This breaking news just in, from 2013.
Well there you go. Two years later and he still hasn’t gotten a card!
Edit: On the other hand, it’s justification for tighter laws.
You realize BrainGlutton probably posted that way back when it was new, but it just took this long for the SDMB hamsters to get caught up with there backlog? 
Can Jim Wright’s estate cast his vote for him?
I’m trying to grasp what ideation motivated this response. Yes, Wright got his ID, and probably quickly with a “Sorry sir”, but would Black Welfare Mama have been as fortunate? Probably not, as you’d admit if you were capable of frank speech.
Instead you focus on the date, as though 2013 were some time in the distant past when slavery hadn’t been abolished, or the Founding Fathers were still ruminating.
No, this was the result of recent Texas law, the very sort of craven vote suppression that Texas adopts so gleefully as SCOTUS discards the Voting Rights Act with a 5-4 vote.
But now. Presented with the specific example you can’t otherwise debunk you make believe that 2013 is some ancient date that should be ignored.
Buffoonery.
What difference does it make if the vote was 5-4?
Obergefell was decided 5-4; should we disregard that ruling as well?
I’m just lamenting that the Court is packed with 3 or 4 right-wing assholes – Scalia, Thomas, etc. This is the Pit. If you think Scalia and Thomas are good Justices then you’re stupid or an asshole or both. If even one of these assholes were replaced with someone worthy, the Voting Rights Act wouldn’t have been overturned.
Do you think 9-0 and 5-4 verdicts are equivalent? Equally “worthy”?
Many MANY cases these days are 4-4 votes with Kennedy casting the sole relevant vote! Obergefell was another in this long list, with Kennedy siding with Obergefell. What’s your point?
His point, as reluctant as I am to concede that he may have one, is that there appears to be a fundamental disconnect at play if you wish to disparage 5-4 decisions only when the outcome favors the forces of evil.
I concede that he probably wouldn’t phrase it that way.
The Court includes the “centrist” Kennedy, four lovely progressive thinkers, a mediocre right-wing Chief Justice, and three flaming assholes. Kennedy literally decides a large majority of close cases.
Most of the 5-4 decisions split into worthy justices versus unqualified assholes. Naturally rational Americans like the 5-4 decisions where Kennedy votes with the “liberals” and hate the decisions where Kennedy joins the unqualified assholes. I don’t see the confusion.
It’s not the “5” in the 5-4 decisions that’s annoying. It’s that the 5 include 3 or 4 assholes; with a competent good-spirited Court these 5-4’s would go the other way.
HTH.
The infrastructure includes opportunities to correct problems as they are reported. This is available to everyone, regardless of their gender, race, or status as parents or recipients of public assistance.
So I would say: probably so, and you’d admit that if you were capable of honest admissions in debate.
And the Sheriff of Waller County Texas says there is no racism there.
It’s disingenuous - and frankly assholish - for you to demand honest admissions from others immediately after dismissing reality so completely one sentence before.
It is bias like this that makes your legal contributions on the board suspect to the point of uselessness.
You’re right, this is the Pit, but it’s also the SDMB, so some actual facts would be nice. The Voting Rights Act has not been overturned, no matter how many times you repeat it.
As for the rest of it, if you divide the justices into “worthies” and “assholes” based on your personal feelings about how their decisions comport with your political ideology, that’s just sad.
The justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not any political position.
Many millions of Americans disagree with the majority in Obergefell, but I haven’t read of anyone calling the justices in the majority assholes for their decision.
Yes, wouldn’t they now?
Only the guts of it. Damn, boy.
So of course they always do? Somehow non-unanimous votes are prevalent anyway.
There have been quite a few religious nuts calling them far worse than that.
I am not your boy.
Did you read the decision, or do you let the NY Times tell you how to think?
I’d bet you haven’t read the decision. What part of the VRA was ruled unconstitutional? What was the reasoning? What has changed since the VRA was enacted? Do you know?
If you’re going to act like one, expect to be called one.
Any actual news link would have done fine.
Do your own homework, boy.
So you don’t know, as expected. Septimus probably doesn’t know, either, otherwise she wouldn’t keep repeating that the VRA was “overturned”.
Maybe you should stick to being wrong about football.
Small victory for the good guys:
Odd that our astute legal analysts here did not anticipate this. Perhaps childlike clapping and dancing inhibits reasoned legal considerations.
When I saw the panel drawn for the Fifth Circuit, I anticipated this outcome. If you review prior discussions of my predictions on the case, I explicitly reserved finality – that is, a ruling at the Supreme Court – or an circuit ruling that is not appealed.
Perhaps this is an amazing coincidence, but I’m not generous enough of spirit to believe that. Not long after passing a harsh voter ID law, Alabama is now in the process of closing all but four DMV offices in the state. Link here.
But it’s just a minor inconvenience to get a valid driver’s license before voting, right? Even if the nearest DMV is located hours away?
Wassamatter? Sassy ho and thugboy don’t know how to make their Internet talk Kenyan?