Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread
#36

There was a discussion on Chris Hayes show the other day about the big 3 rulings that SCOTUS is working on - DOMA, the voting rights act and Affirmative action.

He posited the idea that they are purposefully releasing the rulings on all 3 together in order to cover/confuse the media coverage.

If the court overturns DOMA, the media will trumpet this as a positive move toward the legalization of gay marriage/rights. But while the media is all "woohoo!" about this ruling, they can 'sneak' the overturning of the Voting Rights act and  Aff. Action in under the media's radar.

While the overturning of DOMA is important, the other two issues, IMO, have much farther reaching consequences to the continuation of democracy in this country. The conservatives in this country have HATED the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action since they were established and they would love nothing more than to have both of them killed off.

All that being said, given these recent decisions, who the fuck knows which way the rulings will fall ???

Reply
#37

It would actually be spectacular if they overturned DOMA and upheld the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, a sort of resigned sigh to the inevitable force of change.

Won't happen, but a man can dream, right?

Reply
#38

Since there's virtually no racism, bigotry, election rigging or vote tampering anywhere in this country, the SCOTUS saw fit to strike down key parts of the Voting Rights Act. 

Reply
#39

Duuuhh. Black president and all. Sheesh!

Inch by inch it goes.

But baby, that restraining order works so well we don't even need it anymore!

Reply
#40

Seeing as US society has changed greatly since it's inception, I am all for revisiting and updating antiquated law. Hell, Jefferson even said that the law should evolve over time.

So.... SCOTUS said that Congress should review the Voting Rights Act which in a sane and rational world could make sense.

On the TV I have on in the background I heard Chuck Todd/MSNBC mention something that is all too true:  (paraphrasing) ...this current incarnation of Congress is too immature to be able to deal with this incredibly important issue.

Can't say I disagree with him. (and I don't really like CTodd)

Reply
#41

Can't say I'm surprised by Thomas' ruling since I watched his great-grandfather's biopic this weekend.

But once again, eat shit Reagan and Bush.

Reply
#42
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

On the TV I have on in the background I heard Chuck Todd/MSNBC mention something that is all too true:  (paraphrasing) ...this current incarnation of Congress is too immature to be able to deal with this incredibly important issue.

Can't say I disagree with him. (and I don't really like CTodd)

I don't know if "immature" is the word I'd use.  More like (at least on one side of the aisle) ignorant and wholly corporate-owned.  But I guess you can't say that on TV.

Reply
#43

Here's an interesting article from Nate Silver on the VRA, geography and what it all means.

Reply
#44
A[quote name="VTRan" url="/community/t/146967/who-elected-these-morons-the-supreme-court-thread#post_3534914"]Seeing as US society has changed greatly since it's inception, I am all for revisiting and updating antiquated law. Hell, Jefferson even said that the law should evolve over time.

So.... SCOTUS said that Congress should review the Voting Rights Act which in a sane and rational world could make sense.

On the TV I have on in the background I heard Chuck Todd/MSNBC mention something that is all too true: (paraphrasing) ...this current incarnation of Congress is too immature to be able to deal with this incredibly important issue.

Can't say I disagree with him. (and I don't really like CTodd)
[/quote]


[quote name="yt" url="/community/t/146967/who-elected-these-morons-the-supreme-court-thread#post_3534973"]
I don't know if "immature" is the word I'd use. More like (at least on one side of the aisle) ignorant and wholly corporate-owned. But I guess you can't say that on TV.
[/quote]


You're both being far too kind. The future of the GOP is absolutely, demographically dependant upon the kind of race-targeted election rigging that the Voting Rights Act was intended to abolish, and the Justices who owe their nominations to that party have just unleashed a storm of fuckery that will make 2012's Florida shenanigans look like amateur hour in comparison.
Reply
#45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

You're both being far too kind. The future of the GOP is absolutely, demographically dependant upon the kind of race-targeted election rigging that the Voting Rights Act was intended to abolish, and the Justices who owe their nominations to that party have just unleashed a storm of fuckery that will make 2012's Florida shenanigans look like amateur hour in comparison.

Of course, this conservative decision could come back and bite the GOP in the ass in a big way come election time. It could very well be one more albatross to hang around the neck of GOP politicians.

Just ask a GOP member if he agrees or disagrees with the SCOTUS decision....if he agrees with it, he can be easily painted as being against equitable voting rights, i.e. anti-democracy.

This, in addition to the GOP's current attitudes toward women and minorities, could be very detrimental to it's future chances. <crosses fingers>

Ginsburg went on a tear excoriating the decision.

Quote: <excerpt>

Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story.

Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on “data from the record,” and declines to enter the “debat[e about] what [the] record shows.”

One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation.I note the most disturbing lapses. First, by what right, given its usual restraint, does the Court even address Shelby County’s facial challenge to the VRA? Second, the Court veers away from controlling precedent regarding the“equal sovereignty” doctrine without even acknowledging that it is doing so. Third, hardly showing the respect ordinarily paid when Congress acts to implement the CivilWar Amendments, and as just stressed, the Court does not even deign to grapple with the legislative record.

Reply
#46

To add to my earlier comments...I read this over at TPM

SCOTUS Ruling Ensnares Boehner, McConnell In Voting Right Act Fight

Quote: <excerpt>

There’s a perfectly good reason the two don’t want to get ahead of themselves.

The Court’s conservative majority didn’t rule that so-called “preclearance” standards are unconstitutional — just that the ones Congress had adopted, most recently in 2006, no longer fly.

That means it’s up to Congress to replace them, and it’s up to Republicans in Congress to decide if they’re going to stand in the way.

“It is up to Congress to right the wrong of this decision and ensure that we do not turn back the clock on America’s democratic progress,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an official response to the ruling. “The Senate will act. I have asked Chairman Leahy to immediately examine the appropriate path for the Senate to address this decision.”

That puts McConnell and Boehner in the same predicament they face in the fight over immigration reform: Would killing new Voting Rights Act standards ahead of the 2014 election be valuable enough in the near term (for both the party as a whole and their own leadership prospects) to outweigh the damage it would do to them in 2016 and the future with minority voters who will be watching this story very closely.

At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves, if McConnell decides not to block the bill — or simply finds himself unable — Boehner will face pressure to give the issue a fair hearing on the floor as well, rather than let the Court’s ruling stand for the coming election.

Reply
#47

You think that is bad?

After September in Australia. We are most likely to have an ultra conservative.  Greedy and worthless imbecile, as our 'new' prime minister.

It terrifies me.

The MSM in this country panders to the idiot. He has close connections to a pedophile protecting Cardinal, and is about as right wing as any piece of garbage can get.

His/its name is Tony Abbott.. and he is the most evil person I have ever met.

This country is going to die soon.

I despair

Reply
#48

The GOP: We believe all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#49

fuckin' A

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA

Reply
#50

Gah, it's like an abusive relationship. I love them, I hate them, I love them, I hate them, on and on.

Fuck you, very much DOMA.

Reply
#51

Goddammit SCOTUS!  One step back, one step forward.

Reply
#52

To paraphrase-

"I felt a great disturbance in Salt Lake City, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something wondrous has happened."

Reply
#53

Married gays are about to get redistricted! I see Roberts' evil plan for what it is!

Reply
#54

To steal Pajiba's idea:

Reply
#55

Colbert should be EXTRA amusing tonight.

Reply
#56

Oh my gods....the slippery slope.....it's starting.....

Reply
#57

Mass Hysteria!

Reply
#58

I never get tired of watching this, especially today.

Reply
#59
AScalia's dissenting response, and HuffPo's analysis of same, have been predictably hilarious.

"A day after siding with four other conservative justices to overturn a portion of a nearly 50 year old civil rights law that maintained broad bipartisan support, Justice Antonin Scalia lashed out at the Supreme Court for intervening in the gay marriage debate," the article begins.
Reply
#60
Quote:

Gay-Marriage Foes Going Through Stages of Grief

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

2. Anger

"My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of 'marriage' in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term)."

—Justice Scalia

3. Bargaining

We will now seek the passage of federal legislation to remedy this situation as much as possible given the parameters of the decision.
 —Ralph Reed

4. Depression

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words "We the People" are now meaningless.

5. Acceptance

Mike O'Brien @mpoindc

Rand Paul: "I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state."

edit to add:  Hey Rand Paul, what about all that libertarian freedom that you always are going on about? Shouldn't you be happy with this decision?

Reply
#61

Scalia gets a point for use of "argle-bargle" in a sentence, which is simply delightful (deducted several thousand points for everything else).

Reply
#62
AShortly before lunch time, an immigration judge in NYC halted deportation proceedings for a Colombian man married to a male American citizen, citing the Supreme Court's decision. Prior to today, the court was prepared to split up this marriage, because DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing it.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel: Implementation of benefits to gay military spouses is to begin immediately.

Joan McCarter at DailyKos thanks John Boehner for his $3 million dollar legal defense of DOMA, without which the Supreme Court might never have been able to rule on the law.

_
Reply
#63
Quote:

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

Reply
#64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

God, that's so perfect.

Reply
#65

It's the rest of the dais laughing along that seals it.

Reply
#66
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Quote:

Gay-Marriage Foes Going Through Stages of Grief

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

2. Anger

"My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of 'marriage' in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term)."

—Justice Scalia

3. Bargaining

We will now seek the passage of federal legislation to remedy this situation as much as possible given the parameters of the decision.
 —Ralph Reed

4. Depression

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words "We the People" are now meaningless.

5. Acceptance

Mike O'Brien @mpoindc

Rand Paul: "I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state."

edit to add:  Hey Rand Paul, what about all that libertarian freedom that you always are going on about? Shouldn't you be happy with this decision?

Reply
#67
AOMIGOD.





Omigod, you guys.





You guys.





Brangelina can end their protest strike and get married now.





You guys. OMIGOD.
Reply
#68

 I'm happy that DOMA was struck down, but it still doesn't make up for the Voting Acts bullshit.  I guess Rand Paul doesn't believe in big government, except when he knows when it should be used. Nobody has the right to tell to consenting adults what they can do; that goes double for ass hats that go on Alex Jones's show.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#69
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Oh my gods....the slippery slope.....it's starting.....


Most adorable slippery slope ever!

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#70

http://wonkette.com/520855/conservatives...st-kidding

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)