How does the For the People Act differ from the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

[pecksniff]

That is, what objections apply to it that would not apply to the 1965 bill?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Both require you to get off the couch in order to mail your ballot or go to a polling station. Jim Fucking Crow lives on man.

 

[pecksniff]

Both require you to get off the couch in order to mail your ballot or go to a polling station. Jim Fucking Crow lives on man.

Someday, I suppose, we'll be voting online.

 

[pecksniff]

But, seriously, both involve federal intervention to correct certain abuses in an election system that essentially remains run at the state and county level. And we've long since learned to accept the VRA. So why is the FTPA so objectionable?

 

[YDB95]

But, seriously, both involve federal intervention to correct certain abuses in an election system that essentially remains run at the state and county level. And we've long since learned to accept the VRA. So why is the FTPA so objectionable?

You've answered your own question: because it involves federal intervention to correct certain abuses in an election system that essentially remains run at the state and county level. We know what the right thinks of that.

 

[pecksniff]

You've answered your own question: because it involves federal intervention to correct certain abuses in an election system that essentially remains run at the state and county level. We know what the right thinks of that.

But, the right has managed to accept the VRA . . . for the most part . . . at least, I know of nobody recently raising any objections to it.

 

[Cubantripod]

The Supremes didn't kill the Civil Rights Act of 1965. They merely said, you're coming to us with 40 year old data. Come back when you have new data to show why we need to keep doing this.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Supremes didn't kill the Civil Rights Act of 1965. They merely said, you're coming to us with 40 year old data. Come back when you have new data to show why we need to keep doing this.

That's the reasoning they gave. Anybody with a lick of sense immediately realized this was a flimsy cover story to justify conservative justices legislating from the bench.

 

[pecksniff]

The Supremes didn't kill the Civil Rights Act of 1965. They merely said, you're coming to us with 40 year old data. Come back when you have new data to show why we need to keep doing this.

Well, you can't raise that objection to the FTPA.

 

[YDB95]

The Supremes didn't kill the Civil Rights Act of 1965. They merely said, you're coming to us with 40 year old data. Come back when you have new data to show why we need to keep doing this.

And they got that data immediately afterward, as anyone could have seen coming.