Section 4 - Unconstitutional!

Superfreak said:
Typical liberal bullshit. Asking for EVERYONE to show an ID at the polls when we use IDs so often in everyday life is not equivalent to 'keeping blacks and hispanics from the polls'. There are far more poor white people in this country than poor black & hispanic people. Yet you seem to think those poor black and hispanics are the only ones that 'can't afford' the ID. Why is that Darla? You do realize the poor black and hispanic people for the most part live in urban areas, not rural or suburban. They have access to mass transit, whereas the poor white rural people don't. Which of those groups do you think would have a harder time getting to a DMV location?

Your liberal attempts to paint voter ID as racist is simply a bullshit tool you use to try and shut down the conversation. So take your own advice and go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

Welcome back Candy... I missed you.
 
Jarod said:
I know that, but there is still a remedy in the Federal Courts. It simply takes out the permission phase. We have made progress since the 60's and this ruling is a reflection of that. Congress, could, if they chose to create a new formula and if the Republicans lose Big in 14' then they might.

It puts the voters on notice that if we keep electing those who would limit voting, the feds are not going to step in as easily.
Click to expand...

I will get back to this later. But, I strongly disagree.
 
Dungheap said:
Here you are:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/court-rules-for-employers-in-two-employment-discrimination-cases/
Click to expand...

While I agree that the decisions in the above make it harder for victims to a degree, does the burden of proof not lie with the plaintiff? If they accuse the employer of harassment, should they not have to prove it? IF the workplace is hostile and the employer does nothing, they are still liable.

As for the first case, can you elaborate on why you think that is so wrong?
 
Superfreak said:
While I agree that the decisions in the above make it harder for victims to a degree, does the burden of proof not lie with the plaintiff? If they accuse the employer of harassment, should they not have to prove it? IF the workplace is hostile and the employer does nothing, they are still liable.

As for the first case, can you elaborate on why you think that is so wrong?
Click to expand...


I'm not really in the mood to debate the merits, so you can probably read the dissents in those cases to get a good idea of where I stand. The point of my post wasn't anything particular to those two cases.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
seems to me that the court decided that the current legislation that controls the states voting is no longer applicable, thus it's back to the states.
Click to expand...


That's not really what the Court decided and, in any event, the 15th Amendment is pretty damn clear. There ain't no givsies-backsies clause, at least not in my copy of the Constitution.
 
tekkychick said:
It will lead to some interesting cases - Texas doesn't recognize same sex marriages; so if you get married in California and then move to Texas, you can't get a divorce... which is weird. And what about state benefits for spouses?

Sooner or later, a court case will come along that will at least require all states to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions, even if they don't allow same sex couples to marry in their state. And then eventually same sex marriage will be legal everywhere, either through voting or a court case...

I wrote my first letter to the editor in support of same sex marriage in the late 80s; very exciting to see it happening now. I hope Supreme Court doesn't uphold Prop 8, but I just don't see how it can. I can see how it can limit it to California, which is what the district court did.

DOMA is just awful law. Unconstitutional under 14th amendment, and of course tramples state's rights to define marriage.

But you're the lawyer, Jarod, not me, so you have a more knowledgeable view into what might happen.
Click to expand...

Do you even realize you contradicted yourself in your own post?
 
Pete Campbell said:
can someone cliff notes this for me? I am not familiar with this court case or what it implies
Click to expand...

years ago several states were placed under federal supervision and could only change their registration and voting requirements if they obtained federal approval.....basically the court has decided that since things have changed since the 70s the federal government needs to come up with new justification to impose federal supervision on states........
 
Darla said:
I really don't understand how.

Texas has already announced it's going to institute a voter ID law. The entire Republican campaign strategy in recent years has had as its centerpiece keeping blacks and hispanics away from the polls. This is their biggest effort to hold into power in the face of changing demographics - to keep Americans from voting.

I know that the goon squad will scream and yell "Link us up!" (go fuck yourself, preemptively), but I would think you were awake for recent years and knew what was going on.
Click to expand...

liberals tend to mistake efforts to keep dead people from voting as efforts of racial discrimination.....given there has been no evidence that only dead minorities try to vote, this claim is spurious.......
 
Superfreak said:
Typical liberal bullshit. Asking for EVERYONE to show an ID at the polls when we use IDs so often in everyday life is not equivalent to 'keeping blacks and hispanics from the polls'. There are far more poor white people in this country than poor black & hispanic people. Yet you seem to think those poor black and hispanics are the only ones that 'can't afford' the ID. Why is that Darla? You do realize the poor black and hispanic people for the most part live in urban areas, not rural or suburban. They have access to mass transit, whereas the poor white rural people don't. Which of those groups do you think would have a harder time getting to a DMV location?

Your liberal attempts to paint voter ID as racist is simply a bullshit tool you use to try and shut down the conversation. So take your own advice and go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

So you obviously paid zero attention to the whole Pennsylvania attempt to institute voter id laws... the number of people affected... that the DMV places in some counties were only open four hours a week... that it would have taken the state longer to process ids for everyone than there was time before the election.

Read up on the case against the Pennsylvania laws, and then maybe you might learn why these laws discriminate against the poor and the elderly. And because a higher percentage of poor people are minority it has a disparate impact upon minority voters.

That's what voting rights act was about - ensuring laws passed did not have a disparate impact on minority voters. It's not a question of whether the rule is applied to all voters; it's whether it will keep more minorities from voting than it would non-minorities from voting.

So yes, voter ID is racist - it has a disparate impact on minorities. Also on poor and elderly, but the voting rights act was concerned with racism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top