The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[joecct]

I was in an accident but was wearing my seat belt and it saved my life. It worked. Guess I don't have to wear my seat belt anymore.

In NH you would have a choice. In the other 55 states, you must wear them under pain of fine, imprisonment or both.

I would leave it up to each adult in the car. But if you're killed in an accident, don't expect the insurance to pay off. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I made no statement regarding the efficacy or constitutionality of any form of affirmative action, as you can see if you read the 30+ words in my two posts. Just trying to slow the flow of sloppy constitutional analysis a little.

I don't quite understand how it is so difficult to get. Maybe this will help certain people out...

Affirmative Action is discrimination on the basis of race. In order to have a Constitutional law that discriminates on the basis of race it must pass strict scrutiny. In order to pass strict scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling governmental interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized (and just affirmed last term in Fisher) that one compelling governmental interest surrounding Affirmative Action is diversity in the classroom. If the law is narrowly tailored to meet the goal of diversity in the classroom (ex. there is no other "race neutral" way to accomplish the goal), it passes strict scrutiny, and therefore passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't quite understand how it is so difficult to get. Maybe this will help certain people out...

Affirmative Action is discrimination on the basis of race. In order to have a Constitutional law that discriminates on the basis of race it must pass strict scrutiny. In order to pass strict scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling governmental interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized (and just affirmed last term in Fisher) that one compelling governmental interest surrounding Affirmative Action is diversity in the classroom. If the law is narrowly tailored to meet the goal of diversity in the classroom (ex. there is no other "race neutral" way to accomplish the goal), it passes strict scrutiny, and therefore passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

Thanks, FS. Another example would be the constitutionality of a law permitting race-based exclusion and internment of Japanese people, including a Mr. Korematsu.

 

[Priceless]

One racist old man is an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

It was asserted that, absent affirmative action, state governments would start passing laws to discriminate against minorities. I asked for any evidence that any state government would (a) even attempt to pass a law to discriminate against minorites, or (b) any sense that such an attempt might ever be successful.

I doubt that the person who made that assertion himself even believes that a state government would try to pass laws to discriminate against minorites, in this day and age. I suspect it was typical left-wing hyperbolic exaggeration.

I'm sure the wave of new voting laws that were introduced within minutes of the SCOTUS decision that racism had ended were to make it more difficult for old white men to cast a ballot.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm sure the wave of new voting laws that were introduced within minutes of the SCOTUS decision that racism had ended were to make it more difficult for old white men to cast a ballot.

Asking for a photo ID in order to vote is racist? Care to elaborate for us a little Rev Al?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't quite understand how it is so difficult to get.

I think we do "get" it. You and I actually are saying exactly the same thing in different words, from a logical point of view. (A --> B and ~B --> ~A are logically equivalent).

As I said earlier, the rulings are more political than judicial. The rest of your post proves that point: a contorted series (not your contortions, the Court's contortions ) of steps to try to find an ex post facto justification for an outcome that had already been decided in advance.

(discrimination = bad, helping people recover from harmful effects of prior discrimination = good. and I agree with this concept).

"A compelling government interest" = a strong political reason = "We can override the plain language of the Constitution to interpret it to mean something other than what it appears to say, provided the reason is 'compelling' enough."




Now, I'm old-fashioned in my vocabulary and grammar, and perhaps "political" in today's meaning no longer means what I'm using the word to say. A different word might be better in today's climate.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Asking for a photo ID in order to vote is racist? Care to elaborate for us a little Rev Al?

I normally agree, at least to some extent, with Priceless, but I don't see how a photo ID law is racist. The photo ID laws are motivated almost entirely for political reasons. One side wishes to harm the other because the other's voting base would suffer disproportionately from a photo ID law. I don't really see it being racist, even though statistics would likely show that one race is more affected by the laws than another. However, there is no disparate impact under the EPC.

That being said, I don't agree with photo ID laws because they disenfranchise a group that has the least power to speak up for themselves. The only photo ID law that I would be okay with would look something like this:
1) Free photo identification for election (doesn't have to be a free driver's license, just something that's free for whoever has to get it);
2) The requirements to get an ID are no more difficult than the requirements to register to vote in that state;
3) Advanced notice (6 months...maybe more) given to every eligible voter as to how to obtain one of the free photo IDs if they need it; AND
4) At the first election following the move to photo IDs, a booth where a voter could get this free photo identification at every polling place in order to vote in that election.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't agree with photo ID laws because they disenfranchise a group that has the least power to speak up for themselves.

Dead people have the least power to speak up for themselves, and they are the voters most likely to be affected by photo ID laws.....



Seriously, when you have elections in which more votes are cast in a precinct than there are registered voters living in said precinct, how do you fight voter fraud?



I would suggest that the widespread desire for photo ID laws among many people has less to do with "disenfranchising" a group and more to do with fighting voter fraud, but then much of that depends upon where you live and what you've been through. Most of the conditions in your list (except the last one) are already stock, standard language in the current generation of voter ID laws.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think we do "get" it. You and I actually are saying exactly the same thing in different words, from a logical point of view. (A --> B and ~B --> ~A are logically equivalent).

As I said earlier, the rulings are more political than judicial. The rest of your post proves that point: a contorted series (not your contortions, the Court's contortions ) of steps to try to find an ex post facto justification for an outcome that had already been decided in advance.

(discrimination = bad, helping people recover from harmful effects of prior discrimination = good. and I agree with this concept).

"A compelling government interest" = a strong political reason = "We can override the plain language of the Constitution to interpret it to mean something other than what it appears to say, provided the reason is 'compelling' enough."




Now, I'm old-fashioned in my vocabulary and grammar, and perhaps "political" in today's meaning no longer means what I'm using the word to say. A different word might be better in today's climate.

Except it was you who emphatically stated that affirmative action was "clearly in black and white inconsistent with the 14th Amendment." It is obviously not. You have your opinions, of course, as do we all, but you simply do not know what you are talking about on the subject of constitutional law.

 

[Priceless]

Asking for a photo ID in order to vote is racist? Care to elaborate for us a little Rev Al?

It's not just photo ID. It's doing away with early-voting, shortening the hours, putting polling machines in predominantly white voting districts while those that are predominantly black have few machines and longer lines.

Study after study have found that there is no actual fraud at the polls on election day. (see below) I know that there are people who are inclined to think as Justice Roberts does that racism in this country has been obliterated so we don't need the Civil Rights Act anymore, but let's ask the Atlanta Braves if racism still exists. (see below) I know these people hate to connect the dots and see the patterns, even if it is slapping them in the face. That doesn't mean everyone hears no evil and sees no evil. And my grandparents and parents instilled in me the belief that when you see evil and hear evil, you speak up about it. I will take the lessons my forebears taught me as much more valuable than the lesson taught to our "gentleman" friend below.


Brennan Center for Justice
http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

Republican’s Study Fails to Find Significant Evidence of Voter Fraud
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/12/republicans-study-fails-to-find-significant-evidence-of-voter-fraud/

Here's a piece from those Socialists over at Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

I knew something wrong was afoot when my wife reported that a 90-year-old woman had to be turned away from voting early at our local polling place. Her crime: She didn’t have a driver’s license. Why would she? She wasn’t able to drive anymore.

As the embarrassed election judge fumbled for a solution as the woman sobbed — this was the first election she missed in her life (and might be her last) — it struck me at how regressive this whole idea of voter policing has become.

Believe me, I know plenty about voting fraud. I’m from Chicago, where countless voters were registered in graveyards and perhaps aided in the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 thanks to Richard J. Daley’s political machine. He managed to put a lot of zombies in polling places — even more than were in political office at the time.

But large-scale voter fraud is virtually non-existent today. Yet the efforts to root it out recall the horrid Jim Crow era. The former “party of Lincoln” has been most active in this fraudulent crusade. It’s mostly prevented people of color and older folks from voting. Could it be that they’d largely vote for Democrats?

Nah.


Atlanta Braves office receives racist hate mail directed toward Hank Aaron
http://tracking.si.com/2014/04/15/hank-aaron-atlanta-braves-racist-mail/

“Hank Aaron is a scumbag piece of (expletive) (racial slur)” a man named Edward says in an e-mail to the Braves front office and obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
Edward invokes the epithet five times in four sentences, closing with, “My old man instilled in my mind from a young age, the only good (racial slur) is a dead (racial slur).”

This isn't from 40 years ago when Hammerin' Hank was chasing Babe Ruth, this is a couple weeks ago.


But no. Racism no longer exists in this country. Let's party!

(I can't embed links on this thing, so I've put the links at the bottom. I feel like I'm back in college.)

 

[joecct]

Well, the whole Clive Bundy thing doesn't really help your argument right now....

CB provides a balance to Al Sharpton.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Atlanta Braves office receives racist hate mail directed toward Hank Aaron
http://tracking.si.com/2014/04/15/hank-aaron-atlanta-braves-racist-mail/


This isn't from 40 years ago when Hammerin' Hank was chasing Babe Ruth, this is a couple weeks ago.

I'm sorry - my memory just isn't what it used to be. Can you remind me which part of the Constitution or the law requires a massive governmental intrusion to ensure that no private citizen insults another verbally or in writing?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm sorry - my memory just isn't what it used to be. Can you remind me which part of the Constitution or the law requires a massive governmental intrusion to ensure that no private citizen insults another verbally or in writing?

I believe he was just using the Braves example as an illustration that racism is still alive and well.

Or are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm sorry - my memory just isn't what it used to be. Can you remind me which part of the Constitution or the law requires a massive governmental intrusion to ensure that no private citizen insults another verbally or in writing?

I believe he was just using the Braves example as an illustration that racism is still alive and well.

Or are you suggesting otherwise?

Lynah was just pointing out that there was a massive governmental intrusion behind SI's getting the story out.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I believe he was just using the Braves example as an illustration that racism is still alive and well.

Or are you suggesting otherwise?

Not at all - having grown up in TN and lived in TX, I'm acutely aware that racism is alive and well. And, quite frankly, I'm not sure that the rural areas in VT and CA where I lived were any better. And just yesterday on the street here in Redondo Beach while waiting for the cops to show up after witnessing a car accident, I heard numerous jokes that the person at fault was "driving while Asian."

My point is that the government does NOT have a compelling interest in making sure that people think and speak "properly." The fact that some people think racist thoughts and speak racist statements cannot be used as justification for laws that requires "strict scrutiny." Only active, actual discrimination rises to that standard. Would someone seriously make the statement that so long as there remains one person making racist jokes in the entire country, we really need to leave affirmative action in place? If not, then bringing up anecdotes of racist speech is completely irrelevant to a discussion on affirmative action.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not at all - having grown up in TN and lived in TX, I'm acutely aware that racism is alive and well. And, quite frankly, I'm not sure that the rural areas in VT and CA where I lived were any better. And just yesterday on the street here in Redondo Beach while waiting for the cops to show up after witnessing a car accident, I heard numerous jokes that the person at fault was "driving while Asian."

Unfortunately, everywhere I've ever been in this country (been to every state except Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas) I've seen examples of racism. Everywhere.

My point is that the government does NOT have a compelling interest in making sure that people think and speak "properly."

I completely agree. The government should never try and compel thoughts and only in rare instances speech. I'm not sure what this has to do with voter ID laws though.

The fact that some people think racist thoughts and speak racist statements cannot be used as justification for laws that requires "strict scrutiny."

I'm not sure anyone is trying to use the Braves' quote as justification for anything other than to counter the idea that there is no racism in the country. At least, that is how I interpreted it.

Only active, actual discrimination rises to that standard. Would someone seriously make the statement that so long as there remains one person making racist jokes in the entire country, we really need to leave affirmative action in place? If not, then bringing up anecdotes of racist speech is completely irrelevant to a discussion on affirmative action.

Agreed...although I don't think anyone was trying to make that argument. The way I interpreted it was as a counter to the idea that racism is no longer a big issue. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Also, the discussion was on Voter ID laws (at least, I thought it was)...not Affirmative Action.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Also, the discussion was on Voter ID laws (at least, I thought it was)...not Affirmative Action.

Well, I see several other references to AA in this thread besides mine, so I thought it was all part of a larger discussion on race. If you like, I'll explicitly state that I also don't think the existence of anecdotal racism proves that voter ID laws are racist, and that anecdotal racism also has no relevance to a discussion of voter ID laws.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Well, I see several other references to AA in this thread besides mine, so I thought it was all part of a larger discussion on race. If you like, I'll explicitly state that I also don't think the existence of anecdotal racism proves that voter ID laws are racist, and that anecdotal racism also has no relevance to a discussion of voter ID laws.

But I'm pretty sure anecdotal racism is evidence of racism. Fishy said "I seriously doubt there is much "racial" prejudice these days." I'm 99% certain Priceless was responding to that particular line of thinking with his comments.

 

[duper]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think that saying that requiring photo ID in order to vote is racist is a bit of a stretch, but on the other hand, if you think about the people who literally cannot afford the cost of going to the DMV (or wherever) and paying the fee for a photo ID, do you suppose that they reflect the same ethnic makeup as society as a whole? I suspect they lean toward further toward the minority. The suggestion that a photo ID for voting purposes should be both free and easy to get (including people not needing to travel across the city to get one) is a good one. While voter fraud sucks, so does the inability to exercise one's most fundamental right due to the lack of money.

But I'm pretty sure anecdotal racism is evidence of racism. Fishy said "I seriously doubt there is much "racial" prejudice these days." I'm 99% certain Priceless was responding to that particular line of thinking with his comments.

Apparently, LynahFan has a REALLY hard time grasping this.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

But I'm pretty sure anecdotal racism is evidence of racism. Fishy said "I seriously doubt there is much "racial" prejudice these days." I'm 99% certain Priceless was responding to that particular line of thinking with his comments.

FF's bizarre post when he said that was #29. Priceless's post that I was responding to was #50, where he only quoted busterman62 regarding voter ID laws. Priceless had already previously responded to FreshFish in #44, when he quoted FreshFish's post #36, NOT #29. It's not clear to me why you would think that Priceless was going all the way back to address #29, when he hadn't done so in #44 and didn't quote FreshFish in #50.