politicartoons | (no subject)

(no subject)

Several news reports described a collective gasp in the court when Justice Scalia made his statement. Rachel Maddow's coverage (she was in the court for the oral arguments) and shows a clip from President Johnson's speech proposing the Voting Rights Act. In that speech, Johnson cited specific examples of voter repression, some of which should sound familiar since they're STILL occurring.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As opposed to moving toward Constitutionality by negating laws that are designed to benefit the majority, it's reversed by moving toward Constitutionality by negating laws that are designed to benefit the minority.

The problem with this is casually dismissing real life harm in favor of idealism.

And also the rights of the minority ARE a prime concern of the constitution (tyranny of the majority, etc) according to John Adams in his defense of the constitution.

Why, that's just minority entitlement!

Or, in this case, deciding on whether we want to cause harm to mitigate harm.

What "harm" has been caused by forcing states to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities?

Racial gerrymandering, the inability of states to improve their voter processes because of arbitrary action by the federal government, poor representation in government...

Let's not pretend the VRA is all that much about the Constitution. It uses the Constitution as a justification for many unconstitutional activities.

Kind of like Mark Warden, and his comments on police responses to domestic abuse calls.

Some people could make the argument that a lot of people like being in abusive relationships. It’s a love-hate relationship. It’s very, very common for people to stick around with somebody they love who also abuses him or her. … Is the solution to those kind of dysfunctional relationships going to be more government, another law? I’d say no. People are always free to leave.

After others pointed out his complete lack of understanding of the issue, he walked it back:

It was never my intention to minimize the trauma of domestic abuse or in any way demean the victims…how the state gets involved in people’s personal lives is a topic that requires thoughtful debate and should not be reduced to sound bites.

In other words, "yes, there's a problem that might need addressing... but isn't it more important to NOT HAVE MORE LAWS?" It's that same fucking emotionally disconnected "to hell with how this affects real people in real life" idealistic sociopathy that's cropping up from conservatives all over the place - like Rand Paul and his "I know people are BLOWING up, but we should think twice about passing legislation that could help with that... cause I don't like LEGISLATION on principle" attitude.

I don't think readers in this community properly appreciate your contributions as Conservative Iron Shiek. If there's an outrageous conservative position to be taken, you take it and argue it to death and beyond.

It takes a special mindset to declare an act designed to prevent discriminatory voting practices as a law "designed to benefit the minority".

I don't see what's especially outrageous about opposing race-based legislation.

Well of course not. Just you don't see the existence of a "rape culture."

Indeed. Being reality based has its benefits.

Reading about it doesn't count.

Only when it's about rape culture, right?

I dunno, is it?

How about poll taxes? Literacy tests?

So, the SCOTUS is going to strike down the filibuster, then? Or dismantle the Senate -- which exists so that states with a minority of population can have an equal voice in lawmaking.

Baloney. The "State's Rights" crap has been an excuse for slavery, discrimination, and other violations of human rights every time it's popped up in history. It is now, too. If anything, the VRA should be expanded, so that every state in the union has to have rule changes concerning the franchise approved.

So, the SCOTUS is going to strike down the filibuster, then?

Unlikely, since the Senate can set its own rules.

Or dismantle the Senate -- which exists so that states with a minority of population can have an equal voice in lawmaking.

The Senate is Constitutional.

The "State's Rights" crap has been an excuse for slavery, discrimination, and other violations of human rights every time it's popped up in history. It is now, too.

lol

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only