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

[KingOrfeo]

Firstly.. the original Act of '64 was pushed through by Republicans.. and opposed by Democrats. It's a historical fact.

It is a historical fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. It is also a historical fact that the legislation was initiated by LBJ. It is also a historical fact that Senate Dems voted for it 73% to 27%, House Dems 78/22.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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?

Of course they were meant to be in place forever.

 

[Busybody]

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

 

[mercury14]

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.

It doesn't matter. People can be responsible for their entire lives but when it comes to saving for maybe 30 years of post-retirement medical bills which happen to be the sickest 30 years of one's life, no amount of savings is enough. You might die young or swiftly but responsible saving requires preparing for the worst and you can't do that.

 

[julybaby04]

Of course they were meant to be in place forever.

...incorrect...

How has Social Security expanded?
Initially, the SSA was charged with providing benefits only to retirees and some unemployed people.

The benefits for retirees was not supposed to be permanent. It was to be a temporary "relief" program that would eventually disappear as more people were able to obtain retirement income. And there were limits on the unemployed. Job categories not covered by the initial act included workers in agriculture, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43840296

 

[julybaby04]

It doesn't matter. People can be responsible for their entire lives but when it comes to saving for maybe 30 years of post-retirement medical bills which happen to be the sickest 30 years of one's life, no amount of savings is enough. You might die young or swiftly but responsible saving requires preparing for the worst and you can't do that.

...of course you would see it that way.


Many do it every day!!!

 

[Busybody]

It doesn't matter. People can be responsible for their entire lives but when it comes to saving for maybe 30 years of post-retirement medical bills which happen to be the sickest 30 years of one's life, no amount of savings is enough. You might die young or swiftly but responsible saving requires preparing for the worst and you can't do that.

no response?

DIDNT THINK YOU WOULD

two more posts by you with NO response

IGGY

 

[IrezumiKiss]

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?

Oh mai gah.

It must be idyllic to be white and so totally clueless about the way this country has developed.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So do something about it.

A New Strategy for Voting Rights
Activists are already moving ‘from outrage to action’ in fighting the Supreme Court’s awful VRA decision.

Ari Berman

July 2, 2013 | This article appeared in the July 22-29, 2013 edition of The Nation.

Hank Sanders grew up in segregated, rural southern Alabama and in 1971 moved to Selma—the birthplace of the Voting Rights Act. Before the VRA, only 393 of the 15,000 black voting-age residents in Dallas County, where Selma is located, were registered to vote. Less than a year later, after federal registrars arrived in August 1965, more than 10,000 black voters had been added to the rolls. Sanders experienced firsthand how the VRA transformed Selma and the rest of the country. In 1983, he became the first African-American state senator from the Alabama Black Belt since Reconstruction, representing a new majority-black district created by the VRA.

Thirty years later, Sanders watched in disbelief this June as the Supreme Court overturned the centerpiece of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder. “It’s the most destructive Supreme Court decision in my lifetime,” Sanders said. “It reverses the very foundation of all the progress that we have made.” Reactions in Selma, he said, “ranged from shock to resignation.”

The Court’s conservative majority struck down Section 4 of the law, which determines how states are covered under Section 5—the vital provision that requires states with the worst history of racial discrimination in voting, dating back to the 1960s and ’70s, to clear electoral changes with the federal government. Without Section 4, there’s no Section 5. The most effective provision of the country’s most important civil rights law is now a ghost unless Congress resurrects it.

“We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent on the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet that reasoning didn’t stop Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts from gutting the VRA, which has been overwhelmingly reauthorized four times by Congress (1970, 1975, 1982, 2006) and signed by four Republican presidents (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush). “The Voting Rights Act became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her fiery dissent.

The Roberts majority struck down Section 4 for violating the “‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among the States,” an argument with roots in Southern segregationist opposition to Reconstruction. (In a biting rebuke, Judge Richard Posner, the pre-eminent legal theorist at the University of Chicago, wrote that “there is no such principle” of constitutional law and that “the opinion rests on air.”) The Roberts decision ignored 250 years of slavery in America, nearly 100 years of Jim Crow and fifty years of persistent attempts to subvert the VRA. The Justice Department blocked 1,116 discriminatory voting changes from taking effect under Section 5 from 1965 to 2004 and objected to thirty-seven electoral proposals after Congress reauthorized the law in 2006. “The Supreme Court didn’t recognize the degree to which voter suppression is still a problem around the country,” President Obama, visiting Senegal, said following the decision.

Freed from Section 5, the states of the Old Confederacy will dust off the pre-1965 playbook, passing onerous new voting restrictions that can be challenged only through a preliminary injunction or after years of lengthy litigation, often in hostile Southern courts, with the burden of proof now on those facing discrimination rather than on those who discriminate. “Without Section 5, all kinds of things will be passed to limit the right to vote,” says Sanders. “I can’t anticipate all the creativity we will run into.” Immediately after the decision, five Southern states—Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—rushed to implement new voter-ID laws that disproportionately affect young and minority voters. Voting changes found to be discriminatory by a federal court last year—like the Texas voter-ID law—will go into effect. (“Eric Holder can no longer deny #VoterID in #Texas,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott tweeted the morning of the decision.) Beyond voter ID, states like North Carolina are close to drastically cutting early voting and eliminating same-day registration. According to the Advancement Project, a Washington civil rights organization, “Eleven out of the 15 states covered by Section 5 enacted, or are pursuing, restrictive voting laws this year.”

Judith Browne-Dianis, Advancement Project co-director, says voting rights groups have developed a four-pronged strategy to counteract the decision: challenge new voting restrictions through preliminary injunctions and Section 2 of the VRA (which applies nationwide, but puts the onus on plaintiffs to prove that a law is discriminatory after enactment); pressure Congress to reconstruct the VRA; draft a new coverage formula for Section 4; and mobilize indignant voters to make their voices heard, starting with the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington on August 28. “All of those pieces have to happen at the same time,” she says.

On the night of the decision, the NAACP held a conference call with its 1,200 local chapters to prepare them for the tough fight ahead. A few days later, 18,000 people joined a conference call with a broad array of democratic reform and civil rights groups to discuss the post–Shelby County strategy. “We’ve got to move from outrage to action,” says Jotaka Eaddy, senior director of voting rights at the NAACP. “It’s important that people know there’s an attack on voting rights. It’s even more important that people know they can do something about it.”

The thorniest issue is what a revised Section 4 should look like, which Spencer Overton, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, calls a “political Rubik’s Cube.” A consensus has not yet emerged. Overton believes the best fix is to cover states based on recent Section 2 and Section 5 violations in the past two to five years, and to more easily “bail in” states with bad records under Section 3 of the VRA. “We certainly want this to be appropriately tailored, recognizing that it will be challenged in the future,” Overton says. He also thinks Congress should make jurisdictions disclose voting changes online to show they’re not discriminatory and bolster the ability of voting rights groups and the Justice Department to win preliminary injunctions.

It remains to be seen whether a Congress that can scarcely do more than name post offices is capable of rewriting the country’s most important civil rights law. The chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary committees have pledged to hold hearings soon, and prominent Republicans like James Sensenbrenner, Eric Cantor and Chuck Grassley have expressed openness to a legislative fix. The GOP caucus is whiter, more conservative and more Southern than it was during the last reauthorization, although opposition to a new VRA could prove disastrous for a party now embarking, at least rhetorically, on a well-publicized “rebranding.” Nancy Pelosi has suggested a name for the new law, after the man who nearly died marching in Selma for voting rights: the John Lewis Voting Rights Act [see Berman, “John Lewis’s Long Fight for Voting Rights,” June 24/July 1].

The VRA decision could produce a significant backlash among minority voters, just as the voter suppression attempts of 2012 spurred black turnout, which surpassed white turnout for the first time in US history. In much the same way that the VRA’s passage in 1965 spurred counter-mobilization drives by the likes of George Wallace, which registered hundreds of thousands of conservative white voters in the 1960s, so too could the loss of Section 5 motivate a new wave of minority voting activism. “The election of 2012 put voting rights back on the map, because people saw the extent to which politicians would go to suppress the vote,” says Browne-Dianis. “This decision is going to take it to the next level. People now get that it’s not only these state legislatures, but it’s the courts that are rolling back voting rights. Many people feel like, ‘It’s not going to happen on our watch.’”

 

[KingOrfeo]

So do something about it.

SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision Means We Need 'Right to Vote' Amendment

John Nichols on June 25, 2013 - 11:13 AM ET

What the US Supreme Court has done, with its decision to strike down essential elements of the Voting Rights Act, is wrong.

But the Court has not gone so rogue as might immediately seem to be the case in a nation that our civics teachers tell us is committed to democratic values.

Rather, the Court’s conservative majority has taken advantage of a gap in the Constitution that must be addressed.

The Court’s 5-4 ruling invalidated the formula used to determine which states come under the requirement that changes to voting laws, procedures and polling place locations in all or part of fifteen targeted states be approved in advance by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges. The ruling says that Congress went too far in seeking to prevent racial discrimination in voting when it reauthorized the historic act in 2006, with votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

It fell to Congressman John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat who came to national prominence as a civil right movement campaigner for voting rights to say it: "Today, the Supreme Court stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shares that viiew. The justice, in a scathing dissent, wrote, “After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’s decision.”

Lewis and Ginsburg are right. As Brennan Center for Justice president Michael Waldman argues: “The Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with recent history. The Voting Rights Act was vital in 2012, not just 1965. For nearly five decades, it has been the nation’s most effective tool to eradicate racial discrimination in voting. And it is still critical today."

Congress can and should come back at the issue, following the counsel of groups such as the Brennan Center, which argues that, because the court rejected the part of the law (Section 4) that determines which jurisdictions are covered by the most vital component of the law for addressing the threat of discrimination (Section 5), "Section 5 stands. Congress now has the duty to upgrade this key protection and ensure our elections remain free, fair, and accessible for all Americans.”

There is more that citizens, state legislators and responsible members of the House and Senate can do to ramp up pressure on Congress and the courts.

The Court’s ruling emphasizes a little-noted reality: that the United States does not, in the most fundamental sense, protect the right to vote.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been making this point for years. He emphasized during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, in May unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

“The right to vote is too important to be left unprotected,” explained Pocan, who announced the initiative at the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, where the Republican legislators were rushing to enact restrictive “voter ID” legislation before the 2014 election. “At a time when there are far too many efforts to disenfranchise Americans, a voting rights amendment would positively affirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates. As the world’s leading democracy, we must demand of ourselves what we demand of others—a guaranteed right to vote for all.”

Without that clear guarantee, argues Ellison, politicians continue to propose and enact legislation that impedes voting rights. Noting recent wrangling over voter identification laws, burdensome registration requirements and reduced early voting opportunities in various states, as well as the challenge to the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court embraced, the Minnesota Democrat, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says, “Even though the right to vote is the most-mentioned right in the Constitution, legislatures across the country have been trying to deny that right to millions of Americans, including in my home state of Minnesota. It’s time we made it clear once and for all: every citizen in the United States has a fundamental right to vote.”

If approved by the Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would add to the founding document this declaration:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

There is nothing radical about that language. It outlines a basic premise of the American experiment, and a concept that the United States has proudly exported. Indeed, when the United States has had a hand in shaping the destinies of other lands, as well as international agreements, the primacy of the right to vote has been well understood and explicitly stated.

The constitution of Iraq guarantees that “Iraqi citizens, men and women, shall have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, elect, and run for office.”

In Afghanistan, the constitution provides every citizen with “the right to elect and be elected.”

The German constitution crafted in the aftermath of World War II declared that every adult “shall be entitled to vote.”

In Japan, the constitution announced, “Universal adult suffrage is guaranteed.”

And, of course, when former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the commission that outlined a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document declared:

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Americans have considered right-to-vote amendments in the past. But the frequency with which contentious debates are erupting nationwide—just this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than eighty bills to restrict voting have been introduced in more than thirty states—has already inspired significant activism on behalf of constitutional reform.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

There is no question that it will be challenging to enact a right-to-vote amendment. But it is necessary. And the movement to amend the Constitution, if it is broad and vigorous, will create space for more immediate action at the congressional and state levels to address the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy,” says FairVote executive director Rob Richie. “Adding an affirmative right to vote to the US Constitution is the best way to guarantee that the government, whether at the federal, state, or local level, cannot infringe upon our individual right to vote. Building support for this amendment offers an opportunity to inspire a twenty-first-century suffrage movement where Americans come together to protect voting rights, promote voter participation and debate suffrage expansion.”

 

[Busybody]

QUEER ORAFARCE,

Iggy for his BULLSHIT

The NATION

long SEE n PEE

 

[Busybody]

QUEER ORAFARCE and NIGGERZUMI.....2 assholes

Soon to be joined by CURRY, cause HE will NOT answer questions


IrezumiKiss
This message is hidden because IrezumiKiss is on your ignore list.

View Post Old Today, 04:24 PM
Remove user from ignore listKingOrfeo
This message is hidden because KingOrfeo is on your ignore list.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*looks above, sniffs air*

Ahhhhh....Racist Shitstain Fourth Of Julys! Gotta love 'em!

 

[KingOrfeo]

...incorrect...

How has Social Security expanded?
Initially, the SSA was charged with providing benefits only to retirees and some unemployed people.

The benefits for retirees was not supposed to be permanent. It was to be a temporary "relief" program that would eventually disappear as more people were able to obtain retirement income. And there were limits on the unemployed. Job categories not covered by the initial act included workers in agriculture, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43840296

Nothing in that link suggests SS was not intended to be permanent.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh mai gah.

It must be idyllic to be white and so totally clueless about the way this country has developed.

I know right? This is from someone who basically said honest people don't need rules in order to be honest. I'd try to explain to her that the differences between basketball, hockey, soccer, and polo effectively come down to "rules" and not the honesty or dishonesty of the players but I she's clearly too poor to know what polo is, to whtie to know basketball, to American to know soccer and I honestly don't understand hockey that well. I think it's like soccer with sticks or polo without horses.

Nothing in that link suggests SS was not intended to be permanent.

There is one little blurb that suggested that as people returned to "normalcy" and were able to get retirement funds that it would end. But without unions and other issues pensions have become exceedingly rare so that's a moot point anyway.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

Your last assumption is a natural but erroneous one and is probably the most common reason so many people are misunderstanding the Court's ruling.

Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting with this simple declaration:

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Sec. 3 of the Act is the primary enforcement provision of the law. I have previously misstated that Sec. 2 was the primary enforcement mechanism when, in fact, it was Sec. 3, as well as Sections 6 through 10. My apologies to all.

Sec. 3 presumes that enforcement will be initiated by the Attorney General of the United States filing suit in federal court against the state or political subdivision allegedly committing the discriminatory act. Sec. 3 also authorizes the AG to appoint federal examiners to assist in enforcement of the law.

Neither Sec. 3 nor the enforcement authority granted in the remainder of the Act's sections contain anything that could reasonably be viewed as constitutionally suspect or controversial. It's pretty standard stuff.

The two notable exceptions, however, are Sections 4 and 5.

These two sections address the most blatant offenders of voting rights. Evidence of such incontrovertible malicious intent is established by the "formula" in Sec. 4 which notes the existence of any registration or voting "test or device" (a literacy or educational test or voucher as to good moral character) AND in which, according to the Census Director's determination, less than half the voting-age minority residents were registered or voted in the 1964 presidential election.

When these two conditions were established in any State or political subdivision, the enforcement provision in Sec. 5 was thus triggered. States found to be covered by the Sec. 4 formula were then required by Sec. 5 to submit any proposed statutory changes to their voting laws (including mandatory redistricting) to the U. S. Attorney General for "preclearance" prior to state enactment.

It was this unprecedented pre-approval of a sovereign State's legislative action that was constitutionally suspect.

The first legal challenge to the VRA which reached the Supreme Court was the case of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966). South Carolina had been found as being being "covered" by both the Sec. 4 formula and the Sec. 5 preclearance requirement. In upholding the constitutionality of the VRA, the Court nonetheless acknowledged the frailty of its constitutional rationale:

The Act suspends new voting regulations pending scrutiny by federal authorities to determine whether their use would violate the Fifteenth Amendment. This may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power, as South Carolina contends, but the Court has recognized that exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.

In much the same way that "exceptional conditions" might justify the "not otherwise appropriate" invocation of martial law or the suspension of the right of habeas corpus, so to did Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA pass Constitutional muster.

It should go without saying, however, that should the exceptional conditions cease, the continuance of "not otherwise appropriate" measures is no longer justified.

There could hardly be a better example of injustice (save the discrimination on the basis of race itself) than the unchanged formula of Sec. 4 despite literacy tests and poll taxes having been outlawed for decades and the voting participation rates of minorities eventually being well above those targeted by Sec. 4.

If the conditions targeted in Sec. 4 were no longer in either existence or evidence, how could the various states' subjection to the "not otherwise appropriate" Sec. 5 preclearance mandate be lawful under the Constitution? It can't and it wasn't. But given the possibility that "exceptional conditions" might some day reoccur, the Court overturned the Sec. 4 formula rather than the Sec. 5 remedy.

Obviously if the offensive "tests and devices" were thrown out in the 1970s and the voting participation percentages improved concurrently or shortly thereafter, the illegal burden of States "covered" by Sections 4 and 5 has existed for some time. The law quite often moves painfully slow in these matters as people of color can themselves testify.

But as recently as 2009 in the case of Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. v. Holder, the Court indicated this day was coming:

The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold § 5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer exists. Covered jurisdictions are not now engaged in a systematic campaign to deny black citizens access to the ballot through intimidation and violence. And the days of "grandfather clauses, property qualifications, `good character' tests, and the requirement that registrants `understand' or `interpret' certain matter" are gone. There is thus currently no concerted effort in these jurisdictions to engage in the "unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution," that served as the constitutional basis for upholding the "uncommon exercise of congressional power" embodied in § 5.

This is not to say that voter discrimination is extinct. Indeed, the District Court singled out a handful of examples of allegedly discriminatory voting practices from the record made by Congress. But the existence of discrete and isolated incidents of interference with the right to vote has never been sufficient justification for the imposition of § 5's extraordinary requirements. From its inception, the statute was promoted as a measure needed to neutralize a coordinated and unrelenting campaign to deny an entire race access to the ballot. Perfect compliance with the Fifteenth Amendment's substantive command is not now—nor has it ever been—the yardstick for determining whether Congress has the power to employ broad prophylactic legislation to enforce that Amendment. The burden remains with Congress to prove that the extreme circumstances warranting § 5's enactment persist today. A record of scattered infringement of the right to vote is not a constitutionally acceptable substitute.

So why didn't the Court declare the offensive sections of the VRA unconstitutional in Northwest Austin? Because the plaintiff was merely a small utility district with an elected board seeking relief from Sec. 5 through the VRA's "bailout" provision (which the Court granted) and was not challenging the Act's basic constitutionality. The Court, in turn, was self-limited to its traditional role of only granting or denying the specific relief sought by petitioners.

There is one more issue relevant to this topic that I may yet post on. As I recently discovered to my own surprise, political gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering are handle quite differently under the law. Racial gerrymandering is prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Political gerrymandering is legal. If the State's goal is otherwise constitutional political gerrymandering, it is free to use political data such as precinct voting patterns to achieve that goal regardless of its awareness of its racial implications.

The Supreme Court upheld that principle in the 1996 case of Bush v. Vera. Interested parties may wish to Google the case and read it in its entirety, but staunch liberals with easily inflamed stomach ulcers are herewith forwarned: You are not going to like it even a little bit.

And they will like the following even less.

Finally, I was even more surprised to find in my recent research that while the Supreme Court was upholding the constitutionality of the VRA through a line of cases dating back to the Act's passage, they were also (and roughly concurrently) DENYING many of the States' attempts to comply with the Department of Justice's suggestions and directives under preclearance on the grounds that those statutory attempts at compliance violated the very racial gerrymandering which the 14th Amendment prohibits. I found at least seven cases which invoked this ruling. Let me know if anyone wants "to go there."

And the beat goes on.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . and I honestly don't understand hockey that well. I think it's like soccer with sticks or polo without horses.

I think it's more like fighting on ice skates.

 

[Busybody]

And the beat goes on.

can you tell us in 5 words?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I respectfully disagree that they came to the wrong conclusion.

The whole episode is a masterful piece of long-term Conservative gamesmanship. Let me explain.

The VRA had three important safeguards:

1. It needed to be renewed every x number of years
2. The formula to determine which areas were discrimatory could be adjusted.
3. States could be excused from pre-clearance by demonstrating good faith efforts to comply.

Obviously, the latter was not going to apply because conservatives have a vested interest in suppressing minority votes.

Also, they couldn't vote to NOT renew it because it was politically toxic.

That left item number 2 as the only means to attack.

Democrats attempted to adjust the underlying formula to account for changes, but Republicans voted down these changes. This left the 1965 formula intact, which turned out to be a masterstroke.

The activists on the Supreme Court legislated from the bench and decided that, renewable act or not, the underlying formula was no longer relevant and therefore unconsitutional.

Bottom Line: it is now open season on minority voters.

How do you think Democrats could have changed the Sec. 4 formula in order to present a case of such rampant and intentional discrimination so as to justify the "not otherwise appropriate" remedy of preclearance mandated by Sec. 5?

What is your argument for continuing to apply the preclearance mandate to state's whose minority voter participation rates now match or exceed those states who were held to a far less intrusive enforcement procedure under the Voting Rights Act as originally enacted?

Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA were reserved for the most vile abusers of minority rights. These were states and communities which would not allow their minority citizens to play on segregated sports teams much less allow them to vote in large numbers.

These cities and states have since joined the ranks of comparatively civilized society that the standard enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act (other than Sections 4 and 5) were meant to apply.

Representations to the contrary are obvious lies spun for obviously partisan purposes.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

can you tell us in 5 words?

Nope, but thanks for asking. (Hey, that was five!)

 

[Busybody]

Nope, but thanks for asking. (Hey, that was five!)

 

[IrezumiKiss]

^^^

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdns33XjG31qgfax7.gif

 

[Busybody]

Nope, but thanks for asking. (Hey, that was five!)

Nein, 9

 

[julybaby04]

Nothing in that link suggests SS was not intended to be permanent.

Published: Thursday, 25 Aug 2011 | 3:08 PM ET
By: Mark Koba | Senior Editor, CNBC

Twitter

LinkedIn
Share
Born out of the Great Depression, Social Security is a\) a socialist-styled government giveaway costing billions, or b\) a well-thought-out retirement plan for aging citizens, paid mostly with their contributions.


Either way, the program has been a source of controversy since the beginning.

But what is the truth behind Social Security? What was it meant to do and how has it changed over the years? CNBC explains.

What is Social Security?

Social Security is a mandatory retirement system established in 1935 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. It is run by the Social Security Administration, or SSA, based in Woodlawn, Maryland, just outside Baltimore.

The agency includes 10 regional offices, eight processing centers, some 1,300 field offices, and 37 Teleservice Centers. About 62,000 people work for the SSA.

The Social Security Act—as it is formally known—was created out of the devastating effects from the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings disappeared and the elderly were often left without a source of income.

The SSA provides benefits to retirees and disabled workers.

It is a “pay-as-you-go” program in which current workers fund benefits for current retirees and disabled Americans. In most cases, a worker must have 10 years of covered employment to be eligible for retirement benefits.

In 2011, there are an estimated 56 million people receiving Social Security benefitsand 158 million workers paying into the system.

The act has expanded over the years, as we'll see later. It also gives money to states to provide assistance to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Maternal and Child Welfare, public health services, and the blind.

How is Social Security funded?

Workers and employers pay for Social Security—in fact, both are required to pay Social Security taxes.

In 1935, the amount employers and workers paid was a combined 2 percent payroll tax on the first $3,000 of a worker's income.

As of 2011, workers paid 6.2 percent of their earnings into Social Security—up to an income of $106,800 a year. After workers hit that income level, taxes are no longer deducted.

Employers pay a matching amount, for a combined contribution of 12.4 percent of earnings.

Self-employed persons have to pay both the employee and employer share—for a total 12.4 percent.

Another source of funds comes from higher-income Social Security beneficiaries, who pay federal income taxes on their benefit income.

One important note: Social Security is not technically part of the federal budget. It never has been. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson included Social Security for the first time in a "unified federal budget" as part of an effort to end confusion over budgetary procedures.

It was taken 'off budget' by 1986—meaning its balance sheet is not technically part of the overall federal budget.

However, those involved in federal budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with it included.

How are benefits calculated?

This is not the easiest of math problems to solve, as even the SSA admits.

Social Security benefits are based on a worker's lifetime earnings. Out of entire earnings from age 22 to 62, the highest 35 years of indexed earnings are used in the computation.

Actual earnings are adjusted or "indexed" to account for changes in wages since the first year of work.

The purpose for indexing earnings is to make sure benefits reflect the rise in the standard of living that took place during a worker's lifetime. Benefit increases are based on annual cost of living allowances—what's referred to as a COLA.

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,177 at the beginning of 2011, according to the SSA.

The SSA had send out by mail twice a year estimated benefits recipients would get. However, in a recent cost cutting move, that mailing has stopped.

The SSA has an online benefit calculator.

Are Social Security benefits taxed?

Yes. Until 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxes. But in 1983, Congress made up to 50% of Social Security benefits taxable for higher-income beneficiaries; and in 1993, up to 85% was made taxable.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 40% of beneficiaries are impacted by the tax.

But the taxes collected are credited to the Social Security Trust Funds and the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and not used for the Federal budget.

What is the Social Security Trust Fund?

Actually, there are twotrust funds to handle surpluses in the program. Both were started in 1939.

The Social Security Trust Funds are: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury.

They serve two purposes: they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and out of the trust funds—and most importantly, they hold the accumulated assets.

Social Security surpluses are, by law, invested in U.S. Treasury securities. When payroll taxes exceed benefits in a particular year, the surpluses are used to buy securities which are held by the Trust Funds.

The Trust Funds earn interest, which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $2.6 trillion by 2010.

So far, there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take in enough FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits.During that time, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference.

Social Security’s costs will grow in coming years as the large Baby Boom generation— those born between 1946 and 1964—move into their retirement years. The trust funds would then be exhausted by 2037 without changes to the system.

What age do you have to be to collect Social Security?
The first checks went to those who reached age 65, though early retirement at 62 would bring limited benefits, with a permanent reduction to 80 percent of the full benefit amount.

But the age has increased. In 2010, the full benefit age became 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

Early retirement benefits will continue to be available at age 62, but they will be reduced more.

When the full-benefit age reaches 67, benefits taken at age 62 will be reduced to 70 percent of the full benefit and benefits first taken at age 65 will be reduced to 86.7 percent of the full benefit.

What are the origins of Social Security in the U.S.?
The U.S. created several pension plans for soldiers and sailors through its early history. But fast forward to the Civil War, and we find the first true government relief program that could be called a social security system, according to the SSA.

The Civil War Pension Program was signed into law in 1862 and provided funds to U.S. soldiers who were disabled in battle. Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to what would have been paid to a surviving veteran.

By 1890, the law changed so that any disability—from battle or not—would qualify a vet for funds. In 1906, old age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. One note: pensioners did not have to pay into the system to receive funds.

Leaping into the 20th century and again to the Great Depression, we come to Social Security's true start. What's interesting to note is that several states at that time, such as New York and Massachusetts, passed limited pension plans for the elderly before the federal government did.

In June 1934, FDR announced his intention to provide a social security program. He created the Committee on Economic Security to come up with the exact plans for the system.

FDR submitted a bill with the recommendations, and it eventually passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law on Aug. 14, 1935.

How has Social Security expanded?
Initially, the SSA was charged with providing benefits only to retirees and some unemployed people.

The benefits for retirees was not supposed to be permanent. It was to be a temporary "relief" program that would eventually disappear as more people were able to obtain retirement income. And there were limits on the unemployed. Job categories not covered by the initial act included workers in agriculture, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.

A 1939 change in the law added survivors' benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children.

By 1950, Social Security laws expanded coverage to all non-government workers, including the self-employed. It wasn't until 1983 that civilian federal workers—such as the President of the United States—were eligible for Social Security benefits.

Another change to Social Security was the addition of Disability Insurance program in 1956. This provides monthly cash benefits for disabled workers and their dependents who have paid into the system, and met minimum work requirements.

An important note of change involves Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is the nation's health insurance program for people age 65 or older; Medicaid is a health and medical services program for low income individuals and families. Both were established in 1965 under a Social Security reform law.

But they are not a direct part of Social Security. Like Social Security, Medicare is financed by a portion of the payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers. But Medicare is also financed in part by monthly premiums deducted from Social Security checks.

What is the basis of your Social Security number?
Ever wonder why the Social Security numbers are the way they are?The numbers are designed to make sure benefits are accurate.

The first three digits are assigned by the geographical region in which the person was residing at the time they obtained a number.

Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

The remaining six digits in the number are more or less randomly assigned and organized to ease bookkeeping procedures.

And by the way, no serial number 0000 has ever been assigned. Social Security numbers were first issued in November 1936. To date, 453.7 million different numbers have been send out.

When a Social Security card holder dies, that number is not reused.

What is the controversy surrounding Social Security?
Often called the “third rail” of American politics, Social Security has been attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.

Big business opposed Social Security from its beginning because it imposed new taxes, new bookkeeping requirements, and"undermined the absolute dependence of the employees on the company."

Many on the left said it didn't go far enough to help citizens and was discriminatory—nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security at its inception.

There have been calls for many changes over the years: raise the retirement age, reduce benefits, and privatize the SSA by transferring the funds held by the government to Wall Street investment firms.

The impact of Social Security may be underlined by the fact that 8 percent of the elderly receiving Social Security benefits are poor, according to U.S. government standards. Meanwhile, forty-eight percent of Americans would be below the poverty line if they didn't receive a monthly Social Security check, according to government statistics.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So do something about it.

A New Strategy for Voting Rights
Activists are already moving ‘from outrage to action’ in fighting the Supreme Court’s awful VRA decision.

Ari Berman

July 2, 2013 | This article appeared in the July 22-29, 2013 edition of The Nation.

You'll C&P just about any nonsense, huh?

The Roberts majority struck down Section 4 for violating the “‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among the States,” an argument with roots in Southern segregationist opposition to Reconstruction. (In a biting rebuke, Judge Richard Posner, the pre-eminent legal theorist at the University of Chicago, wrote that “there is no such principle” of constitutional law and that “the opinion rests on air.”)

According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2:

"The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."

Presumably, this would include a state's right not to have proposed state statutes pre-approved by the federal government, a premise for which there is most certainly "no such constitutional principle."

The Roberts decision ignored 250 years of slavery in America

Prove it. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920 and were not otherwise enslaved. Apparently the right to vote is not synonymous with the definition of slavery.

The Justice Department blocked 1,116 discriminatory voting changes from taking effect under Section 5 from 1965 to 2004.

Since the Justice Department's decisions under the preclearance mandate were not subject to judicial review, we don't know if the "blocked" voting changes were actually "discriminatory." We can't even assume that the department thought they were discriminatory. We only know that the department didn't like them and exercised its authority.

We also know, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that at least seven suggested JOD amendments to state statutes submitted for preclearance were subsequently found in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

"Freed from Section 5, the states of the Old Confederacy will dust off the pre-1965 playbook, passing onerous new voting restrictions that can be challenged only through a preliminary injunction or after years of lengthy litigation, often in hostile Southern courts,"

AHHHhhhhahahahahaha! Yeah, sure!! I just got a mailing from my old Klavern today. Look's like the gang may be getting back together. I'll have to get a new sheet for my horse!

What? You say that's not funny? You're right, it's not. And neither is that bullshit that would hysterically imply that the darkest days of the South are about to rise again. No white person of any intelligence who currently resides in the South would wish to see the dominance of that venom ever again, and if Hank Sanders doesn't believe that, I feel sorry for his infectious case of racism he has so far been unable to bring into remission.

"with the burden of proof now on those facing discrimination rather than on those who discriminate."

Gee, you mean the way the legal system is supposed to work? Plaintiffs PROVING the crimes of the defendant?

“Without Section 5, all kinds of things will be passed to limit the right to vote,” says Sanders. “I can’t anticipate all the creativity we will run into.” Immediately after the decision, five Southern states—Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—rushed to implement new voter-ID laws that disproportionately affect young and minority voters.

The 2002 federal Help America Vote Act requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Voters who submitted any of these forms of identification during registration are exempt, as are voters entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

It would appear that the principle of proving one's right to vote is not inherently unconstitutional.

Voting changes found to be discriminatory by a federal court last year—like the Texas voter-ID law—will go into effect.

The Texas law was submitted to the Court under the provisions of the Sec. 5 mandate. That decision is not the same procedural due process that will be given to the Texas statute if it is challenged in court on the basis of constitutionality.

(“Eric Holder can no longer deny #VoterID in #Texas,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott tweeted the morning of the decision.)

A fact worthy of celebration irrespective of any other eventual outcomes.

Beyond voter ID, states like North Carolina are close to drastically cutting early voting and eliminating same-day registration. According to the Advancement Project, a Washington civil rights organization, “Eleven out of the 15 states covered by Section 5 enacted, or are pursuing, restrictive voting laws this year.”

None of which are fairly presumed to be illegally discriminatory. But since "fair" is not what you're here for....

Judith Browne-Dianis, Advancement Project co-director, says voting rights groups have developed a four-pronged strategy to counteract the decision: challenge new voting restrictions through preliminary injunctions and Section 2 of the VRA (which applies nationwide, but puts the onus on plaintiffs to prove that a law is discriminatory after enactment);

Gee, I wonder why the original 1965 VRA did that with Sec. 2? Because it is the standard permissible constitutional process?

The thorniest issue is what a revised Section 4 should look like, which Spencer Overton, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, calls a “political Rubik’s Cube.” A consensus has not yet emerged. Overton believes the best fix is to cover states based on recent Section 2 and Section 5 violations in the past two to five years, and to more easily “bail in” states with bad records under Section 3 of the VRA.

Well, of course, it's "thorny." Since the VRA long ago cured the flagrant abuses that inspired its passage, it stands to reason that a revived Sec. 4 and 5 will have to apply to a far less outrageous behavioral standard.

Besides, there is that Sec. 2 "burden of proof" fuck up you have to fix.

Nancy Pelosi has suggested a name for the new law, after the man who nearly died marching in Selma for voting rights: the John Lewis Voting Rights Act [see Berman, “John Lewis’s Long Fight for Voting Rights,”

I suggest it should be called the "Jerry Lewis Voting Rights Act," because the efforts that hyperventilating Democrats will go to in order to find or invent the mere hint of racial discrimination would be comedic if they weren't so pathetically sad.