|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Silly Kwark, 3 operators can't be a monopoly. The last thing that Visa or Mastercard will do is follow suit, they will fight it out tooth and nail, savvy customers will research the topic, savvy vendors will read the fine print and all will be right once more. Or possibly not, but anyway it's all efficient and what not...
or...
"These are serious issues. And incidentally if you want to look at stupid people, you find them all over the place. For example, we happen to be in the middle of a huge financial crisis – people have noticed. If you trace that back, a lot of it comes from a fanatic religious belief in what's called the “efficient market hypothesis”. Pure fanaticism dominated the economics profession, dominated the Federal Reserve. The one consequence was that when an $8 trillion housing bubble developed, totally unrelated to any fundamentals, completely off the 100-year history of housing prices, the profession and the Fed, the central bank, said it's not necessary to pay attention, because there are efficient markets. I mean, is that very different from “God promised Noah”?" - Noam Chomsky
Source
|
Yep...
While the Texas House debated an anti-abortion omnibus bill for 15 hours Sunday night, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D) called for an exemption for victims of rape and incest, the Associated Press reported. Rep. Jody Laubenberg (R) objected, saying "rape kits" make that exemption unneccessary:
"In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out," [Laubenberg] said, comparing the procedure to an abortion. "The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."
Her apparent confusion about "rape kits" — a phrase generally used to describe the equipment used by medical personnel during forensic examinations to gather physical evidence following allegations of rape or sexual assault — sparked widespread ridicule on social media sites. Laubenberg then simply rejected all proposed changes to her bill without speaking until the end of the debate.
Republicans in the Texas House passed the bill this morning, after hundreds flooded the state legislature to oppose the measure which would place new restrictions on how, when and where a woman could obtain an abortion in the state.
Source
|
Gotta love the Republicans in my state. Special sessions of the legislature to pass an anti-abortion bill.
|
WASHINGTON -- Danny Werfel, the principal deputy commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, acknowledged on Monday that the same tactic that got the tax agency in trouble for screening tea party organizations before the 2012 elections was used elsewhere by agency officials.
In a conference call with reporters, Werfel said an internal investigation of the IRS scandal, the findings of which were released Monday afternoon, had unearthed other instances in which "Be On The Look Out" (BOLO) lists were used. He has since ended the use of the tactic, he said, calling the screening criteria used in these other instances "inappropriate."
"When I got to the IRS, we started a more comprehensive review of the operations of this part of the IRS, have been looking at documents and business operations, and we did determine and discover that there are other BOLO lists in place," Werfel said. "And upon discovering that, we also found that we believed there continued to be inappropriate or questionable criteria on these BOLO lists. Once we came to that conclusion, we took immediate action to suspend the use of these lists in the exempt organizations unit within the IRS."
Werfel declined to reveal which organizations appeared on these other lists and what criteria were used to screen them, saying it took time to scrub these documents of "sensitive information." But his comments are bound to renew criticism of the tax agency, which has been under fire for weeks after news it singled out conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.
Though he acknowledged that his investigation remains incomplete, Werfel said that he had yet to uncover evidence of intentional wrongdoing by IRS officials when applying these BOLOs. Nor had he found instances in which outside actors -- mainly the Obama campaign and administration -- had pressured the tax agency to target conservative groups.
Source
|
On June 25 2013 00:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 15:06 coverpunch wrote:You probably want to start here: the Supreme Court decisionThe dissent uses the extreme example of appointing the CEO of Amex as the arbitrator, so I don't think the arbitrator having a conflict of interest was an issue in the case. Italian Color's biggest problem was that they needed expert witnesses to prove their claims but the cost of an expert would have exceeded their claim, and they used that as the basis to say the arbitration waiver was unfair and they should be allowed to join a class, undoing the arbitration clause. EDIT: And the PDF Jonny put up explicitly says the party making the claim can choose either the National Arbitration Forum or the American Arbitration Association. If Amex chooses one, the merchant can say they want the other. EDIT: The problem with the decision isn't the arbitrator and I think that part of the dissent is not effective. IMO the bigger problem is that Amex can intimidate many merchants like Italian Colors from ever even bringing a claim by raising the costs of proving a successful claim. This is where monopolistic power becomes very strong, because merchants can't choose an alternative that may have a fairer arbitration process. Italian Color claimed that they needed an expensive expert to be successful in arbitration. They also claimed that class action was the only cost effective way to get that expert. But that's not necessarily true. As the SC pointed out they could hire an expert to be the arbitrator (under orders to keep costs down), or pool resources pre-arbitration in order to get the needed expert. Without arbitration the monopolist has more power. Court is more expensive so it would make it easier for a big player to sue a little guy into oblivion.
For the last point, I think it's not necessarily true. You have the trade-off that court is more expensive but arbitration is a less public and less transparent process. Most people have no idea what arbitration looks like or how it works. My point was that the big company can intimidate a smaller one from ever fighting at all, not that it's inevitable that the big company will win.
For people like Souma and aksfjh, I would argue it's easy for Amex to intimidate them away from ever going to arbitration because they're so convinced it's a flawed process where they have no chance of winning.
|
I wish republicans in Texas were so concerned about raising healthcare on other women's health issues besides abortion. /sarcasm
|
For renewable energy supporters, this was supposed to be a year of statehouse setbacks.
“States Cooling to Renewable Energy” read the headline of a March Wall Street Journal story reporting that more than a dozen legislatures were weighing proposals to roll back or abolish mandates that utilities purchase a certain amount of renewable energy. Mandates are in place in 29 states and Washington, D.C.
Opponents of the renewable energy requirements, which are credited with spurring wind and solar investment across much of the country, said the policies violate free-market principles and ramp up electricity costs. After the 2012 elections installed large Republican majorities in a number of states, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) joined ranks with prominent libertarian groups in a nationwide anti-mandate blitz. Wind and solar advocates feared the worst.
So much for predictions. With most sessions now wrapped up or waning, renewable energy backers now brim with triumph and relief as they eye a legislative scorecard tilting their way.
“ALEC’s attempt to squash clean energy standards in the states has failed,” said Gabe Elsner, director of the Washington D.C.-based Checks and Balances Project, a self-described government and industry watchdog group. “I thought they would have had more success.”
No state this year repealed its renewable energy requirement, lowered its percentage mandate or extended utilities’ deadlines for meeting it.
Meanwhile, Colorado doubled its mandate for rural electric cooperatives, requiring 20 percent of their energy sales by 2020 to come from renewable resources. In Minnesota major utilities now must generate 1.5 percent of their power from solar – on top of the 25 percent by 2025 for renewables at large.
Not everyone was surprised by the results. Chelsea Barnes, an analyst at Keyes, Fox & Wiedman, a law firm that tracks energy legislation for clients, said the push to weaken incentives is not new, nor does it generally succeed.
“We started seeing more of these stories on this coordinated attack on renewables,” Barnes said. But the hullabaloo was “more of a media issue than an actual industry issue.”
Though statehouses have seen an uptick in such legislation — likely boosted by ALEC and its allies — this year’s change was far from drastic. Through late April, lawmakers in 16 states had introduced 31 bills aiming to weaken renewable energy standards, according to the law firm’s analysis. In 2011 and 2012, states considered a total of 50 major weakening bills. Just five of those bills succeeded, and none dramatically changed the policy.
Source
|
This pisses me off:
Many around the world see climate change as a major threat, but Americans rank among the least concerned about the issue, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.
Only 40 percent of Americans surveyed said the warming planet is a "major threat," according to Pew. Similar results were seen in China, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan, among several others of the 39 countries surveyed.
The top threats to the U.S. include North Korea's nuclear program (according to 59 percent of Americans), Islamic extremist groups (56 percent) and Iran's nuclear program (54 percent).
Yet more than half of all respondents in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa said climate change was a "major threat" to their individual countries. 54 percent of Canadians surveyed also listed climate change as a threat.
An April 2013 Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans acknowledge the reality of climate change. But public opinion can be fickle, with fewer Americans acknowledging climate change after a cold winter.
Source
|
Did I hear that right? States mandate renewable energy form a percentage of electricity sources and then its reported that it spurs wind and solar investment? I wonder if mandating sandal use would spur investment in flip flops. Ban porn to increase investment in long term relationships. These clean energy regulation and subsidy reporters just defy belief. They moralize their way into increasing costs for the average consumer. If wind/solar became even close to competitive, energy providers would need no whipping to buy it up.
At the same time, articles like that leave out the part where only the politically correct clean energy sources are forced on companies. Wind and solar suffer from NIMBYism and comically low & unreliable power supply rates. These renewable energy standards cost jobs, increase costs, and can't meet power demands long-term.
|
On June 25 2013 12:08 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 00:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 15:06 coverpunch wrote:You probably want to start here: the Supreme Court decisionThe dissent uses the extreme example of appointing the CEO of Amex as the arbitrator, so I don't think the arbitrator having a conflict of interest was an issue in the case. Italian Color's biggest problem was that they needed expert witnesses to prove their claims but the cost of an expert would have exceeded their claim, and they used that as the basis to say the arbitration waiver was unfair and they should be allowed to join a class, undoing the arbitration clause. EDIT: And the PDF Jonny put up explicitly says the party making the claim can choose either the National Arbitration Forum or the American Arbitration Association. If Amex chooses one, the merchant can say they want the other. EDIT: The problem with the decision isn't the arbitrator and I think that part of the dissent is not effective. IMO the bigger problem is that Amex can intimidate many merchants like Italian Colors from ever even bringing a claim by raising the costs of proving a successful claim. This is where monopolistic power becomes very strong, because merchants can't choose an alternative that may have a fairer arbitration process. Italian Color claimed that they needed an expensive expert to be successful in arbitration. They also claimed that class action was the only cost effective way to get that expert. But that's not necessarily true. As the SC pointed out they could hire an expert to be the arbitrator (under orders to keep costs down), or pool resources pre-arbitration in order to get the needed expert. Without arbitration the monopolist has more power. Court is more expensive so it would make it easier for a big player to sue a little guy into oblivion. For the last point, I think it's not necessarily true. You have the trade-off that court is more expensive but arbitration is a less public and less transparent process. Most people have no idea what arbitration looks like or how it works. My point was that the big company can intimidate a smaller one from ever fighting at all, not that it's inevitable that the big company will win. For people like Souma and aksfjh, I would argue it's easy for Amex to intimidate them away from ever going to arbitration because they're so convinced it's a flawed process where they have no chance of winning.
I wouldn't say "no chance of winning," but rather "would win less than if I went to court."
|
From the Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...]
|
On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Show nested quote +Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...]
Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
|
On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand.
|
On June 26 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand.
Uh-oh. Calling it now: Arizona, Texas, and Florida are about to have a lot of cat fights with the feds.
|
On June 26 2013 02:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand. Uh-oh. Calling it now: Arizona, Texas, and Florida are about to have a lot of cat fights with the feds.
lol, funny you should mention them.
With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.
“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott announced. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”
The Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.
But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning’s 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General “Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas” and “Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately.”
In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.
“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” Abbott said.
Texas voter ID law “will take effect immediately,” says Attorney General Greg Abbott
|
You know, Congress could reach out to Hispanics by updating that clause with states with a history of large immigration...
|
On June 26 2013 02:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand. Uh-oh. Calling it now: Arizona, Texas, and Florida are about to have a lot of cat fights with the feds. lol, funny you should mention them. Show nested quote +With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.
“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott announced. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”
The Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.
But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning’s 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General “Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas” and “Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately.”
In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.
“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” Abbott said. Texas voter ID law “will take effect immediately,” says Attorney General Greg Abbott
What a shithead. I live in Texas and every election cycle I get to watch blatantly racist jerrymandering and redistricting and now we have voter ID laws on top of it. The metropolitan areas are liberal as hell but the state as a whole is stuck in like...1850.
|
On June 26 2013 02:43 aksfjh wrote:
You know, Congress could reach out to Hispanics by updating that clause with states with a history of large immigration...
You mean all of the states? people have been immigrating from blue states to red states recently for jobs so now you want all the red states to be the only states that get enforced on the clause?
|
On June 26 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand.
There's also section 3, which provides that if a state or county makes a habit of discrimination it can be forced into pre-clearance. That was untouched by the ruling. There are a lot of ignorant people with crazy ideas about the extent of this ruling. It appears that the constitutional problem with section 4 was that Congress used 40 year old data instead of relating pre-clearance rules to the places that are currently discriminating.
-Racial discrimination in voting is still illegal
-Racially discriminatory laws can still be challenged, after the fact.
--But clear patterns of discrimination can put those areas into pre-clearance
-Congress can pass an updated version of the pre-clearance rules
|
On June 26 2013 02:44 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:26 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 02:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 00:48 ziggurat wrote:From the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court ruled that a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional, nullifying for now a pillar of civil-rights-era legislation.
The court struck down Section 4 of the law, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Those areas, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.
In the absence of that formula, Section 5 of the law, which puts the preclearance requirement into effect, cannot function.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.
[...]
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula. "Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," he wrote in a 24-page opinion.
The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.
As a result of the court's ruling, the Justice Department can now challenge a state or city's voting practices only after changes are made.
[...] Wait, so now states are going to be able to implement blatantly racist voting practices and the federal government can't challenge them? Am I reading this right? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Many counties in the Deep South were flagged for racist voting policies stretching back to Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act required preclearance of voting rules passed in these places in order to prevent historically racist rules. The new decision removes preclearance, meaning that the feds can still act when prompted with racist voting rules, they simply have to act after the fact instead of beforehand. Uh-oh. Calling it now: Arizona, Texas, and Florida are about to have a lot of cat fights with the feds. lol, funny you should mention them. With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.
“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott announced. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”
The Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.
But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning’s 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General “Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas” and “Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately.”
In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.
“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” Abbott said. Texas voter ID law “will take effect immediately,” says Attorney General Greg Abbott What a shithead. I live in Texas and every election cycle I get to watch blatantly racist jerrymandering and redistricting and now we have voter ID laws on top of it. The metropolitan areas are liberal as hell but the state as a whole is stuck in like...1850.
If by "metropolitan areas" you mean downtown Dallas, some of Austin (the students that stick around UT), and half of San Antonio, then sure. Even then, the liberal-ness of those areas mainly support very modest upward adjustments to education and Medicaid (and maybe tax policy). Gun control, economic reforms, and "social issues" are still red throughout. The blue threat is coming from those south and southwest counties, and San Antonio, so next chance to gerrymander will likely target those areas, and create voting laws that discriminate against "natural opponents" to the GOP (young people, immigrants, and minorities). Nothing as outright racist as the 100 years after the civil war.
Thinking about it more though, and I think a modern update to the act they are now exempt from would take into account large amounts of immigration. Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, New York, and maybe Washington state would be a part. I would need to see some general immigration numbers to know for sure.
On June 26 2013 02:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:43 aksfjh wrote:
You know, Congress could reach out to Hispanics by updating that clause with states with a history of large immigration... You mean all of the states? people have been immigrating from blue states to red states recently for jobs so now you want all the red states to be the only states that get enforced on the clause?
I'm talking international immigration, illegal or legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
