The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Rover]

HA!!

BTW, I think you're in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Has anyone made noise that Rep. Markey (Senator presumptive) lives more in Maryland than in Massachusetts??

The Herald tried, but since Barney Frank hadn't set foot in Mass in about 20 years and still got re-elected, its not too much of an issue. I believe Markey actually owns a house and I've seen him around town. Frank IIRC used his sister's house as his place of residence.

 

[unofan]

As much as I would like to think this decision is not a big deal, I can't help but think that it will only be a matter of time before the South and other parts of the country starts to have some very "creative" changes to their voting laws.

Also, I find it very interesting that elapsed time is an apparent factor now on the constitutionality of a law.

Thomas' concurrence in Adoptive Couple was interesting. He starts off saying domestic relations are the province of the states. Will be interesting if he agrees to shoot down DOMA tomorrow with that same logic.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Thomas' concurrence in Adoptive Couple was interesting. He starts off saying domestic relations are the province of the states. Will be interesting if he agrees to shoot down DOMA tomorrow with that same logic.

I would. And, by the same token, you uphold California Prop 8.

 

[MattS]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's a road to nowhere though. 40 years ago the threat of violence plus a poll tax was a pretty strong deterent to voting. Not to mention it was a much different age in terms of access to instantaneous information. Much of these practices could take place in relative anonymity.

All that's gone now. If a political party decided that surpressing the vote was the way to win elections, that party would be on its way to extinction. It just doesn't work that way anymore. You can't charge people to vote and you can't threaten them. You also can't change the law at the last minute to confuse them. The big mischief that I can see is kinda what we're already dealing with which is hyper-partisan redistricting. The solution to that is already available (citizens passed initiative for independent commission to draw lines). Otherwise as the last election proved, efforts to keep people from voting just turn indifferent voters into highly motivated ones, and they're all motivated to pay you back at the ballot box. Remember when these laws were going to throw PA and FL into Romney's column? I think it fell a few million votes short.

I will agree that today is generally a different time than it was back prior to the mid-1960's but that doesn't change that there are certainly sections of the country where the attitudes have not changed. And I used the word creative since I don't believe we shall see a return of Jim Crow laws, but I do not doubt for one second that sections of the country will use this decision to enact more and more laws that will make it harder for certain segments of the population to be able to vote. The laws will get passed off as "just making sure citizens are the only people voting" or some other such righteous sounding terms.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I will agree that today is generally a different time than it was back prior to the mid-1960's but that doesn't change that there are certainly sections of the country where the attitudes have not changed. And I used the word creative since I don't believe we shall see a return of Jim Crow laws, but I do not doubt for one second that sections of the country will use this decision to enact more and more laws that will make it harder for certain segments of the population to be able to vote. The laws will get passed off as "just making sure citizens are the only people voting" or some other such righteous sounding terms.

I (like Rover ) think the gerrymander is more of a detriment to voter suppression than Voter ID laws. The gerrymander is a legal way to disenfranchise a whole political party.

 

[MattS]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I (like Rover ) think the gerrymander is more of a detriment to voter suppression than Voter ID laws. The gerrymander is a legal way to disenfranchise a whole political party.

Then you would both be wrong!

I agree with that too. But I do think that voter ID laws, while in principle are fine, are going to diminish voting. No doubt in my mind.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I find it very interesting that elapsed time is an apparent factor now on the constitutionality of a law.

That's not quite how the ruling seemed to read. The constitutionality of the law itself didn't seem to be in question, merely the formula they used to measure compliance with the law was struck down (Section 4 was overturned, Section 5 allowed to stand; except Section 5 depends upon a formula that needs to be updated).

Sort of like saying, "you've got the right idea in general, you merely need to tweak the specifics to account for 47 years of change since 1965."

Of course, that makes for a boring headline, and if you are an advertisement-driven news outlet, you need to make everything breathlessly sensationalistic these days in order to get more hits.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If a political party decided that surpressing the vote was the way to win elections, that party would be on its way to extinction. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

Oh, really? I've seen some pretty reputable studies done that indicate that the IRS suppression of the Tea Party from 2010 - 2012 definitely suppressed the vote in 2012. Obviously, the people involved in silencing the Tea Party thought so, or else why would they have suppressed them in the first place?

I do not doubt for one second that sections of the country will use this decision to enact more and more laws that will make it harder for certain segments of the population to be able to vote..

The IRS didn't even need this decision in order to do that, eh? It does seem that many on the left think it is perfectly fine to deprive people on the right of their rights of free expression. Last time I looked, "knuckledragger" is definitely NOT on the list of people who should not be discriminated against, and many people are quite happy to see their First Expression rights curtailed.



However, it seems to me that it wasn't so much a political party, it was a career bureaucracy, that did so. If you believe that the IRS is too big and powerful and should be reined in, it is only natural that career employees at the IRS would not like your message and do whatever they could do to suppress it. From their point of view, you are threatening their livelihood.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I agree with that too. But I do think that voter ID laws, while in principle are fine, are going to diminish voting. No doubt in my mind.

Well, duh, we'd ALL agree with you that if you enforced "one person, one vote" then voting would of course be diminished in all those places where the same person now casts multiple votes! that's just basic math.

I don't think there is anything wrong whatsoever in ensuring that each registered voter only votes once in each election. I'm surprised at how many people don't like that idea.

 

[Rover]

Oh, really? I've seen some pretty reputable studies done that indicate that the IRS suppression of the Tea Party from 2010 - 2012 definitely suppressed the vote in 2012. Obviously, the people involved in silencing the Tea Party thought so, or else why would they have suppressed them in the first place?

However, it seems to me that it wasn't so much a political party, it was a career bureaucracy, that did so. If you believe that the IRS is too big and powerful and should be reined in, it is only natural that career employees at the IRS would not like your message and do whatever they could do to suppress it. From their point of view, you are threatening their livelihood.

Congressman Issa! Didn't know you were a hockey fan! Hey, wait a minute..is my car still in the parking lot!?!

In fact the IRS "scandal" has just been thoroughly debunked as it turns out world like "progressive" were also flagged.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/06/25/irs_scandal_fizzles_as_issue_for_republicans.html


The problem for Tea Party/conservative/Republicans/knuckledraggers/whateveryoucallyourselvesnow is that the public doesn't like them. If people don't like you, in the long run you're screwed. That's why the GOP has been outvoted in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections. This is also why I don't worry about voter supression. Either the right boosts its popularity, or it will continue to lose ground. For example, how much longer can the Virginia GOP hang on given that 1)Obama has won the state twice, 2) Dems have won the last 4 Senate races, and 3) the party just nominated a bunch of hard right nutbags for gov/lt gov this year.

One by one, if the GOP remains unpopular, no amount of electoral shennanigans will save them. Dems were in a similar situation 25 years ago and redistricting didn't save them either.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Well, duh, we'd ALL agree with you that if you enforced "one person, one vote" then voting would of course be diminished in all those places where the same person now casts multiple votes! that's just basic math.

I don't think there is anything wrong whatsoever in ensuring that each registered voter only votes once in each election. I'm surprised at how many people don't like that idea.

And you are, in fact, eligible to vote. A citizen of Kenya, for example, should not be allowed to vote for President.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If a political party decided that surpressing the vote was the way to win elections, that party would be on its way to extinction. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

I dunno, there doesn't seem to be that much blowback to the Republicans for their present suppression schemes (most notably the various voter ID laws).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What's even worse is when certain Ohio counties have a 130% voter turnout.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I dunno, there doesn't seem to be that much blowback to the Republicans for their present suppression schemes (most notably the various voter ID laws).

They've lost 4 out of the last 6 Presidential elections and will go at least 8 years without holding the Senate. Basically if they can't gerrymander it they're out of luck. While voter supression efforts don't explain the unpopularity of Republicans in total, they make up part of it.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What's even worse is when certain Ohio counties have a 130% voter turnout.

If a knuckledragger falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

Nobody's paying attention Flaggy. Time to move on.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If a knuckledragger falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

Nobody's paying attention Flaggy. Time to move on.

If they voted for the knuckledragger, would this particular huff-and-puffer make a sound?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They've lost 4 out of the last 6 Presidential elections and will go at least 8 years without holding the Senate. Basically if they can't gerrymander it they're out of luck. While voter suppression (sic) efforts don't explain the unpopularity of Republicans in total, they make up part of it.

The GOP went a whole generation of not holding the Senate (1955 - 1980). What's 8 years in the great scheme of things?

The difference was the quality of the leadership back then -- on both sides of the aisle.

FYI: The House was in Democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Again, the difference between now and then was the quality of the leadership.

The Speakers during that time:
Sam Rayburn
John McCormack
Carl Albert
Tip O'Neill
Jim Wright
Tom Foley

 

[MattS]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's not quite how the ruling seemed to read. The constitutionality of the law itself didn't seem to be in question, merely the formula they used to measure compliance with the law was struck down (Section 4 was overturned, Section 5 allowed to stand; except Section 5 depends upon a formula that needs to be updated).

Sort of like saying, "you've got the right idea in general, you merely need to tweak the specifics to account for 47 years of change since 1965."

Of course, that makes for a boring headline, and if you are an advertisement-driven news outlet, you need to make everything breathlessly sensationalistic these days in order to get more hits.

Exactly. Roberts wrote that a majority of the Court has decided essentially to put time limits upon laws now. He wrote that the law needs to "speaks to current conditions". So for me they put an arbitrary time limit upon laws based upon whatever they feel is "current".

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Nobody's paying attention.

This is perhaps the best oxymoron I've ever seen in real life!

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They've lost 4 out of the last 6 Presidential elections and will go at least 8 years without holding the Senate. Basically if they can't gerrymander it they're out of luck. While voter supression efforts don't explain the unpopularity of Republicans in total, they make up part of it.

I think it's a lesser issue than candidate selections and other policy positions.