HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Race & Ethnicity » African American (Group) » Only thing I care about t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:06 PM

Only thing I care about today is the Voting Rights Act

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/us-usa-court-voting-argument-idUSBRE91Q0VM20130227

Figured I would post this here so we can hash this out as things procede . . .


Conservatives on Supreme Court cast doubt on voting law


Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote on racial issues, at one point during the argument said "times change" when it comes to weighing whether the nine states in question should be treated differently from other states.

This appeared to be a view shared by other justices on the conservative wing of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

At one point, the chief justice asked the Obama administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, if it was the government's position that "citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North." Verrilli said that was not the government's position.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the other conservatives, said that the court should be skeptical of Congress' decision to reauthorize the law in 2006 because it would be politically damaging for politicians to vote against it.



Honestly - I just hate them. I know it doesn't matter to them - but maybe they 'feel it'. Maybe if enough folks hate them for hating us FIRST - they'll start to feel it in the place where they should have souls.


Here we go . . . Trying to re-litigate if black Americans are 'entire' people and 'real' Americans.

12 replies, 1569 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Only thing I care about today is the Voting Rights Act (Original post)
JustAnotherGen Feb 2013 OP
alsame Feb 2013 #1
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #3
JustAnotherGen Feb 2013 #4
MADem Feb 2013 #8
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #10
noiretextatique Jun 2013 #12
unblock Feb 2013 #2
Number23 Feb 2013 #5
SemperEadem Feb 2013 #6
kwassa Feb 2013 #7
Number23 Feb 2013 #9
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #11

Response to JustAnotherGen (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:13 PM

1. Kennedy is right. Those nine states

should not be singled out anymore. Based on what we saw in PA, OH and other states in 2012, times do indeed change and the VRA should be expanded to all 50 states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:41 PM

3. Bingo

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:09 PM

4. I think Section 5

Has more than JUST those nine states. If you take a deeper dive - there are Counties within states (outside of those nine) that have restrictions as well as Cities within Counties. The Bronx is on that list. I have it at home.


It 'details' these 9 states in the case but has a far reaching impact on the entire country just focusing on the 9.




ETA - Justice Department Civil Rights Section has a complete list - It's Bronx County
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:26 AM

8. Yes. What you said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:30 PM

10. I get your point; but ...

the VRA nDOES apply to all 50 states ... and if A, OH and FL keep it up, they could very well find themselves added to the list of states that must seek the Pre-clearance part, that is what is being litigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:34 PM

12. actually ginsburg is right

read the mother jones article about the majority's reasoning in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

2. clever -- roberts asked verrilli if "*citizens* in the south are more racist..."

i don't imagine he also asked him if *legislatures* *and *election officials* in the south had a demonstrated history of greater racism....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:14 PM

5. Scalia is actually PERTURBED that the damn thing even still exists

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.

The Reagan-appointed jurist said lawmakers keep reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act out of fear of political repercussions. In a sarcastic tone, he described it as odd that congressional renewal has passed with growing margins over the years in spite of the fact that racism is widely acknowledged to have become less severe in the covered jurisdictions since 1965.


Shocking! It can't be that because of the very type of legislation he's whining about, racism and other ills are actually becoming LESSENED??!

What. An. Asshole.

Whoops! Forgot the link http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/scalia-attacks-congress-for-renewing-voting-rights-act.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:31 PM

6. once again, Thomas ain't got shit to say

he'd be fine with black Americans not having the protection of that law. He actually thinks he's different and this shit would never reach high enough to touch him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:01 PM

7. This case will be very revealing about the racial beliefs of each Justice.

some of which has come up today already in the discussions.

Scalia is a travesty, I'm not sure several others are not far behind.

I wonder if Clarence Thomas even has a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Number23 (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:26 AM

11. That's why

Lewis has to write the legislation. It doesn't have to pass - but he's got to be the voice and face on this.

He has credibility. He paid his dues to be the 'expert on the issue' with a cracked head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread