Support NeoGAF

[jamesinclair]

You can't just say terrorism kills less thus isn't not as important (I'll ignore your gun example because I do think that can be argued as more important, not sure I agree fully as I feel they're different monsters, but its a valid opinion)

Cars are dangerous yes, drunk people behind them doubly so but cars have a legitimate purpose, we know the risk they have an judge that we like the convenience they provide and judge the fact that people can die is a trade-off. This also misses the fact we are ever vigilant to these common dangers people so often cite to justify decreased vigilance towards terrorism. We pass new safety laws, fine negligent companies, punish those that abuse their privileges (drunk drivers for example). We fight these dangers.
Why wouldn't we do the same with terrorism?

And these common dangers aren't trying to kill us they're not sentient things. Terrorists are. And yes they are real threat. 9/11, the boston bombing, Nidal Hassan all prove that these people have no problem targeting and killing innocent people for their political goals? The only thing that is stopping them are those in Anti-Terrorism. And you're its just "3 people dead" does nothing to capture the societal disintegration terrorism promotes when it succeeds, the kind of policies it brings about in response.

You're Israeli no? You've seen how sustained terrorism has given people an out for avoiding peace and can push them in to a bellicose and siege mentality. Even if you feel their wrong in their reasons you can't deny it happens, and will happen (in the US its lead to things like Iraq which wouldn't have happened without the 9/11 anxiety).

There does need to be a discussion about how best to fight terrorism, maybe the Boston regulations are overkill. I have my theories I'm sure you have yours but you reduce it to "just three dead" misses why terrorism is different that normal accidents, murders and deaths.

You say that we accept 30,000 dead a year with vehicles because its worth the convenience. Its a shame, but damn anyone who stands between me and a Mcdonalds drive-thru.

Then how is the "convenience" of coming and going FREELY, and not being terrorized by the TSA not worth 3-30 lives a year? Last I checked, there is a legitimate purpose in crossing the Mass Ave bridge on the 4th.

You also ignore that those regulations and laws target the dangers. Drunk driving is illegal. We target drunk drivers by arresting them. We dont restrict EVERYONE ELSE from driving because theyre out there, trying to kill us and our families. With terrorists EVERYONE gets restricted, and yet the danger doesnt go away.

You talk about Israel...how about Spain? They went through decades of bombings, and yet they didnt go all fascist on their society for "safety". Ironic considering who was in charge for most of that period....

 

[B-Dubs]

"We don't need the VRA" is probably false, but I think "nowadays, the South is no more racist than I am" is very likely correct.

That isn't saying a whole lot of very good things about him, and yet it seems reasonable.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Of course not. Each type of terrorism has to be judged on its own. What I would oppose is doing anything to try to stop domestic terrorism. It's currently negligible and not worth the effort. Prosecute it as a criminal act whenever it occurs, as we always have done.

Which we do within our borders. How are anti-terror tactics in the US (the boston fireworks example) not trying to prevent criminal actions?

You're twisting my statements to argue what you want to argue.

He said prosecute, not prevent.

20 people got shot in Boston last week. Establishing a 7pm-7am curfew can prevent deaths and mayhem.

Is that an anti-crime tactic we should try? Why not?

I'm not arguing on what we should do about gun violence. I said there are valid difference in opinion about what anti-terror tactics should be utilized just that its absurd to compare and dismiss terrorism to certain other kinds of death. This isn't a ranking contest.

 

[jamesinclair]

Which we do within our borders. How are anti-terror tactics in the US (the boston fireworks example) not trying to prevent criminal actions?

You're twisting my statements to argue what you want to argue.

He said prosecute, not prevent.

20 people got shot in Boston last week. Establishing a 7pm-7am curfew can prevent deaths and mayhem.

Is that an anti-crime tactic we should try? Why not?

 

[The Librarian]

"We don't need the VRA" is probably false, but I think "nowadays, the South is no more racist than I am" is very likely correct.

LOL

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Let's play a game.

Name all of the ways that statement is ironic and false.

Did he really say that?

 

[Tamanon]

Honestly, I've always been uncomfortable with the South being singled out. I understand the history, but I would actually rather have every state have to get pre-cleared for changes, not just the South.

 

[Angry Fork]

What is the process for reversing the Supreme Court's decision? Do we have to wait until one of them dies or something? What happens now?

 

[B-Dubs]

Did he really say that?

Is this a question you really need to ask?

What is the process for reversing the Supreme Court's decision? Do we have to wait until one of them dies or something? What happens now?

For this one Congress can just go back and come up with a new formula. The Court just got rid of the current formula, not the law.

 

[Frank the Great]

Honestly, I've always been uncomfortable with the South being singled out. I understand the history, but I would actually rather have every state have to get pre-cleared for changes, not just the South.

I agree. I live in New Jersey and there are a LOT of dumbfuck racists out here. I'm sure it's like this in the non-urban areas of every state.

Plus maybe states like Indiana wouldn't get away with their ID laws if universal pre-clearance was required.

 

[jamesinclair]

Wait so now we trust the white house to decide which voting rules are ok for every state? Yeah, thatll end well.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Honestly, I've always been uncomfortable with the South being singled out. I understand the history, but I would actually rather have every state have to get pre-cleared for changes, not just the South.

The north was included in the law. They stopped being racist. They got out of pre-clearence.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-and-new-england/

Maine had 18 towns that fell under pre-approval status, all of which got this “bailout,” as it’s called, in 1976. Three Connecticut towns got the bailout in 1984.

And yes, even Massachusetts had towns covered by the formula: Amherst, Ayer, Belchertown, Bourne, Harvard, Sandwich, Shirley, Sunderland, and Wrentham. They all got the bailout in 1983.

The last remaining New England laggards were 10 small New Hampshire towns: Antrim, Benton, Boscawen, Millsfield, Newington, Pinkham’s Grant, Rindge, Stewartstown, Stratford, and Unity.

Whenever those towns have wanted to, for example, use new voting machines or change polling places, they needed to inform the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and get an OK first. And every new state law concerning voting laws—since they implicitly cover those towns—also required a letter to DoJ. As, for example, when New Hampshire decided, prior to the 2012 elections, to stop letting people apply to be on the ballot for Vice President without an accompanying Presidential candidate.

No more, however. In March, those New Hampshire towns got the bailout, too.

That leaves no part of New England covered any more. Certified 100 percent not horrible since March 2013!

What is the process for reversing the Supreme Court's decision? Do we have to wait until one of them dies or something? What happens now?

Congress would have to pass a new law (lulz) and it'd get challenged again. Their decision is the law now.

 

[B-Dubs]

Wait so now we trust the white house to decide which voting rules are ok for every state? Yeah, thatll end well.

No, Congress has the ability to make a new formula. The law isn't gone, only the current way it was implemented, so once they have a new formula the law is back. Which they actually seem to want to do right now. The only thing is it'll either be expanded or paired back.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

For the people who want pre-clearance for all states, I have two questions that I'm mulling over in my mind.

1: Won't it potentially overburden the system by having to expand to all 50 states now?

2: If the Southern states continue to disproportionally create voting rights issues, then even with pre-clearance applying to all 50 states, they will be targeted more than other states, so won't those states cry foul and complain that they are being unfairly targeted?

And, as a legal question outside of those two above questions:

What if Congress passes new guidelines for the law that still somehow only target the previous pre-clearance states using "new" data. Would that "satisfy" today's ruling?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

For the people who want pre-clearance for all states, I have two questions that I'm mulling over in my mind.

1: Won't it potentially overburden the system by having to expand to all 50 states now?

2: If the Southern states continue to disproportionally create voting rights issues, then even with pre-clearance applying to all 50 states, they will be targeted more than other states, so won't those states cry foul and complain that they are being unfairly targeted?

And, as a legal question outside of those two above questions:

What if Congress passes new guidelines for the law that still somehow only target the previous pre-clearance states using "new" data. Would that "satisfy" today's ruling?

Yes congress just needs to pass a new formula. But Roberts knows any new formula will pass will have to have racists demanding concessions. Why not? They have won has of now, there is no need for them not to fight against expanding it.

 

[B-Dubs]

For the people who want pre-clearance for all states, I have two questions that I'm mulling over in my mind.

1: Won't it potentially overburden the system by having to expand to all 50 states now?

2: If the Southern states continue to disproportionally create voting rights issues, then even with pre-clearance applying to all 50 states, they will be targeted more than other states, so won't those states cry foul and complain that they are being unfairly targeted?

And, as a legal question outside of those two above questions:

What if Congress passes new guidelines for the law that still somehow only target the previous pre-clearance states using "new" data. Would that "satisfy" today's ruling?

So long as the formula looks different than the one that got struck down it should be ok.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Is this a question you really need to ask?

I did. It doesn't sound like a direct quote, but ya never know. Am I to take from your response that he didn't?

 

[SpeedySwaf]

And, as a legal question outside of those two above questions:

What if Congress passes new guidelines for the law that still somehow only target the previous pre-clearance states using "new" data. Would that "satisfy" today's ruling?

So long as the data doesn't ask, "Is the state Texas/Kentucky/etc", it should be okay.

 

[Frank the Great]

The formula just needs to be based on modern data. Congress can't (well, they should be able to, but SCOTUS is activist) say "the conditions haven't changed enough from the 1960s to justify changing the formula," they must instead make findings and provide a formula that is based on modern data.

Those findings, by the way, will at least take a year or two. There is just enough time for Southern states to start implementing voting restrictions in time for the 2014 midterms, because there is no way Congress can act quick enough to fix the VRA. Yay SCOTUS, helping conservatives win elections since 2000.

 

[jamesinclair]

No, Congress has the ability to make a new formula. The law isn't gone, only the current way it was implemented, so once they have a new formula the law is back. Which they actually seem to want to do right now. The only thing is it'll either be expanded or paired back.

Congress wont pass shit.

The only formula the tea party will allow to get by is one where theyre required to divide by zero.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Congress is not going to pass a new formula though, no super majority in Senate and no majority in house for Dems.

 

[Allard]

Congress is not going to pass a new formula though, no super majority in Senate and no majority in house for Dems.

I'd dare them to block a new formula. Push it constantly and constantly till they give way. There is a reason the damn law kept getting renewed for so long with high majorities. Even in this climate no one wants to come across as overtly racist in attempt to challenge the law. The act of even blocking it will have negative consequences and there is a ton of evidence that proves it still needs to be in effect, tangible evidence I might add.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Congress is not going to pass a new formula though, no super majority in Senate and no majority in house for Dems.

I hope they run on opposing CIR and VRA I dare them.

At least we'll never have to deal with republicans again.

 

[B-Dubs]

Congress wont pass shit.

The only formula the tea party will allow to get by is one where theyre required to divide by zero.

Normally I'd agree, but the GOP can't take much more bad press when it comes to race relations. Especially since they are trying to reach out to the Hispanic community.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Normally I'd agree, but the GOP can't take much more bad press when it comes to race relations. Especially since they are trying to reach out to the Hispanic community.

And we all know how well THAT has been turning out.

The GOP has a worse PR team than MS.

 

[empty vessel]

Honestly, I've always been uncomfortable with the South being singled out. I understand the history, but I would actually rather have every state have to get pre-cleared for changes, not just the South.

I'd rather just have the federal government in charge of all elections. And, frankly, to end the charade of federalism entirely. Dual sovereignty is a silly and outdated concept.

 

[empty vessel]

I'd dare them to block a new formula. Push it constantly and constantly till they give way. There is a reason the damn law kept getting renewed for so long with high majorities. Even in this climate no one wants to come across as overtly racist in attempt to challenge the law. The act of even blocking it will have negative consequences and there is a ton of evidence that proves it still needs to be in effect, tangible evidence I might add.

I'm afraid you underestimate how radical the GOP has become. And how much support it still has among the public (at least the politically active public). It has changed even since 2006, which is when Republicans last authorized the VRA.

I'm not saying something won't pass. But I am saying I won't be surprised if it doesn't or if the GOP suffers no negative consequences from it. What do they have to lose? The black vote?

Edit: Oops, a rare double post.

 

[jamesinclair]

I'd rather just have the federal government in charge of all elections. And, frankly, to end the charade of federalism entirely. Dual sovereignty is a silly and outdated concept.

You want Obama and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Let me rephrase it.

You want President Cheney and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I'd rather just have the federal government in charge of all elections. And, frankly, to end the charade of federalism entirely. Dual sovereignty is a silly and outdated concept.

The only and I do mean ONLY reason that I think state governments, as they are, should exist, is because the Federal Budget is already ridiculously large as it is, add the combined budgets of the rest of country's states and you have a recipe for bureaucracy and inefficiency the likes of which this country would never see.

Or the whole "one law may fit here, but not the other". Well, then right the entire law outlining those exceptions, specifically. It's not like the law's length really matters that much considering just about everything major passed always is ridiculously long, anyhow.

 

[jamesinclair]

Incidentally, referring to our earlier discussion, which I never got a reply to...

This is only for May, and only for New York City.

 

[Frank the Great]

Let's see if Democrats capitalize on this, at least politically, to motivate minority turnout in 2014.

I doubt it.

 

[Wilsongt]

Comments from South Carolina on the VRA decision.

If the voters can't read and write, then they should not be able to vote and must be a citizen of the usa..

Well, if you don't like their decision, call
1-800-288-4878
or
1-800-BUTHURT

GREAT NEWS!!! Enough is enough and this is just a start to putting a stop to playing the race card. Look in the mirror and accept responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming your skin color. You want equality, then deal with it. I love it.

Are we all not equal? Why should states continue to have to ask permission from the federal government? That is over 50 yrs old? Some of these remarks are ridiculous.

That's a shame, now states can discriminate again. Bad enough all of the gerrymandering but being able to change voting requirements on a whim sure sounds like states being able to enact voter suppression again.

Still the most free country in the world and am happy to see this struck down. In 2006 when this was updated, it was done by a Republican Congress and a Republican President rubber stamping a quota system brought by the great bastien of modern day socialism Lyndon B. Johnson. After segregation was overturned quite frankly the need for this was eliminated and basically that is what the court is telling Congress to go back and use current demographic data and not rely on bad data which sdaly the Bush administration seemed to use a lot of whithout correctly checking things out.

This amnesty bill is the next worse thing to happen to our country besides Obama Care. They have even said they will furnish cars, cell phones, and other things to these people. They are going to take the few jobs we have in America, it will knock our non-college graduates out of jobs. This is getting worse day by day!

South Carolina was one of the states that sent someone up to the SC to argue for Voter IDs.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I'd rather just have the federal government in charge of all elections. And, frankly, to end the charade of federalism entirely. Dual sovereignty is a silly and outdated concept.

That's pretty radical and destroys one of the bedrocks of our country.

Besides, state governments are often more responsive at addressing the needs of the people (women's suffrage, gay marriage, etc.) there are certainly downsides, but the ability to experiment at a state level is one of the US's great strengths.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You want Obama and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Let me rephrase it.

You want President Cheney and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

This.

I don't want the US government in charge of voting anymore than I want them recording my phone calls. Give me campaign finance laws, fair voting hours/access, and non-partisan monitoring of elections.

 

[empty vessel]

You want Obama and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Let me rephrase it.

You want President Cheney and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Yes, without a doubt.

 

[eBay Huckster]

That's pretty radical and destroys one of the bedrocks of our country.

who gives a shit if it's one of the bedrocks of the country if that bedrock is made of something rotting?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And, frankly, to end the charade of federalism entirely. Dual sovereignty is a silly and outdated concept.

You gonna change the name of the country too?

who gives a shit if it's one of the bedrocks of the country if that bedrock is made of something rotting?

Federalism is rotten?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Federalism is rotten?

that's not really what i was saying, but sure

 

[Aaron Strife]

Let's see if Democrats capitalize on this, at least politically, to motivate minority turnout in 2014.

I doubt it.

I hope they will. Backlash against voter ID laws was a huge motivator for black voters in 2012.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

that's not really what i was saying, but sure

The guy you responded to was I though referring to EV saying he'd get rid of federalism

 

[The Librarian]

You want Obama and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Let me rephrase it.

You want President Cheney and his NSA goons deciding who gets to vote?

Not that I disagree with the idea, but they've been doing a pretty good job of it so far. Even under Bush.

Agreed. What I would definitely like is countrywide voting standards. We don't need to let everything be run by the federal gov't.

Damn, outdated Constitution...

 

[cooljeanius]

The north was included in the law. They stopped being racist. They got out of pre-clearence.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-and-new-england/

The last remaining New England laggards were 10 small New Hampshire towns: Antrim, Benton, Boscawen, Millsfield, Newington, Pinkham’s Grant, Rindge, Stewartstown, Stratford, and Unity.

Whenever those towns have wanted to, for example, use new voting machines or change polling places, they needed to inform the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and get an OK first. And every new state law concerning voting laws—since they implicitly cover those towns—also required a letter to DoJ. As, for example, when New Hampshire decided, prior to the 2012 elections, to stop letting people apply to be on the ballot for Vice President without an accompanying Presidential candidate.

No more, however. In March, those New Hampshire towns got the bailout, too.

That leaves no part of New England covered any more. Certified 100 percent not horrible since March 2013!

Congress would have to pass a new law (lulz) and it'd get challenged again. Their decision is the law now.

Figures it'd be New Hampshire... Although then again we don't even have

Spoiler

m

any minorities here to discriminate against in the first place, so I don't really see why it took us so long...

 

[eBay Huckster]

The guy you responded to was I though referring to EV saying he'd get rid of federalism

i realize this, but i was more attacking the notion that something being "a bedrock of the country" is anything meaningful

Spoiler

particularly given that slavery used to be one of them

 

[Diablos]

We're fucked. Did the SCOTUS just invalidate the VRA? Yes the law is still valid, but without the formula, what good is it to fully protect the rights of minorities and any other type of individual a state would want to prevent from voting just because? No, seriously? What's it going to do now?

It's a shell of its former self now... LBJ and the Congress he worked with would have a stroke if they were to see this unfold...

Am I just being paranoid or are they going to expect all kinds of things from people to vote now? I.e. 20 pages of questions just because they can? What are the implications of this going to be?

And yeah it's terrifying that the SCOTUS can just render a settled part of a historic law null and void. I mean we've had this law since the fucking 60's ffs. Leave it alone.

Do NOT count on Congress to fix this. If anything they will just make it worse or reflect the opinions of the SCOTUS so that's not going to help anything.

We are so fucked. Dems aren''t getting the House back next year. I can't believe this shit. They're setting up 2016 to be stacked in the GOP's favor already. And with Obama facing a lot of controversy (none of it really being his fault, but it makes him and the party look terrible) it's just going to be even more of an uphill battle.

Hillary's people better be getting with Obama's people and talking to the DNC and DSCC to ensure that elections next year and in 2016 are as painless as possible for minorities and any other 'targeted' groups (i.e. students)

 

[empty vessel]

Agreed. What I would definitely like is countrywide voting standards. We don't need to let everything be run by the federal gov't.

That's basically the same thing. You're reducing the states to nondiscretionary officers that are executing federal law. I've got no problem with that.

You gonna change the name of the country too?

What's in a name?

Federalism is rotten?

Yes, if it is rotten to retard progress and distort democracy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes, if it is rotten to retard progress and distort democracy.

I don't follow. Federalism can promote progress (voting rights for women, better health care, anti-discrimination laws, marriage laws, action on climate change, better regulations, etc) and reinforce democracy (more responsive elected officials, your vote matters more).

Of course there examples of the opposite but its not like it lacks positives, there are certain aspects where I don't like its application but the concept isn't rotten.

Its just not producing your policy goals.
You constantly post things that set out these very clear right and wrong dichotomies were you always fall on the "right side."

I understand we usually feel like we are arguing for the right side but there are things like opinions

i realize this, but i was more attacking the notion that something being "a bedrock of the country" is anything meaningful

Spoiler

particularly given that slavery used to be one of them

I get what you're saying. I think keystone might be a better word?

The entire structure of the government, in every breach is set up due to federalism. Take it out the whole thing falls.

You can't just throw out the concept without actual revolution in the entire system (complete dismantling of the current government)

 

[B-Dubs]

We're fucked. Did the SCOTUS just invalidate the VRA? Yes the law is still valid, but without the formula, what good is it to fully protect the rights of minorities and any other type of individual a state would want to prevent from voting just because? No, seriously? What's it going to do now?

It's a shell of its former self now... LBJ and the Congress he worked with would have a stroke if they were to see this unfold...

Am I just being paranoid or are they going to expect all kinds of things from people to vote now? I.e. 20 pages of questions just because they can? What are the implications of this going to be?

And yeah it's terrifying that the SCOTUS can just render a settled part of a historic law null and void. I mean we've had this law since the fucking 60's ffs. Leave it alone.

Do NOT count on Congress to fix this. If anything they will just make it worse or reflect the opinions of the SCOTUS so that's not going to help anything.

We are so fucked. Dems aren''t getting the House back next year. I can't believe this shit. They're setting up 2016 to be stacked in the GOP's favor already. And with Obama facing a lot of controversy (none of it really being his fault, but it makes him and the party look terrible) it's just going to be even more of an uphill battle.

Hillary's people better be getting with Obama's people and talking to the DNC and DSCC to ensure that elections next year and in 2016 are as painless as possible for minorities and any other 'targeted' groups (i.e. students)

A lot of damage can be done, but there is still a lot of damage that can't be done. 20 page questionnaires are still illegal and groups like the ACLU can still fight against them, this does make that fight a lot harder though. All this means is we all are going to have to be a lot more vigilant than we're used to being when it comes to voting rights.

 

[empty vessel]

You constantly post things that set out these very clear right and wrong dichotomies were you always fall on the "right side."

I understand we usually feel like we are arguing for the right side but there are things like opinions

I have opinions and argue them. Others have theirs and argue them. That's what discussion is.

 

[platypotamus]

My fucking mind is boggled.

Did a Justice of the Supreme Court just say that racism is no longer a problem?

I think what he said is that the South is no more racist than he is. I think we can take him at his word here, and I look forward to the Food Network canceling his show.

 

[PhoenixDark]

We're fucked. Did the SCOTUS just invalidate the VRA? Yes the law is still valid, but without the formula, what good is it to fully protect the rights of minorities and any other type of individual a state would want to prevent from voting just because? No, seriously? What's it going to do now?

It's a shell of its former self now... LBJ and the Congress he worked with would have a stroke if they were to see this unfold...

Am I just being paranoid or are they going to expect all kinds of things from people to vote now? I.e. 20 pages of questions just because they can? What are the implications of this going to be?

And yeah it's terrifying that the SCOTUS can just render a settled part of a historic law null and void. I mean we've had this law since the fucking 60's ffs. Leave it alone.

Do NOT count on Congress to fix this. If anything they will just make it worse or reflect the opinions of the SCOTUS so that's not going to help anything.

We are so fucked. Dems aren''t getting the House back next year. I can't believe this shit. They're setting up 2016 to be stacked in the GOP's favor already. And with Obama facing a lot of controversy (none of it really being his fault, but it makes him and the party look terrible) it's just going to be even more of an uphill battle.

Hillary's people better be getting with Obama's people and talking to the DNC and DSCC to ensure that elections next year and in 2016 are as painless as possible for minorities and any other 'targeted' groups (i.e. students)

Jesus, man up.

If democrats lose in 2016 it'll be due to 8 years of stagnant growth, scandals, and incumbent fatigue...not because of today. That of course is assuming a few things: mainly that we have 3 more years of stagnant growth (unlikely) and the scandals matter (also unlikely).

Whichever democrat runs in 2016 will win more of the white vote than Obama by default. That alone will ensure urban areas aren't as important as they were last year. TLDR: nobody is going to beat Hillary regardless, so chill out. And in a few years when the conservative lean of the Supreme Court is gone*, celebrate.

*it'll remain pro-corporation (Kagan...thanks Obama)