Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

[Ralonzo]

so we"re to ignore Ginsberg's examples where the DOJ had to step in and undo blatantly racist actions in the states in question? are you ignorant to those cases?

 

I think the more pressing issue in 2013 than poll taxes and literacy tests preventing votes from being cast, is ensuring that your properly cast vote isn't cancelled from some precinct reporting 105% voter participation. I wonder why the same powers-that-be whining the loudest today about this decision consistently refuse to back any laws which protect the sanctity of the vote of every citizen against fraud and dilution?

 

Oh, I think we know why.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ralonzo

[IDBillzFan]

I find Ginsberg's dissent more eloquent than your summation. http://www.motherjon...ts-act-decision

 

I'll see your Ginsberg drivel and raise you a big, fat Texas voter ID law.

 

http://dailycaller.c...court-decision/

 

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Tuesday his state will re-establish its voter ID law after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required certain states to seek federal approval before changing the electoral process.

 

Congress must devise a new racial calculus to determine which counties and states must petition the federal government to change election laws, the majority announced.

 

Texas greeted the ruling with plans to implement its suspended voter ID laws and district maps.

 

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government,” Abbott’s statement read.

[birdog1960]

I'll see your Ginsberg drivel and raise you a big, fat Texas voter ID law.

 

http://dailycaller.c...court-decision/

 

[/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

and you see this as good? these acts support the majority scotus contention that the states have moved on from their ignoble past? of course you do. you believe somehow that it stands to benefit you.

 

I think the more pressing issue in 2013 than poll taxes and literacy tests preventing votes from being cast, is ensuring that your properly cast vote isn't cancelled from some precinct reporting 105% voter participation. I wonder why the same powers-that-be whining the loudest today about this decision consistently refuse to back any laws which protect the sanctity of the vote of every citizen against fraud and dilution?

 

Oh, I think we know why.

i'm interested in why you think one type of voter discrimination is more important than another. oh, i think i know why. i think they're equally important. and who are these powers that be of whom you speak? Edited June 26, 2013 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

and you see this as good? these acts support the majority scotus contention that the states have moved on from their ignoble past? of course you do. you believe somehow that it stands to benefit you.

 

i'm interested in why you think one type of voter discrimination is more important than another. oh, i think i know why. i think they're equally important. and who are these powers that be of whom you speak?

 

Maybe because it's a good thing to discriminate against the person voting more than once or the person who is not legally allowed to vote. You mention the "ignoble past" of some states while ignoring the "ignoble present" of the party that is selling their soul and the very fabric of their country to gain more votes in order to stay in power.

[birdog1960]

Maybe because it's a good thing to discriminate against the person voting more than once or the person who is not legally allowed to vote. You mention the "ignoble past" of some states while ignoring the "ignoble present" of the party that is selling their soul and the very fabric of their country to gain more votes in order to stay in power.

still scratching my head here. i think your reading comprehension needs some work, not my writing. over counting votes or obstructing people from casting votes or undercounting votes are all bad. one is not worse than the other unless you've got a dog in the hunt that favors one tactic and are willing to compromise principles. i'm not.

[Juror#8]

Seems logical. I didn't dig into it but was there anything resembling an intelligent defense of the current situation, or just the usual 'racism exists so we need to keep pretending it's still 1964'?

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/139324-affirmative-action/

 

Post 17, 25.

 

Juror #8 said:

 

"It's about education. We're ONLY one generation removed from unequal access to education. My parents went to segregated schools. It's not about YEARS; it's about generational impact. Basically, black folks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white folks - they went to inferior/dilapidated/abject elementary, middle, high, and colleges/universities. There were still schools that were integrating into the 70s (Brown's "all deliberate speed" language was construed VERY liberally by those who didn't want to integrate). You don't think that profoundly unequal educational opportunities just over ONE GENERATION AGO doesn't have a disparate impact NOW?

 

It does.

 

How do people qualify for jobs? Largely through educational qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to extenuate the affects of unequal access to educational opportunities from ONE GENERATION AGO. That unequal access to education ONE GENERATION AGO is still affecting the job dynamic NOW because the people who were most impacted AND most benefitted by segregation THEN are the ones most entrenched (from a decision-making standpoint) in the job marketplace TODAY.

 

The goal is that affirmative action becomes obsolete as we enter into the second generation post segregation. If in 2050 we're still having this conversation, there is a problem."

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://forums.twobil...rmative-action/

 

Post 17, 25.

 

Juror #8 said:

 

"It's about education. We're ONLY one generation removed from unequal access to education. My parents went to segregated schools. It's not about YEARS; it's about generational impact. Basically, black folks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white folks - they went to inferior/dilapidated/abject elementary, middle, high, and colleges/universities. There were still schools that were integrating into the 70s (Brown's "all deliberate speed" language was construed VERY liberally by those who didn't want to integrate). You don't think that profoundly unequal educational opportunities just over ONE GENERATION AGO doesn't have a disparate impact NOW?

 

It does.

 

How do people qualify for jobs? Largely through educational qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to extenuate the affects of unequal access to educational opportunities from ONE GENERATION AGO. That unequal access to education ONE GENERATION AGO is still affecting the job dynamic NOW because the people who were most impacted AND most benefitted by segregation THEN are the ones most entrenched (from a decision-making standpoint) in the job marketplace TODAY.

 

The goal is that affirmative action becomes obsolete as we enter into the second generation post segregation. If in 2050 we're still having this conversation, there is a problem."

Equality can only be achieved by treating people equally. Preferential treatment can't fix a problem created by preferential treatment, and social engineering does far more harm than good.

 

I have no need to account for the sins of my father, and I need not be sorry for things which I had no part in.

 

My only responsibility is to not make the same mistakes. This and time are the only things that can heal racial issues.

Edited June 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

http://forums.twobil...rmative-action/

 

Post 17, 25.

 

Juror #8 said:

 

"It's about education. We're ONLY one generation removed from unequal access to education. My parents went to segregated schools. It's not about YEARS; it's about generational impact. Basically, black folks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white folks - they went to inferior/dilapidated/abject elementary, middle, high, and colleges/universities. There were still schools that were integrating into the 70s (Brown's "all deliberate speed" language was construed VERY liberally by those who didn't want to integrate). You don't think that profoundly unequal educational opportunities just over ONE GENERATION AGO doesn't have a disparate impact NOW?

 

It does.

 

How do people qualify for jobs? Largely through educational qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to extenuate the affects of unequal access to educational opportunities from ONE GENERATION AGO. That unequal access to education ONE GENERATION AGO is still affecting the job dynamic NOW because the people who were most impacted AND most benefitted by segregation THEN are the ones most entrenched (from a decision-making standpoint) in the job marketplace TODAY.

 

The goal is that affirmative action becomes obsolete as we enter into the second generation post segregation. If in 2050 we're still having this conversation, there is a problem."

i went to grammar school for a year in rural louisiana in the late 60's. very early years of integration. we had 16 yo black kids in our 4th grade class who couldn't read but had been going to the colored schools regularly. the facilities they were previously schooled in were disgraceful and not used again after integration. they did have an advantage on the playground playing football with little kids like me, however...ouch, i still remember being on the bottom of a pile on one of the few occasions they gave me the ball to run with.

[Juror#8]

i went to grammar school for a year in rural louisiana in the late 60's. very early years of integration. we had 16 yo black kids in our 4th grade class who couldn't read but had been going to the colored schools regularly. the facilities they were previously schooled in were disgraceful and not used again after integration. they did have an advantage on the playground playing football with little kids like me, however...ouch, i still remember being on the bottom of a pile on one of the few occasions they gave me the ball to run with.

 

And therein lay the problem.

 

There was a legalized educational disparity but then, Eureka, one day we'll just make an equal playing field that emphasizes only meritocracy.

 

No preference. Everyone held to the same standard.

 

The problem is that if everyone is held to the same standard, the only people who won't be able to meet the standard are those who were forced to stay below it for decades.

 

It's like putting 10 people in a hole, and 10 people on the ground level and telling them the first person who gets to this money on the table can have it. The problem is not the placement of the money; the problem is the placement of the people.

 

If they do it to themselves, fine. But if they were forced there, they should at least be made whole. It's clear cut compensatory damages.

 

At least acclimate everyone to the standard before imposing it without exception.

 

And that has to be done generationally. The next generation post segregation gets the mulligan. After that, everyone should be acclimated - with no impediments that have a proximate affect on their ability to meet the standard.

 

Equality can only be achieved by treating people equally. Preferential treatment can't fix a problem created by preferential treatment, and social engineering does far more harm than good.

 

I have no need to account for the sins of my father, and I need not be sorry for things which I had no part in.

 

My only responsibility is to not make the same mistakes. This and time are the only things that can heal racial issues.

 

There is some responsibility to account for, and make folks whole who, were legally prohibited from being able to better themselves.

[GG]

 

There is some responsibility to account for, and make folks whole who, were legally prohibited from being able to better themselves.

 

We are now well into the second generation since laws were passed to improve the educational opportunities for minorities. I think the data has been fairly conclusive that the efforts to improve education have failed the majority of the people they were intended to help. Yet, reform to that systematic failure keeps getting blocked.

[TakeYouToTasker]

There is some responsibility to account for, and make folks whole who, were legally prohibited from being able to better themselves.

No, there isn't.

 

Furthermore, groups don't get ahead. Individuals do. Individuals who happen to have black skin make successes of themselves every day. Furthermore, the plight of the 21st century black individual has nearly everything to do with the breakdown of the black family and the collectivist "group" mindset.

[B-Man]

It is noteworthy that Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion places considerable weight on the constitutional principle of equality among the states, and also cites the Tenth Amendment as reposing control over voting procedures with the states. Further, discriminatory voting practices are still banned under Section 2.

 

 

 

 

Amy Goldstein of Scotusblog explains:

The preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act were designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small.

 

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required.

 

But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used.

Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

 

 

 

 

Jim Crow Is Dead. Long Live the Constitution.

 

.

[Juror#8]

We are now well into the second generation since laws were passed to improve the educational opportunities for minorities. I think the data has been fairly conclusive that the efforts to improve education have failed the majority of the people they were intended to help. Yet, reform to that systematic failure keeps getting blocked.

 

Children born during the late 50s and early 60s are the one's whose educational opportunities were being beneficially affected by Brown and it's progeny. Unfortuanately, the majority of the Brown thrust came during the early 60s. Some deep south schools held out into the 70s.

 

Remember, into the late-50s, you had Orville Faubus (spelling?) directing the state police to block entry of black students into white schools.

 

Those students are now in their 40s and 50s and their kids are graduating high school and entering college. Some are just getting into the professional world. This is the burgeoning second generation. We should see soon if the income/professional disparity continues to exist.

 

Over the next 15-20 years we should be getting away from affirmative action programs because there would no longer be a justification for them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Again, there is no justification for affirmative action now.

 

You can't fix discrimination with discrimination. All that does is foster racial resentment, which exacerbates issues that would otherwise be fading away naturally.

 

Highlighting the importance of racial differences, and institutionally forcing race to be a factor in hireing practices undermines every single one of your stated goals.

 

I can never consider any of my minority co-workers to be my equal if they have different, lower, standards.

[birdog1960]

does anybody really think that the folks that brought about the educational disparities back then don't have a continuing legacy in their children, grandchildren and friends? this is the legacy the scotus majority is denying the existence of. and to prove my point, it takes only hours before texas takes a stab at resurrecting part of that legacy.

[GG]

Children born during the late 50s and early 60s are the one's whose educational opportunities were being beneficially affected by Brown and it's progeny. Unfortuanately, the majority of the Brown thrust came during the early 60s. Some deep south schools held out into the 70s.

 

Remember, into the late-50s, you had Orville Faubus (spelling?) directing the state police to block entry of black students into white schools.

 

Those students are now in their 40s and 50s and their kids are graduating high school and entering college. Some are just getting into the professional world. This is the burgeoning second generation. We should see soon if the income/professional disparity continues to exist.

 

Over the next 15-20 years we should be getting away from affirmative action programs because there would no longer be a justification for them.

 

Have you looked at recent high school graduation statistics for black students in the old deep south states that were subject to these laws and more enlightened northern states?

[B-Man]

does anybody really think that the folks that brought about the educational disparities back then don't have a continuing legacy in their children, grandchildren and friends? this is the legacy the scotus majority is denying the existence of. and to prove my point, it takes only hours before texas takes a stab at resurrecting part of that legacy.

 

You shouldn't make dishonest statements, to try and shore up your weak, cliched, 1965 arguement.

 

Over thirty states have a type of Voter ID law, and now Texas wants to re-affirm theirs.

 

But to you, it can only be racism.

 

sad.

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

still scratching my head here. i think your reading comprehension needs some work, not my writing. over counting votes or obstructing people from casting votes or undercounting votes are all bad. one is not worse than the other unless you've got a dog in the hunt that favors one tactic and are willing to compromise principles. i'm not.

 

You are obviously against voter identification requirements which would lead one to believe that you favor a system that would allow not only illegals to vote but to be ripe for other voter fraud. Cry all you want about disenfranchising people who don't have I.D. but we both know that there are simple solutions to deal with that. Your protestations are just a veiled attempt in stacking the ballot box with people who will vote your way. Those are your principles.

[3rdnlng]

does anybody really think that the folks that brought about the educational disparities back then don't have a continuing legacy in their children, grandchildren and friends? this is the legacy the scotus majority is denying the existence of. and to prove my point, it takes only hours before texas takes a stab at resurrecting part of that legacy.

 

Tell me again what voter I.D. laws have to do with educational disparities 50 years ago?

[TakeYouToTasker]

does anybody really think that the folks that brought about the educational disparities back then don't have a continuing legacy in their children, grandchildren and friends? this is the legacy the scotus majority is denying the existence of. and to prove my point, it takes only hours before texas takes a stab at resurrecting part of that legacy.

As a white American, that's your shared legacy. Your forefathers practiced instiututional racism. How does that make you more likely to practice institutional racism in the future? Do you embrace that ugly part of your legacy?

 

Tell me again what voter I.D. laws have to do with educational disparities 50 years ago?

He's actually making an ugly statement, not an idiot one.

 

He's saying that because the grandparents of people living in those areas practiced institutional racism; that those living there today are automatically racist by legacy and lineage.

Edited June 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker