|
Chief Justice Roberts posted:Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. They are specifically aimed at disenfranchising minorities and elderly, which strikes me as an "absurdly evil racist plot." Are you one of those people that think that if it doesn't include the n-word it's not racist or what because Jesus Christ this post is terrible. Edit: Also literally a poll tax
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:(1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it) This most especially annoys me about Scalia's claim to textualism. If King's argument were an ordinary and natural reading of the statute, shouldn't this have come up the first time? The arguments of both sides and the court's opinions assumed the IRS' interpretation. If it takes people who hate the law and are desperate to destroy it 5 years of going through the text with a fine-toothed comb looking for something, anything, that can be construed against the government, isn't that a pretty strong sign you're not dealing with a natural reading of the law here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:They are specifically aimed at disenfranchising minorities and elderly, which strikes me as an "absurdly evil racist plot." Are you one of those people that think that if it doesn't include the n-word it's not racist or what because Jesus Christ this post is terrible. Specifically, what are you talking about? Voter ID laws? Redistricting? What, exactly? Those are light-years away from the shenanigans the VRA was originally intended to address, and they are both plausibly connected to political, not racial, motives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. Designing lower booth-to-voter ratios, removing early voting, and shortening polling hours are all tailored to cut the legs out from under the working class and people who live in high-density areas e.g. minorities in the city. Voter ID, when paired with draconian rules regarding documentation as well as fuckery with DMV hours and locations, as well as a fee to acquire proper ID, is a truncheon aimed square at the head of immigrants and the poor, e.g. minorities. I never thought I'd see someone so loving stupid that they thought laws had to literally be "An Act To Chain The Darkies In The Fields" in order to be fairly called racist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Designing lower booth-to-voter ratios Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. Regarding early voting and poll hours, I don't really see that as connected to race per se, at all. We don't have a constitutional right to early voting. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This most especially annoys me about Scalia's claim to textualism. If King's argument were an ordinary and natural reading of the statute, shouldn't this have come up the first time? The arguments of both sides and the court's opinions assumed the IRS' interpretation. If it takes people who hate the law and are desperate to destroy it 5 years of going through the text with a fine-toothed comb looking for something, anything, that can be construed against the government, isn't that a pretty strong sign you're not dealing with a natural reading of the law here? Scalia was for the interpretation before he was against it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. After all, there are no de-facto barriers to the legal process faced by poor people and minorities, and lawsuits are resolved instantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Specifically, what are you talking about? Voter ID laws? Redistricting? What, exactly? The "political motive" is preventing brown people from voting Northjayhawk posted:Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. So you support wasting government resources on expensive litigation against laws with no legitimate basis not steeped in political corruption and racial animus because _____?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. Because the other sections of the VRA require the plaintiffs to show discriminatory intent and are thus difficult to win because you can literally just find and replace Minorities/Blacks with Democrats and it's magically legal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
mdemone posted:After all, there are no de-facto barriers to the legal process faced by poor people and minorities, and lawsuits are resolved instantly. Then make preclearance a nationwide thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. Or here outside Fort White Privilege you can try to challenge it in court before the election the following day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. Wow I didn't know John Roberts was a goon!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Wow I didn't know John Roberts was a goon! I already made that joke. But yeah kansas guy is just parroting Shelby County's logic: Northjayhawk posted:Then make preclearance a nationwide thing. As if it was at all persuasive in hiding the intent of that rancid decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
When does the mandatory gay marriage decision get announced?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
This discussion is hella weird given that the Court literally upheld a disparate impact test under the FHA this week. I'm personally leery of disparate impact claims because it sometimes seems hard to find a policy that can't be gamed by the rich at the expense of the poor (and by extension minorities), but I completely recognize the need for them in housing and voting rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Specifically, what are you talking about? Voter ID laws? Redistricting? What, exactly? If their political motives weren't racially colored, they wouldn't need to disenfranchise racial minorities to achieve them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Short of a nuclear bomb, anything that makes Ramirez mad is good for America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:When does the mandatory gay marriage decision get announced? Maybe tomorrow, or as late as the 30th. I saw a source saying they had added the 30th as a decision day, though normally the 29th would be the last day to release rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Then make preclearance a nationwide thing. This is a good idea. However moving down to preclearance in none of the nation because you can't have it in all of the nation is not a good idea. As for your previous question of what was a poll tax, voter ID is a poll tax. You can't just get an ID for free, it costs money to get the ID plus the time and transportation involved. It also just happens to turn out that those with ID issues tend towards populations that benefited most from the VRA preclearance. And example of loving around with early voting being "totally not racial" happened in Florida. Many black churches got their congregants out on the Sunday before the election to vote, called Souls to the Polls. It was done to get those in need free transportation to and from their polling location. For years it had been the same Sunday, and had worked out well. Then, in between election cycles the Florida Legislature decided that there was just too much early voting, so they cut the number of early voting days allowed and ended early voting the Saturday before the traditional Souls to the Polls day. The VRA in it's entirety is important because States and Municipalities don't post "No Blacks Allowed" signs on precincts or make regulations that specifically point out that the new regulation is done on totally racist grounds. They've moved on and learned some nuance. Ignoring the effects of acts and shrugging just because the act isn't overtly racist is the same as Roberts' idiocy about bribery in Citizens United. Further the idea that the courts are a reasonable method of settling voter issues is silly. Once again using Florida: Florida passed an amendment that required all legislative districts to be drawn in as party blind a fashion as possible. The Legislature fought tooth and nail against the amendment, then after losing immediately drew up partisan as gently caress districts. It took something like 2 election cycles for them to get slapped down by the Florida Supreme court and the new new districts still haven't gone into effect yet. So for 3 or so elections they got to play dirty and get away with it. That's 6 years of laws and budgets and funding that constituents lost their voice in because the Legislature thumbed their nose at the law. How is that a reasonable solution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:He sold the ranch and moved back to Martha's Vineyard between the election and inauguration or pretty much as soon as he didn't need to pretend to be a cowboy anymore. I don't think he sold the ranch and he moved closer to Dallas full time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
http://gawker.com/quiz-antonin-scalia-or-minions-meme-1714032368 surprisingly difficult
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
...why does that quiz includes questions that are explicitly in reference to things that would only matter in a court case? I get it's a joke, but they could at least put in the barest amount of 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
I love the pious hand-wringing over JUDICIAL ACTIVISM with a court which granted itself vast powers out of hand over a century ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I love the pious hand-wringing over JUDICIAL ACTIVISM with a court which granted itself vast powers out of hand over a century ago. Over a century ago? Let's be realistic here, Marbury v. Madison dates back to over two centuries ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
I hope Justice Scalia knows he can always resign. After reading his comments about the ACA, gee whiz..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I love the pious hand-wringing over JUDICIAL ACTIVISM with a court which granted itself vast powers out of hand over a century ago. And there are loving imbeciles who disagree with even that decision. They're like 2 steps away from sovereign citizens. The thing that will blow your mind is that there are actual lawyers who hold those beliefs. It's like the creationist geologists. My mind reels thinking about the compartmentalization they have to do in order to get through their day. IANAL, though, so I'm not sure how common it is other than knowing they exist. Maybe some of the actual lawyers can weigh in on the prevalence. I know it's definitely not a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
piscesbobbie posted:I hope Justice Scalia knows he can always resign. After reading his comments about the ACA, gee whiz.. Scalia is gonna sit on that bench until he withers of extreme old age. By then his clerks and tech-priests will have transformed it into a throne that will sustain his soul for eternity as he clings to life, a Carrion Justice, dispensing scathing dissent through his Tarot
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Then make preclearance a nationwide thing. There's a good argument for this, but as Justice Sotomayor pointed out during oral argument, even if you want to make the case that the South writ large has changed, Shelby County sure as poo poo had not. For me, that calls into question how much the South had actually changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
I thought that the VRA was Robert's personal white whale from way back from when he worked for Reagan. If he thought the South had changed back in 1982 then it seriously calls into question his judgement in regards to that issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Well, on the ACA I guessed the ruling right, but got the author and reasoning wrong. Where was the handwringing over state sovereignty, Kennedy? Making me look bad, here. I'm sticking to my guns on the gay marriage ruling - because who am I to buck popular wisdom - that Kennedy is writing with equal protection clause reasoning. Going all in, none of this must simply respect gay marriages from other states half-step business. edit: Alito writes the dissent Kennedy opinion contains at least three instances of purple prose that make everyone roll their eyes
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
I feel like some people in here need to re-read that Lee Atwater quote before they start trying to unironically argue that because we don't have Jim Crow anymore that it still means voting is easy for minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm sticking to my guns on the gay marriage ruling - because who am I to buck popular wisdom - that Kennedy is writing with equal protection clause reasoning. Going all in, none of this must simply respect gay marriages from other states half-step business. But HOW the 5th/14th are utilized is important. Kennedy had an opportunity to rule on equal protection grounds in Windsor, but appeared to do so on the basis of animus that doesn't need anything other than a rational basis of scrutiny (also something something federalism blah blah states rights and please won't somebody think the children). The victory that gay rights advocates are looking for is as a suspect class worthy of strict scrutiny. Kennedy's DOMA decision was meandering garbage with ill-conceived hand-waving to take the place of any sort of coherent argument structure. This was two years ago, I don't think Kennedy is going to significantly change his tune. Like I said, let Kennedy try to make a meal of his own tripe. I want RBG to ignore it and write the concurrence that clearly expresses the EPC grounds to an individual right to marry. She won't gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Well, on the ACA I guessed the ruling right, but got the author and reasoning wrong. Where was the handwringing over state sovereignty, Kennedy? Making me look bad, here. Betting Kennedy over Roberts as authoring King was a sucker bet, for real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
There should be a national Federal ID that's free and mailed to you; they should similar to how it's done in Quebec, simply set up photobooths during Highschool once or twice a year, take your picture and present you your ID then and then offer the service again in College in case you lose it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:When does the mandatory gay marriage decision get announced? Today or Monday. There's only 5 cases left, it should only take these 2 days
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There should be a national Federal ID that's free and mailed to you; they should similar to how it's done in Quebec, simply set up photobooths during Highschool once or twice a year, take your picture and present you your ID then and then offer the service again in College in case you lose it. Mark of the beast!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There should be a national Federal ID that's free and mailed to you; they should similar to how it's done in Quebec, simply set up photobooths during Highschool once or twice a year, take your picture and present you your ID then and then offer the service again in College in case you lose it. I'm tired of you drat satanists who don't realize that a national ID is the mark of the beast and will be used to track our activities and cull the herd when Obama ascends to his fiery throne beside the Whore of Babylon. For whatever reason there's a large enough contingent who is strongly enough against this, it's unlikely to ever happen. Large swaths of Texas, the GOP controlled Midwest and the Rust Belt wouldn't accept the national ID for voting anyway. Or any student IDs. Your conceal and carry permit will be just fine though-after all the ammo box and ballot box are closely tied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Who is "Lyle" that Amy Howe is always waiting for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
alnilam posted:Who is "Lyle" that Amy Howe is always waiting for? Their runner, he is there to get the opinions and run it to Amy
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:32
|
|