Breaking news: SCOTUS gets rid of federal requirements of the Voting Rights Act

[Slang]

LOL @ voting rights. The only right you have is to breath.

 

[Dr. Acula]

The sad truth of the matter is that constitutionally and historically speaking you can make some argument that selected specific states for more oversight than others is something that can be changed. However, I believe that means that you need to implement this oversight nationally instead of to a few states because there were issues with voting rights in other states with republican legislatures like in Maine and some midwestern states this past election.

They're right, times have changed and the scumbag republicans who like to reduce minority's access to the polls aren't just relegated to the south now. Make sure this doesn't happen ANYWHERE. Make federal oversight national.

Expect on the fly voting law changes to go in effect right before an election now and for it to take months for anyone to challenge them and by then the damage is already done.

The thing is, the supreme court is right in the sense that the data used to justify these actions are outdated and needed to be updated but unfortunately we all know the state of our congress and this will not happen....Sad day brehs. Stay vigilant

 

[Kid McNamara]

Huh? The problem here is ur conflation with race and morality has you curiously siding with the immoral, and showing antagonism to basic moral reasoning. The voting rights act is moral. The activities that have been used to suppress american civil rights for blacks have been immoral, and violently counter what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for. These arent ambiguous concepts --- its right vs. wrong. Clarence thomas has consistently sided with the immoral throughout his judical career --- made more heartbreaking given that the racial group being injured, is the racial category of which he belongs. Thomas is not being called a tom because he doesnt like rap music, or because he doesnt talk in slang, which are reasonable personal choices. Thomas supports the cruelest concept invented in our american social and legislative body --- racism

I get you. I suppose I'm addressing a someone different argument (though, they may be tangentially related), one that inevitably arises any time Clarence Thomas weighs-in with his vote.

Honestly, I'm not even speaking to the issues he is voting on as much as to his ability to cast his vote without his "blackness" being invalidated. My point is, we don't get to exclude this man from being "black" because he is not the "black" we want him to be. If he is making an immoral decision, call him on that and provide a reasoned argument. Engaging in the "Uncle Tom," "House ******," "c00n" ad hominem is dangerously reductionist. Corny tool #2 for playing black folks against each other.

If you can't grasp the concept of "us" then there is nothing I can write that can make you understand our bond with one another. Keep believing that you are that one special negro though. I hope it works out for you.

You seem to be missing the point. What is your definition of blackness, of us?

 

[Type Username Here]

The sad truth of the matter is that constitutionally and historically speaking you can make some argument that selected specific states for more oversight than others is something that can be changed. However, I believe that means that you need to implement this oversight nationally instead of to a few states because there were issues with voting rights in other states with republican legislatures like in Maine .

They're right, times have changed and the scumbag republicans who like to reduce minority's access to the polls aren't just relegated to the south now. Make sure this doesn't happen ANYWHERE. Make federal oversight national.

Expect on the fly voting law changes to go in effect right before an election now and for it to take months for anyone to challenge them and by then the damage is already done.

The thing is, the supreme court is right in the sense that the data used to justify these actions are outdated and needed to be updated but unfortunately we all know the state of our congress and this will not happen....Sad day brehs. Stay vigilant

I agree with you. This might be a blessing in disguise if the proper changes are made.

These people now care about SWING states. They want to stifle the vote in those places, and a lot of these states did not have to answer to that provision.

Ohio, NH, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. to my knowledge was not affected, yet we had fukkery in some of those states.

It needs to be implemented federally to all states IMO.

 

[theworldismine13]

I agree with you. This might be a blessing in disguise if the proper changes are made.

These people now care about SWING states. They want to stifle the vote in those places, and a lot of these states did not have to answer to that provision.

Ohio, NH, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. to my knowledge was not affected, yet we had fukkery in some of those states.

It needs to be implemented federally to all states IMO.

yeah basically, there are a lot of histrionics about this decision

 

[DEAD7]

Niqqas is shook as f*ck @ this ruling.

Spoiler

Until shyt happens, shyt hasnt happened... stop worrying about the what ifs and maybes

 

[bright black]

the reason given for declaring the section unconstitutional is weak as fukk but with a 'black' president in office people will take it...

 

[Dr. Acula]

Spoiler

Until shyt happens, shyt hasnt happened... stop worrying about the what ifs and maybes

It has happened...

Texas got it's wrist slapped by the justice dept last year for their gerrymandering tactics. That was thanks to oversight such as this. Now with this gone, that oversight will have to go through prolonged litigation to be overruled. This is especially troublesome when a legislature decides it wants to maybe decide voting hours or which districts get what amount of machines, etc a few weeks before an election. FYI, the latter has happened too already.

 

[DEAD7]

It has happened...

Texas got it's wrist slapped by the justice dept last year for their gerrymandering tactics. That was thanks to oversight such as this. Now with this gone, that oversight will have to go through prolonged litigation to be overruled. This is especially troublesome when a legislature decides it wants to maybe decide voting hours or which districts get what amount of machines, etc a few weeks before an election. FYI, the latter has happened too already.

link?

 

[Type Username Here]

It has happened...

Texas got it's wrist slapped by the justice dept last year for their gerrymandering tactics. That was thanks to oversight such as this. Now with this gone, that oversight will have to go through prolonged litigation to be overruled. This is especially troublesome when a legislature decides it wants to maybe decide voting hours or which districts get what amount of machines, etc a few weeks before an election. FYI, the latter has happened too already.

Source?

I know there was a SCOTUS case in 2006 involving Texas and gerrymandering, but don't remember reading about this. Not saying you're lying, but I would like to see it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DEAD7]

Im a fan of delegating powers to the state, and leaving the federal government out of it.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Source?

I know there was a SCOTUS case in 2006 involving Texas and gerrymandering, but don't remember reading about this. Not saying you're lying, but I would like to see it.

Thanks in advance.

My bad, it was a court case where the federal court said they needed to redraw some redistricting plans they came up with.

Texas Redistricting: Federal Court Blocks Legislature-Drawn Maps

 

[Type Username Here]

My bad, it was a court case where the federal court said they needed to redraw some redistricting plans they came up with.

Texas Redistricting: Federal Court Blocks Legislature-Drawn Maps

Ok.

So the Provision that was shot down today did not have an affect on this? Is that correct?

 

[Dr. Acula]

Ok.

So the Provision that was shot down today did not have an affect on this? Is that correct?

Actually if I read it correctly, this provision actually did have an impact on this case. The difference in procedure that was taken here is the state prosecutors in Texas decided to take the maps to the federal court for 'preclearance' instead of the Justice Department like usual. The federal court came back and said the maps were discriminatory and redraw them.

I'll admit I got a bit lost in the minutiae of the article a bit so if i'm wrong in interpreting what happened here, someone feel free to correct me.

 

[Type Username Here]

Actually if I read it correctly, this provision actually did have an impact on this case. The difference in procedure that was taken here is the state prosecutors in Texas decided to take the maps to the federal court for 'preclearance' instead of the Justice Department like usual. The federal court came back and said the maps were discriminatory and redraw them.

Okay. I was under the impression that the provision mandated approval directly from the DOJ. Having the option to take it to court seems like it would neuter the provision at election times.