US Census data is not reliable. Gotcha.
Sure, but, not to be flippant, but you’ve read Scalia’s opinions before, right? He’s not always consistent about that, especially lately.
What are they about with all of this, anyway? Seems hard to credit that all this fury and bluster is just about the indignity being suffered by these repentant states. The dark suspicion that gnaws is that they hope to weaken federal oversight of state voting laws and, given the sorts of political shenanigans we’ve seen of late, this troubles me.
OK, so lets say they just throw out that one pesky section, so that certain parts of the country are not required to submit proof in advance that their election laws are not discriminatory. Does that mean everybody is held to the same standards, or that no such standards can be applied? Does it mean that there is no authority to appeal to for such discriminatory laws? Must anyone injured by such begin the long slow trudge up the ladder to the Supremes? Would the laws remain in effect until that process is complete?
I would like to think that the Supreme Court would never consent to being a party to such depravity. I’d like to think that, but not quite sure I can.
My other question is whether or not “Fat Tony” Scalia is uglier than a road-kill horned toad, but we can set that aside for now.
Even if they get rid of that section, there’s still going to be the rest of the act, and voting discrimination still won’t be allowed. It’s just that certain sections of the country won’t have to get preapproval to change their voting laws. If they get rid of it, it’ll probably be the way it is now in the rest of the country. If Rutland, Vermont, for instance, tomorrow passes the “Black people have to show ID but white people don’t if they want to vote” law, that’ll still get challenged in court and overturned even though Rutland, Vermont isn’t a covered area. I doubt the court will throw out the entire Voting Rights Act.
I hate it when people pull that shit.
No, he didn’t say that the US Census, as a whole, was unreliable. He said those specific numbers have too great a margin of error to reliably reach the conclusion suggested.
It always pisses me off when some proud progressive here plays a game like that and no one calls him on it.
So… let me call you on it, in hopes that (a) you’ll stop, and (b) others will be inspired to police their ranks.
And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a steaming hottie.
Because how the justices look is very relevant.
What’s the ugliest
Part of your body?
What’s the ugliest
Part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it’s your mind…
Upon research, I discover to my surprise that Frank Zappa did not direct these lyrics specifically at Justice Scalia. Still, close enough for rock 'n roll.
Another example of GOP vote fraud.
The practice is against the rules of the House.
In fairness, the article goes on to say representatives from both parties vote for other members. But the point made stands - the woman who speaks about integrity, routinely violates the voting rules of her own legislative body.
So… you meant to say “Fat Tony’s” MIND is uglier than a horned toad whatever?
Just a typo?
Have you any more sanctimonious piety you want to ladle out here? Perhaps a bit more rolling about on the floor pissing and moaning about “liberal hypocrisy”? I did not make him an ugly little man with an ugly little mind, he did. I didn’t make you a caricature of yourself, you did.
Perhaps you can explain away his most recent comments about “racial entitlements”? Given your gifts for semantic distortion and your towering genius for rationalization, you can make them into shining examples of justice and equality under the law.
You do more to advance my preferred causes by your adamant refusal to engage them fairly and openly than I ever could. Speaking on behalf of lefty type progressives everywhere, we thank you. Keep the good work, if you didn’t exist, we would have to invent you, and we aren’t that smart. You ought to sue Steven Colbert for stealing your shtick…Oh, wait. You do know he’s kidding, right?
Iowa Republicans Aim To Eliminate Youth Vote By Refusing To Teach Them How
GOP Legislators.
Overstated title, IMO. Perhaps limit might have been a better than eliminate.
They want to eliminate this teaching requirement:
They’ve thought up a new way to suppress the student vote. The North Carolina GOP ===> laser focused on winning elections. (Makes them too busy to work on adding jobs or cleaning the water and air.)
Naming the bill 1984 style was a nice touch.
Interesting:
If electoral campaigning/advertising is “abuse,” what protects everybody else from it? Yew sayin’ college students need to coddled? Fuckin’ bleedin’-heart liberal . . .
Bound to work. Throughout history, when the young are scolded and bullied by their elders, they wilt into subservient and respectful compliance.
But companion-bill 666 tops it.
Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter-registration law.
7 to 2 is pretty impressive as these things go. Even Scalia joined with the majority. (Thomas and Alito dissented.)
Well, yeah, but that was a slum-dunk. No way the state can supersede the Feds on citizenship. Except maybe for Alito and Thomas, and, frankly, don’t even want to know their reasoning.
How many times have Scalia and Thomas been on the opposite side of anything? That in itself is noteworthy.
Huh?
It has nothing to do with citizenship.
It has everything to do with the Constitution: Art I, Sec 4:
Arizona has every right to require that voter registrants provide evidence of citizenship, rub blue mud in their navels, and sign “Luck Be A Lady” prior to casting ballots.
BUT – the federal government has the power to make such regulations too, and their power overrides the states’.
In this case, Arizona made a law, but it conflicted with Congress’ e National Voter Registration Act of 1993. In that conflict, the Elections Clause says clearly that Congress wins.
Where the hell does citizenship enter into it? Arizona’s law involved asking about citizenship, yes, but the result would be the same if Arizona’s law had required registrants to supply their blood type or their favorite Hansen brother.
They agree less often than other pairings. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SB_agreement_06-12-2013.pdf.