Supreme Court: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[Valmy]

But why have it?

Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.

[derspiess]

for the black candidate/free money party as they always will.

Shame you made me stop reading right there, as I'm sure the rest of your post was just as lucid.

That sentence was literally added just for you. If you don't have something to get outraged about you'll invent it, so I find it better to just throw the dog a bone. I know you need the outrage a lot more than I need you reading my entire post. 

[garbon]

That you have to be a US citizen to vote?

Do we really have to rehash the points we have been making about this in the past 20 threads?  It seems so tiresome.

[Eddie Teach]

Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.

49% of the population willing to stand in line to cast individually worthless ballots. Clearly a sign of the death of the republic.

[11B4V]

But why have it?

Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.

I did. How did you come up with that?

[The Minsky Moment]

Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.

Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education?  Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?

That's different.  In those cases, the Supreme Court ruled in the second case that they got it wrong in the first case.

What is odd and unique about this case is that the majority is essentially saying that both cases were right - that the Constitution permitted Congress to enact these legal provisions in 1966 but not in 2006.  And the only way to do that is to make the outcome turn on the analysis of empirical data.  To which the obvious response would be: isn't that the kind of policy judgment that is traditionally reposed in Congress?

The majority comes down to saying that strong considerations of federalism and respect of the rights of states to make their own laws justify the Court stepping in and second guessing Congress' judgment.  Which is kind of funny given that the VERY NEXT DAY four out of five of those very same justices took the opposite view in the DOMA case.

[Valmy]

But why have it?

Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.

I did. How did you come up with that?

Dang you do?  I was trying to use sarcasm to attack you, I guess sometimes you just get lucky

[Eddie Teach]

I dunno, seems to me DOMA is more federalist in a sense as it allows different states to treat gay couples differently. Now that it's gone we'll probably see more consistency from state to state.

[The Minsky Moment]

I dunno, seems to me DOMA is more federalist in a sense as it allows different states to treat gay couples differently. Now that it's gone we'll probably see more consistency from state to state.

??
Different states can have different marriage laws.  That isn't changing.
What was being challenged in Windsor was the federal mandate overriding state marriages and imposing a uniform federal rule of recognition.

[CountDeMoney]

The majority comes down to saying that strong considerations of federalism and respect of the rights of states to make their own laws justify the Court stepping in and second guessing Congress' judgment.  Which is kind of funny given that the VERY NEXT DAY four out of five of those very same justices took the opposite view in the DOMA case.

That is because one case affects conservative electoral outcomes, and the other one, not as much.

[Admiral Yi]

Different states can have different marriage laws.  That isn't changing.

Right, which is why I found your previous post about inconsitency between DOMA and Reconstruction puzzling.

[The Minsky Moment]

Different states can have different marriage laws.  That isn't changing.

Right, which is why I found your previous post about inconsitency between DOMA and Reconstruction puzzling.

Reconstruction?
What is it that you found puzzling?

[Eddie Teach]

??
Different states can have different marriage laws.  That isn't changing.

About who can get married in their state. But they're no longer going to be able to deny marriages from other states. Even if it's not implicit in that ruling, it is what's going to happen as a result.

[Admiral Yi]

Reconstruction?
What is it that you found puzzling?

Section 4 of Voting Rights.

I thought you were saying in Voting Rights they deferred to states's rights but in DOMA they did not.

[The Minsky Moment]

??
Different states can have different marriage laws.  That isn't changing.

About who can get married in their state. But they're no longer going to be able to deny marriages from other states. Even if it's not implicit in that ruling, it is what's going to happen as a result.

Oh I see your issue.  But it is mistaken.  The Court's decision did not address that part of DOMA (section 2).  It only addressed section 3 which says that that federal definition of marriage will trump any contrary state provisions.