Poll: Most Americans disapprove of SCOTUS decision on Voting Rights Act

[Busybody]

show us the DEMOZ used

Im sure they were SKEWED, as usual




I'll wait

still waiting

 

[mercury14]

...and sadly the democrats have NEVER been willing to put the needs of their country above their own needs....

.....they just steal the things they want from others who have more!

So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

You're talking silly again.

 

[Busybody]

So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

You're talking silly again.

are you gonna give us the BREAKDOWN on the poll to see if (as Im sure we all know) is skewed?

and

will you acknowledge that question is misleading?

tell us

WE

WILL

W

A

I

T

 

[KingOrfeo]

The court isn't there to do what's right, they're there to do what's legal. I still think they came to the wrong conclusion and maybe I'll read the entire decision. Near as I can tell at present is that the court decided it's not fair toe assume that the south is filled with racists who'll jump at the first opportunity to fuck over minorities. We have to wait until it happens (again) and then bring up the case.

Which to me suggests one of two things, either this was always Unconstitional and they just let it fly for decades or there is nothing wrong (legally) with it and it should have been left alone until/unless Congress.

And C.J. Roberts, BTW, has been fighting the VRA for decades.

Chief Justice Roberts' Long War Against the Voting Rights Act

Roberts has been a critic of the Voting Rights Act for 30 years. Now he will help decide whether the law's most important section lives or dies.

—By Adam Serwer| Wed Feb. 27, 2013 4:01 AM PST

When he was in his late 20s, John Roberts was a foot soldier in the Reagan administration's crusade against the Voting Rights Act. Now, as chief justice of the Supreme Court, he will help determine whether a key part of the law survives a constitutional challenge.

Memos that Roberts wrote as a lawyer in President Reagan's Justice Department during the 1980s show that he was deeply involved in efforts to curtail the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, the hard-won landmark 1965 law that is intended to ensure all Americans can vote. Roberts' anti-VRA efforts during the 1980s ultimately failed. But on Wednesday, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, he'll get another chance to gut the law. Roberts' history suggests a crucial part of the VRA may not survive the rematch.

At issue in Shelby County is whether a major portion of the Voting Rights Act, called Section 5, is constitutional. Section 5 compels jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, to ask the Justice Department for permission—preclearance, in legalese—before making any changes to election laws. Shelby County, Alabama, is arguing that Section 5 is an extreme measure that is no longer justified because racism is no longer the problem it once was. If Section 5 is overturned, voting rights groups say, the federal government's ability to ensure Americans are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race—at a time when race has been used as a proxy for party identification—will be severely weakened.

Shelby County offers Roberts an opportunity to complete a mission he began three decades ago. When the chief justice was a young lawyer, in 1981, Southern legislators hoped an ascendant conservative movement could pressure Reagan into opposing an extension of the VRA. In June of that year, Reagan wrote a letter to Attorney General William French Smith requesting an "assessment" of the law. "I am sensitive to the controversy which has attached itself to some of the Act's provisions, in particular those provisions which impose burdens unequally upon different parts of the nation," Reagan wrote. "But I am sensitive also to the fact that the spirit of the Act marks this nation's commitment to full equality for all Americans, regardless of race, color, or national origin." Reagan didn't go as far as former segregationist and then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) by opposing the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, but his administration fought efforts to strengthen the law.

Roberts was a major player in the Reagan administration's VRA policy, drafting numerous op-eds and memos for top Justice Department officials that argued for a weaker version of the law. At the time, crucial parts of the VRA were due to expire, but congressional Democrats and moderate Republicans weren't just trying to renew the law—they were also trying to strengthen the law. After the VRA was enacted, it was interpreted as barring all discriminatory voting practices. In 1980, however, the Supreme Court, in a case involving the election rules in Mobile, Alabama, weakened the law by ruling that, except in those jurisdictions with a sordid history of blocking minority voters, the VRA only forbade intentional discrimination. Civil rights activists wanted to fix that by modifying the law to make it crystal clear that all discrimination in voting practices, not just intentional discrimination, was illegal.

Roberts wasn't having it. Voting rights violations, according to one memo he helped draft in 1981, "should not be too easy to prove since they provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable." If Roberts and the Reagan administration had gotten their way, discriminatory voting systems in most of the country could only be barred when discrimination could be shown to be intentional. That would make it much tougher for the feds to intervene in states and localities and guarantee equal voting rights. The Reagan administration argued that they were just trying to preserve the Voting Rights Act, but it was really attempting to preserve a Supreme Court ruling neutering the law.

Roberts helped the administration hone its argument. He wrote that it made sense for parts of the VRA to require proof that discrimination was intentional. "Broad aspects of criminal law and tort law typically require proof of intent," Roberts wrote in a draft op-ed in 1981. Allowing the VRA to apply in cases of unintentional discrimination all over the country and not just those places with a history of disenfranchising minorities, Roberts insisted, "would raise grave constitutional questions." In the case of Mobile, the Justice Department's voting rights attorneys eventually did prove the discrimination was intentional—by heading to Alabama and poring over the historical record to establish the election law had been passed deliberately to disenfranchise blacks.

To Roberts, that demonstrated there was no problem with requiring the government to prove that discrimination was intentional. "John Roberts and others used that case to say anyone who wants to prove intent could do it," explains Gerry Hebert, an attorney now with the Campaign Legal Center who was part of the Justice Department team that went to Alabama. But proving intent "took enormous resources that only the Justice Department could have." More important, says Hebert, having to prove "intent" placed voting rights attorneys in a difficult position: "You basically have to get judges to call local or state officials racist."

Despite the best efforts of Roberts and others in the Reagan Justice Department, civil rights activists outmaneuvered Southern conservatives and the Reagan White House, forging large bipartisan alliances in the House and Senate to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 1982. And they strengthened the law, amending it to explicitly ban all discriminatory voting rules across the country, whether the discrimination is intentional or not.

Civil rights leaders and Voting Rights Act supporters in Congress had succeeded by embracing an idea that they had initially opposed—and that Roberts and the Reagan administration supported. It was called the bailout provision, and it provided a way for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to prove they no longer needed close Justice Department supervision under Section 5. By accepting this compromise, VRA backers won the overall political battle.

Now, VRA defenders are hoping that it's Roberts who is in a conciliatory mood and not set on eviscerating the law as the Reaganites wanted to do three decades ago. Is there reason for such hope? Roberts' defenders have long argued that his Justice Department writings merely show that he was being a good soldier when he was in the Reagan administration. "The defense was that Roberts was just a government lawyer taking the position of his boss," explains Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine School of Law who wrote about the memos during Roberts' 2005 confirmation hearings.

But in 2009, when an earlier challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act reached the Supreme Court, Roberts sounded a lot like Reagan during oral arguments. He echoed the late president's view that Section 5 represented an unconscionable punishment for the South's past sins. "Congress can impose this disparate treatment forever because of the history in the South?" Roberts asked the government attorney defending the law.

In his subsequent opinion in the 2009 VRA case, in which the court seemed close to striking down Section 5, Roberts wrote that the government had made the bailout provision "all but a nullity." In the three years since that verdict, however, more than 100 jurisdictions have been allowed to bail out of Section 5—more than twice as many in the nearly three decades before. It's not even that expensive to bail out; the usual cost is $5,000. The reason Shelby County hasn't been able to take advantage of the bailout provision is that in 2006, county election officials redistricted the only black city council member in one of the county's towns out of a job.

Roberts and conservative opponents of a strong Voting Rights Act may have lost in 1982, but in 2012, they're poised for a victory: The Supreme Court appears ready to strike down Section 5. Defending Reagan's support for the bailout provision in 1982, Roberts wrote that bailout rules "should be addressed by Congress, and not pushed into the courts." Roberts was arguing that elected officials, not judges, should make the rules governing when jurisdictions like Shelby County should be able to escape Section 5.

Has he changed his mind?

 

[Busybody]

Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

You're talking silly again.

Link

 

[julybaby04]

So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

You're talking silly again.

Do you really (and I mean not looking through your Obama-colored glasses) think that Social Security and Medicare were meant to be in place forever?

I believe, at some point, those who created and supported it thought these people would be able to stand on their own two feet eventually. Instead, it became a crutch to live off of others.

 

[Busybody]

And C.J. Roberts, BTW, has been fighting the VRA for decades.

stop quoting MUTTER JONES.....no one believe a shit they say
......yes QUEER ORAFARCE, I know Im on iggy.......LOSER

 

[mercury14]

LOL.....funny how those states, Florida and Ohio, in particular are always the states that are the "swing" states.

I would just bet that if left to a free and honest election, that would not be considered "swing" any longer.

Perhaps those states are problems because the Democrats do not have the control they think they have.....and HAVE to cheat to win them.

Here's the thing about the Republican voter suppression stuff. It's going to backfire on the GOP and bite them in the ass big time. It's really pissing off the Black community; this one issue is enough to completely negate any "tent widening" the Republican Party is trying to do after their loss last election. Black voters are just going to be more anti-Republican than ever before.

And after that's said and done Republicans will keep acting like they don't know why black people aren't voting for them.

 

[mercury14]

Link

You want a link showing that voters over 65 vote Republican?

 

[mercury14]

Do you really (and I mean not looking through your Obama-colored glasses) think that Social Security and Medicare were meant to be in place forever?

I believe, at some point, those who created and supported it thought these people would be able to stand on their own two feet eventually. Instead, it became a crutch to live off of others.

Yes they are not only meant to be in place forever, but they were written knowing they'll be more needed than ever as time goes on. I do not think that anyone thought that retired people would eventually start finding jobs and paying for their ever-increasing medical bills without help. Why on earth would you ever think they would?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do you really (and I mean not looking through your Obama-colored glasses) think that Social Security and Medicare were meant to be in place forever?

I believe, at some point, those who created and supported it thought these people would be able to stand on their own two feet eventually. Instead, it became a crutch to live off of others.

No. Those programs were meant to be a permanent part of the country. There was never any intention to get rid of them nore should there have been one. Holy shit would have have been insanity.

 

[Busybody]

I Want Fucking Answers.....

You want a link showing that voters over 65 vote Republican?

is THAT what I asked for......based on what YOU said?


you said, So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

LINK PLEASE

But you knew that!......unless you are a complete FOOL!


I also want answers to THIS

are you gonna give us the BREAKDOWN on the poll to see if (as Im sure we all know) is skewed?

and

will you acknowledge that question is misleading?

tell us

WE

WILL

W

A

I

T

 

[Busybody]

is THAT what I asked for......based on what YOU said?


you said, So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

LINK PLEASE

But you knew that!......unless you are a complete FOOL!


I also want answers to THIS

are you gonna give us the BREAKDOWN on the poll to see if (as Im sure we all know) is skewed?

and

will you acknowledge that question is misleading?

tell us

WE

WILL

W

A

I

T

you wont provide any

WE KNOW WHY

 

[julybaby04]

Here's the thing about the Republican voter suppression stuff. It's going to backfire on the GOP and bite them in the ass big time. It's really pissing off the Black community; this one issue is enough to completely negate any "tent widening" the Republican Party is trying to do after their loss last election. Black voters are just going to be more anti-Republican than ever before.

And after that's said and done Republicans will keep acting like they don't know why black people aren't voting for them.

Why does it automatically have to be "black" people. If voting fraud/repression is going on, would it not be with anyone who is democratic?

Seems to me if the democrats are that concerned about having a legal, honest election.....AND if they are concerned that the black vote is being targeted, then they would be assisting each and every black person in securing a photo ID...NOW, instead of trying to do something 5 days before the election.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Democrats do not want an honest vote/election. They would prefer to cry out as it being unjust rather than help to make it easier on the voters they are trying to help.

Stop the whining about the voting and get an ID. Perhaps those in Ohio, or whatever other state is feeling "persecuted", could have a state sponsored photo ID that is given when people register to vote in the first place. It is only to be used in voting....simple enough.

There is ALWAYS a way if honesty is the goal.

 

[julybaby04]

No. Those programs were meant to be a permanent part of the country. There was never any intention to get rid of them nore should there have been one. Holy shit would have have been insanity.

OH my yes...just insane to ask people to be responsible for themselves!!!


(too young)

 

[mercury14]

you wont provide any

WE KNOW WHY

Democrats haven't won the over-64 vote since Carter.

 

[Busybody]

Democrats haven't won the over-64 vote since Carter.

is that what I asked for?

 

[mercury14]

OH my yes...just insane to ask people to be responsible for themselves!!!


(too young)

Let's assume you're responsible.

You are going to accept Medicare benefits along with the rest of your responsible conservative friends. And unless you die young, you're likely to to get back about three times more than you put in.

OMG WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BE RESPONSIBLE JULY?!?!?

 

[Busybody]

Democrats haven't won the over-64 vote since Carter.

I really DETEST stupidity

You are either stupid, (doubtful)

Or

You are a lying MOTHER FUCKER......Likely

If you don't give me a link and a response on the other questions

IGGY

and this time for a LONG WHILE

it will be YOUR LOSS

 

[Sean Renaud]

OH my yes...just insane to ask people to be responsible for themselves!!!


(too young)

History has shown that people aren't responsible and ultimately shouldn't be trusted to be responsible. Certainly not for things where if they are irresponsible or just plain unlucky it will come back and fuck us all. The risks aren't worth the rewards.

I love that I'm too young, it seems to mean the same thing everywhere. There is something you know but you lack the vocabulary to express it. As a result I'm simply supposed to know it because everybody knows it. That may fly for people who believe in a sky bully who punishes men for being Free but it doesn't set well actual Free men who need information if they are going to change their opinions or behaviors.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The fact that conservatives and others on the right have already pretty much left the Republican party apparently doesn't matter.

Actually, it doesn't matter. The Tea Party is still an internal GOP faction running primary-challenges. The Constitution Party, America First Party, Freedom Party, don't count for shit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

These "people" are just absoulte scum who think they should get exactly their way on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE with ZERO COMPROMISE and ZERO EXCEPTIONS ever.

Actually, that would be the Pubs/conservatives/RWs, if you have been paying any attention at all for the past thirty years.

In a system with proportional representation, that wouldn't be possible. There would need to be some compromises and everybody would get some of what they want. We need PR now more than ever.

Agreed.

BTW, why is there still a "voting rights act" in 2013? Liberals are truly stuck in the 1950s, which is what they always try to insult others over.

And in particular you apparently have not been paying any attention for the past thirteen years.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In which states....EXACTLY....are voters being suppressed?

Texas.
South Carolina.
Florida.
Ohio.

LOL.....funny how those states, Florida and Ohio, in particular are always the states that are the "swing" states.

Exactly. That is why the Pubs take the trouble to cheat and "block the vote" there. Because swing states are the ones where a little cheating can make all the difference.

 

[julybaby04]

Let's assume you're responsible.

You are going to accept Medicare benefits along with the rest of your responsible conservative friends. And unless you die young, you're likely to to get back about three times more than you put in.

OMG WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BE RESPONSIBLE JULY?!?!?

Hmm.....Let's just see here....

I work my whole life since I graduated college.....I have taxes taken out every two weeks or so for SS and Medicare. So, I retire and then would like to use the money that should have been set aside, which I PAID FOR, to be able to help with my bills. Of course, I have also saved money along the way and will live very comfortably with the Social Security being there to give a bit of "extra" during retirement.

Sound a whole lot like being responsible to me.

On the other hand, I could have never tried to improve myself, decided I would free-load off of everyone else, never get a job because I can always get a check from the government for sitting at home....never choose to take on any responsibility for myself and try and give back to my community that is completely supporting me.....

hmmm......sounds a lot like non-responsibility there.

 

[julybaby04]

Exactly. That is why the Pubs take the trouble to cheat and "block the vote" there. Because swing states are the ones where a little cheating can make all the difference.

Like the article I quoted earlier here....from a newspaper in Ohio stating that many of the absentee ballots were disregarded because those people were not actually registered in the state of Ohio (among other things listed).

How about....like I also suggested, when a person registers to vote, they are given a photo ID AT THAT TIME. Not to drive...just to vote. Everyone has to register. Seems simple enough.

No more issues. One person...one vote.