting procedures. Should that stop being the case, this Act can fall by the wayside, and 100% won't be extended, because it will have done its job.

Mind you, there probably wouldn't be that many complaints if "in the interest of fairness", the Supreme Court decreed that the Voting Rights Act would have to apply to every state/county and there's no Get-Out clause, and it's just a thing that never has to be revisited/extended. In the interests of fairness. Oh wait, that would also be a perpetuation of racial entitlement /snark.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:14 pm

Really do the rest of the sections of the act have no use? I don't know that throwing it out wholesale is a good idea.

No, it doesn't stop them from altering procedures to the detriment of non minorities. Section 5 has it's own history there too, at times blocking legislation that is ultimately overturned by the higher courts. Most importantly it doesn't stop blatantly discriminatory legislation in other districts. Like the mismash of voter ID laws in covered/uncovered areas some thrown out, some allowed. Again creating a situation that is in violation of the 15th amendment, by providing an unequal protection.

It's not inaccurate. Racially discriminatory voting legislation is already in violation of the 15th amendment. The point of section 5 was to stop a pattern of jurisdictions going back and forth with the feds in a continuing pattern of creating racially discriminatory laws one after another as the feds got them thrown out. Thus, the pre-approval was created to stop that. It seems really unlikely that that could happen again. Also, The data analysis shows that in the last 20 years in particular, there's no statistical difference between the covered jurisdictions and uncovered jurisdictions. So why are we holding them to a different standard?

I'm pretty certain expanding this to other areas would explode the complaints. Requiring federal pre-approval for elected representatives to enact legislation is on shaky ground when dealing with a state's sovereignty just in general. Judicially was justified by the unique nature of the problem that it was attempting to solve in a somewhat "well tough shit you deserve this so we don't care" kind of way, but that was 50 years ago.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sabindeus and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Sabindeus and 1 guest