Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on June 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on Shelby County v. Holder

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.

As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.

***

Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that guts parts of the Voting Rights Act, Texas is moving forward with a controversial voter ID law that state Attorney General Greg Abbott hopes to implement right away.

“With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said in a statement to the Dallas Morning News. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

The Texas law requires voters to show photo identification to vote—a measure that was blocked by the Justice Department, arguing the law could discriminate against racial minorities. At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a “poll tax.”

Although the Justice Department still maintains the right to approve voting-rights laws in counties that have historically implemented discriminatory laws against minorities, Congress now needs to determine those areas.

***

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings next month after the court on Tuesday invalidated the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, which determines which voting districts must gain pre-approval from the Department of Justice for voting policy and procedure changes.

The court left standing Section 5, which requires states with histories of racial discrimination to seek such approval, only invalidating the formula that determines which districts fall under that provision. Congress last reauthorized the law in 2006.

Now, it’s essentially up to Congress to re-write the formula.

***

“What it tells me is after 45 years, the Voting Rights Act worked,” Mr. Grassley said, “and that’s the best I can say. It just proves that it worked.”

Representative Melvin Watt, a North Carolina Democrat who favors the preclearance requirements that the Voting Rights Act established, called the court’s decision outrageous. But any remedy from Congress, he added, would be difficult to piece together.

“I don’t think that we would be able to come up with a remedy that would satisfy this Supreme Court,” Mr. Watt said, noting that before Congress reauthorized the act in 2006, it gathered 15,000 pages of evidence demonstrating that racial discrimination was still prevalent enough to justify the law. “Fifteen thousand pages. If that’s not enough, what would be?”…

Across the South, reaction to the decision appeared to be split, largely along racial and partisan lines.

***

Sen. Tim Scott, the only black Republican in the Senate, backed the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, arguing formulas from “the 1970s” cannot provide fairness and accountability…

“We are a nation that demands fairness and accountability. Is there a formula from the 1970s that helps us find that today? I don’t believe so,” Scott said in the statement.

“We should strive to ensure that all Americans have access to opportunity and equal protection under the law. But punishing six southern states because of past failures does not help us in the present and certainly does not help find our path to the future. All states should be treated equally, and today’s decision provides for that opportunity,” he added.

***

The Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is likely to help Republicans alter voting rules and districts in key states, voting rights experts said in the wake of the ruling Tuesday, potentially setting off a string of dominoes that could bolster the GOP’s majority in the House of Representatives for years, or even decades, to come

The ruling is unlikely to immediately lead to changes in the makeup of the House of Representatives, observers said, because of one section the Court left untouched. Section 2 of the Act protects voting districts in which minority populations exceed 50 percent of the voting age population; the vast majority of Democrats who represent Southern states hold majority-minority districts, and national interest groups like the Democratic Party and the NAACP are likely to bring lawsuits if state legislatures tamper with district lines in an effort to dilute minority voting power. What’s more, packing minority voters into certain districts can make other, neighboring seats lean toward Republicans.

It’s at the local level where the ruling is likely to have the longest-lasting impact. In many Southern states, legislative districts that elect minority candidates don’t cross the 50 percent threshold, said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University political scientist who studies voting rights and statistics. Those districts would have been subject to the protection of the Justice Department under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but not under Section 2.

***

On its face, this looks like a big victory for Republicans. But is it really? I suspect it will turn out to be a poisoned chalice. Many of the GOP’s current problems stem from the fact that it is overly beholden to its white, Southern base at a time when the country is rapidly becoming more racially diverse. In order to expand its base of power beyond the House of Representatives, the GOP needs to expand its appeal to minority voters. As the ongoing battle over immigration reform demonstrates, that process is going poorly and looks like it will be very difficult.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act will make it easier for Republicans to hold and expand their power in those mainly Southern states. That will, in turn, make it easier for them to hold the House. It will also intensify the Southern captivity of the GOP, thereby making it harder for Republicans to broaden their appeal and win back the White House.

***

Democrats can and probably will, as a result of the measurably increased engagement of their base voters, campaign on the VRA’s evisceration and consolidate their hold on the minority electorate. While this strategy would halt the party’s efforts to engineer a Southern resurgence, it would cement voters’ impression of the Democratic Party as the protectors of the interests of American minorities.

But Republicans could embrace the opportunities presented by the Supreme Court’s decision as well. The GOP could argue for a broader map, not a narrower one, with an emphasis on cities and municipalities. They could make the case that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has politicized the process of seeking and receiving “bailouts.” In short, the GOP could make a case directly to black voters with an analytical and thoughtful appeal explaining why the VRA was so deeply flawed and how to fix it.

Yes, the Republican Party’s arguments may be rejected by African-American voters, but at least they will have offered good faith, well-reasoned proposals for reform. That approach may not yield dividends with this generation of minority voters, but it may with the next. Given the party’s refusal to play the long game, it is doubtful that the GOP will pursue such a course. If they do not, the lingering damage to the party’s electoral viability will be catastrophic.

***

***

***

Via the Corner.

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

NO, perfesser, we’re not.

I’m a Memphis boy. My beloved Bluff City has become the Detroit of the South, because of corrupt Black Leadership.

Equals rights means equal responsibility under the law.

Not preferences for unqualified workers or turning a blind eye to corruption, because of skin color and historical maltreatment.

As Dr. King said, it’s “the content of their character”.

Time to put your “grown up” pants on, perfesser. Get over yourself.

Reality…what a concept.

kingsjester on June 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

This crazy rant against black people is somehow relevant to the discussion of Roberts violating conservative legal theory by inventing a new Constitutional principle “equal sovereignty.” How, pray tell?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

I’m an end justifies the means type of guy these days
So what is Conservative constitutionalism if its merely a sham for GOP politics? I guess we now know in the form of the Roberts Court.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Liberal sham meet Conservative sham. It’s the Sham Family reunion. Don’t forget your T-shirt.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

They broke no laws. Sorry you don’t like Democracy.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:32 AM

And Governor Perry, you can bet your bottom dollar, when he addresses a Pro-Life Conference in Dallas(?) today, is just going to lawfully call the Senate back into session again to pass it, again.

Now it has tons of publicity; I didn’t even know about this abortion legislation until yesterday morning to tell the truth.

Marcus on June 26, 2013 at 7:50 AM

White abolitionists were responsible for the formation of the Republican Party, libwit. It was the white Democrats who wanted to preserve slavery, and the white Democrats who sought to keep the newly freed blacks from voting. Those are such elementary historical truths, I don’t even need a book to inform me of them.

gryphon202 on June 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

And white Republicans who abandoned southern blacks in the Compromise of 1876 and proceeded to ignore the atrocities committed within the Jim Crow states. So….Congrats!

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Liberal sham meet Conservative sham. It’s the Sham Family reunion. Don’t forget your T-shirt.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Well we finally agree.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:52 AM

Republicans traded access to the Presidency for the end of Reconstruction when they knew pulling out of the southern states would see black people returned to a position as close to enslavement as legally possible. Political power over human rights. The legacy of the dawn of the GOP. Why are Republicans today always talking this up as something to be proud of?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

It’s RAAACIIIST to tell the truth?

You don’t don’t want equality in voting rights, perfesser.

You want preferential treatment in America, as a whole. both because of your sexual preference, and having been born Black.

I’m not the Racist here, perfesser. You are.

kingsjester on June 26, 2013 at 7:56 AM

My position is that a “balls and strikes” conservative Justice invented a nonexistent Constitutional principle to defeat a law he disagreed with personally. Whatever the basis for his disagreement he was unable to locate a rationale within the Constitution. Have you read the VRA decision? Its a pretty shameful mess.

Why not embrace honesty like hawkdriver

So what is Conservative constitutionalism if its merely a sham for GOP politics? I guess we now know in the form of the Roberts Court.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Your position is subjective & incoherent, reminding me of what Stoic Patriot Passionate Tyrant says when he discusses the unarticulated yet obvious principle behind the 4th Amendment.

You, like he, don’t get what you are doing – you take the position that some individuals have more Constitutional rights than others, based upon your personal bigotry, which is ludicrous…

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 7:56 AM

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Well we finally agree.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:52 AM

We agree “no more rules” because liberals never followed them? Mark the calendar. We do agree.

If I thought one baby would have been spared Kermit Goznell’s scissors, I’d bend a rule or two. Considering they were by and large infants of minority mothers, it seems maybe something else we should agree on.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 7:56 AM

And thats the way it is.

celtic warrior on June 26, 2013 at 7:57 AM

I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls

This is nothing more than horse squeeze designed to flame racial tensions by bringing up specters of Jim Crow, fire hoses and attack dogs. Everyone already has full access to the polls. Unless, of course, you’re a GOP poll watcher around Philadelphia, in which case it’s perfectly legal for you to be forcibly removed from the voting area and barred from returning for hours.

Physics Geek on June 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM

It’s about time the VRA went away.

Now we need to end affirmative action.

dogsoldier on June 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM

That’s as azz-backward like only a liberal could make something. You’re saying that the Republicans under President Hayes were the real racists because they ended Reconstruction to let Democrats impose a ‘return to near slavery’?

You are really demented.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:02 AM

It’s about time the VRA went away.

Now we need to end affirmative action.

dogsoldier on June 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Amnesty is going to end Affirmative Action as we know it, to be replaced with the 21st Century version.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

This is nothing more than horse squeeze designed to flame racial tensions by bringing up specters of Jim Crow, fire hoses and attack dogs. Everyone already has full access to the polls. Unless, of course, you’re a GOP poll watcher around Philadelphia, in which case it’s perfectly legal for you to be forcibly removed from the voting area and barred from returning for hours.

Physics Geek on June 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM

I thought it was more a case of “Yeah, what we did was illegal, but so what – what difference, at this point, does it make?”

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Why are Republicans today always talking this up as something to be proud of?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM

Why would you as a liberal try to rewrite history and imply whites weren’t a key element in The Underground Railroad? Are you not thankful those people were part of it? Or do you see some need to embellish history to deprive some credit where credit is due. It’s only logical you’d tout the GOP support of the Civil Rights Movement, but that doesn’t fit your meme either.

Admit it. You’re an Olympic Games level rationalist and your revisionism is key to your near pathological assertions of racism.

There are bigots almost everywhere. But it’s always interesting when one crosses a true racist such as yourself.

Out of here. I get tried of handing this man his ass.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

That’s as azz-backward like only a liberal could make something. You’re saying that the Republicans under President Hayes were the real racists because they ended Reconstruction to let Democrats impose a ‘return to near slavery’?

You are really demented.
Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:02 AM

Well, when he went on about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor we just let him go for it because he sounded so patriotic. Give him a minute.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 8:07 AM

That’s as azz-backward like only a liberal could make something. You’re saying that the Republicans under President Hayes were the real racists because they ended Reconstruction to let Democrats impose a ‘return to near slavery’?

You are really demented.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:02 AM

No. I’m saying there’s absolutely nothing for the GOP to be proud of regarding race relations in the 19th century when you consider the Compromise of 1876. Read up on it.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM

Well, when he went on about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor we just let him go for it because he sounded so patriotic.

hawkdriver on June 26, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Hawkdriver lying about me? You don’t say.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Why would you as a liberal try to rewrite history and imply whites weren’t a key element in The Underground Railroad?

You have literacy issues. I said the “underground railroad” was by far, the least likely way slaves escape from bondage. Not that whites weren’t involved in the underground railroad.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:16 AM

our position is subjective & incoherent, reminding me of what Stoic Patriot Passionate Tyrant says when he discusses the unarticulated yet obvious principle behind the 4th Amendment.

You, like he, don’t get what you are doing – you take the position that some individuals have more Constitutional rights than others, based upon your personal bigotry, which is ludicrous…

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 7:56 AM

You can twist and whine all you like. My position is actually 100% coherent and objective. Namely, that the principle of “equal sovereignty” does not exist in the Constitution. Do you deny that?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM

I will twist and whine, because that’s all I do. My position is actually 0% coherent and objective. But I’m too blind to see it.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM

Corrected.

22044 on June 26, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Reminder: libby is the only self-proclaimed “thread winner”.

22044 on June 26, 2013 at 8:26 AM

You can twist and whine all you like.

Your inference of the demeanor behind my typed words says nothing about me, but something about you instead.

You are not smart enough to understand this, are you, you whiner? lol

My position is actually 100% coherent and objective.

Opinion, not fact! :)

Namely, that the principle of “equal sovereignty” does not exist in the Constitution. Do you deny that?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM

I’ll answer you, but only after you tell me what articulated Constitutional principle you believe is behind the 4th Amendment…

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 8:33 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM

It was the Compromise of 1877, and it was an unwritten deal. The election of 1876 was disputed; Hayes (the Republican) lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College by such a slim margin the results had to go to the House for resolution. The House, BTW, was Democrat-controlled.

Outgoing President Grant had already begun removal of Federal troops from Florida, those troops being the enforcement arm of Reconstruction. That left the Army only in South Carolina and Louisiana.

A Democrat had to be included in the Cabinet, and he became Postmaster General. The Compromise also started another transcontinental railroad across the South, and further legislation helped industrialize the former Confederates states, which helped lead to economic recovery for the country as a whole.

I’m sure you, being a revisionist liberal, consider it what is known in some circles as “The Great Betrayal’. But documentation of the period is scanty, because the Compromise was more an informal gentleman’s agreement than a law.

Still, you have to be demented to say the Republicans are the real racists when it was Democrats who imposed all those racial laws you resent so much.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:34 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM

And another thing: Do you think if the Democrat House had given the election of 1876 to the Democrat candidate, it would have been any better?

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM

The election of 1876 was disputed;

Because of white terror against black Republican voters in three states, Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana. The very states where federal troops were pulled out after the Compromise.

Outgoing President Grant had already begun removal of Federal troops from Florida, those troops being the enforcement arm of Reconstruction. That left the Army only in South Carolina and Louisiana.

Oh come now. Yes there were only troops in three states, but their presence had a regulatory impact on the entire region. Think about it. Louisiana and South Carolina bookend the confederacy east to west and Florida was its own unique animals. The troops could be deployed to any state. Nor was white terror exclusive to the tree occupied states.

A Democrat had to be included in the Cabinet, and he became Postmaster General. The Compromise also started another transcontinental railroad across the South, and further legislation helped industrialize the former Confederates states, which helped lead to economic recovery for the country as a whole.

Oh indeed. Republican industrialists were also more than OK to do business with states who engaged in terror against black people and made them second class citizens. Profit motive over morality, the Republican legacy.

I’m sure you, being a revisionist liberal, consider it what is known in some circles as “The Great Betrayal’. But documentation of the period is scanty, because the Compromise was more an informal gentleman’s agreement than a law.

You’re a complete idiot. The documentation on the period is anything BUT scanty. Congress held hearings about the contested 1876 election. The transcripts are available in the Florida state library (I did my undergrad in Tallahassee and wrote a paper on that election). Also read Eric Foner’s book on Reconstruction or Thoma Holt’s “Black Over White” about Reconstruction in South Carolina. All parties involved knew that the end of black citizenship was in the balance in the 1876 election. It was written about ad nauseum. Why don’t you get off wikipedia and learn a bit of history.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:44 AM

And another thing: Do you think if the Democrat House had given the election of 1876 to the Democrat candidate, it would have been any better?

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM

No moron. My argument is that the Republicans who claim they have something to be proud of in regards to race relations around the Civil War need to understand the limits of the GOP’s magnanimity.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM

dogsoldier on June 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Amen!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 26, 2013 at 8:53 AM

I keep saying to anyone who will listen. The best pre-emptive strike on voter ID is for each state to pass laws requiring all citizens over the age of 18 to have state-approved picture ID on them at all times. Then it knocks the teeth down the throats of the “WACIST!!!!!” idiots

PJ Emeritus on June 26, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I love watching libfreetheracist have an utter meltdown over the fact that the Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment without regard to skin color.

Because it means his race card was just rejected.

And it also means that, thanks to the Obama Party’s documented record of massive fraud in ” majority-minority” districts, he and his fellow racists now have a proven track record of discrimination.

Which means THEY can now be subjected to pre clearance.

Anyone think Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and other rotting urban centers where the Black Panthers and convicted vote fraud organizations like the NAACP run the polls will escape Federal jurisdiction now?

northdallasthirty on June 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM

OT/

@Scrumpy – I’m sorry it couldn’t be what you wanted, Scrump. And I know you you tried. :) Some people have a hard time getting comfortable with themselves, and they walk about insecure, and they need to order things around them in a way that makes the people around them feel suffocated. All guys probably start out that way. I did. But God blessed me with a string of girlfriends that were flaky, stone-cold babes. I’ve literally had bus-boys come and clear my table — while I was still eating — just to see her up close. Anyway, it was either going to be jail-time, the lunatic asylum, or laughing for me. Knocking off the flaky babes was not an option. (I’m still laughing at that bus-boy thing. I was holding the chip — it was descending toward the hot sauce — the hot sauce disappeared.)

You accidentally grew, in other words. :) He might grow, but you stay in a healthy place either way. <– My rude and unsolicited advice, based on a guess about nearly complete strangers. Should only be attempted by massive egos.

Meh. I'm glad I quit the romance thing. But then, I didn't know my dream girl actually existed. If I had known that, I probably wouldn't have quit. Then, if I hadn't quit, I wouldn't have met her. –Hey, know what? I have no clue, Scrump. Don't take advice from me. My heart goes out to you, and to him too. And I'm glad you are in a healthier place. And beware Trejo's in Shreveport.

Gotta go see what Sophie posted and what Hawk said.

/OT

Axe on June 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Doesn’t much matter to me, because I’m not Republican and didn’t live back then. And that’s your whole problem — you have more a stink with Republicans than with the Democrats of that or any other era. Black citizenship didn’t end, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats were hell-bent on making that happen.

I’m not going to re-fight the Civil War and its aftermath, because I won’t be defending the Republicans; I’m no party-line idealogue.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I lost family to the Nazis. That was in the TWENTIETH century. Around 70 or so years ago. I don’t blame today’s Germans for my family’s murder. You may be a perpetual victim-I am not.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 26, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Now comes the next phase of lawfare.

1) Have white students enroll at historically-black colleges like libfreeordie’s.

2) Have them tape the racist remarks of their professors like libfreeordie.

3) File lawsuits against the colleges, the individual professors, and students,

Think you’ll survive that one, libfreethebigot?

northdallasthirty on June 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I don’t get it. Isn’t the senate a manifestation of the idea you are talking about? Isn’t it built in? All the way back to ratification, one state one vote?

I haven’t read it. I’ll go read it now.

Axe on June 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM

1) Have white students enroll at historically-black colleges like libfreeordie’s.

There were white students at the historically black college I attended for undergrad….

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM

You may be a perpetual victim-I am not.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 26, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Said the poster who whined, mewled and cried her way back into posting privileges after making ill advised racial comments? Yeah, you’re the one to complain about victim blaming.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Said the poster who whined, mewled and cried her way back into posting privileges after making ill advised racial comments? Yeah, you’re the one to complain about victim blaming.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM

TROLLCOTT the rude & selfish b@stard!

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

don’t get it. Isn’t the senate a manifestation of the idea you are talking about? Isn’t it built in? All the way back to ratification, one state one vote?

I haven’t read it. I’ll go read it now.

Axe on June 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/06/more-on-robertss-embarassing-opinion#.UcpUmAKODRk.facebook

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/06/more-on-robertss-embarassing-opinion#.UcpUmAKODRk.facebook

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

K. On the list.

Axe on June 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Enjoy this, y’all. This is best hissy fit meltdown I’ve seen since Obama’s, after his Gun Confiscation Bill was voted down.

Pass the popcorn.

kingsjester on June 26, 2013 at 9:24 AM

TROLLCOTT the rude & selfish b@stard!

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

*eyeroll* Child….Look. ALT is a grown woman. She’s a mother for goodness sake. If she can’t take the heat she needs to not lob random water balloons on people. I mean to fix your mouth to call someone else out as self victimizing when her entire persona on this site is about self victimization is hilarious. Its almost some kind of high art of cognitive dissonance.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Boys & girls, this is called “irony”.

kingsjester on June 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

*eyeroll* Child….Look. ALT is a grown woman. She’s a mother for goodness sake. If she can’t take the heat she needs to not lob random water balloons on people. I mean to fix your mouth to call someone else out as self victimizing when her entire persona on this site is about self victimization is hilarious. Its almost some kind of high art of cognitive dissonance.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I love how a disingenuous & abusive whiner like you skipped over the challenge to explain the articulated Constitutional principle behind the 4th Amendment – what a coward you are…

TROLLCOTT the hypocritical pseudo-Christian libfreeliveenslavedordie! :)

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM

What exactly is wrong with the singling out of states by the federal government? Is the idea that when Alabama is on the playground with the other states, they’re going to make fun of it because it had to ask its mama for permission before going out to play?

Assuming.

In fact, the federal government doesn’t treat states equally and couldn’t possibly.

This would be a huge surprise to me. I thought it was built in to the idea of the republic. I didn’t know anyone even doubted it. I get to learn new things today. YAY

Nearly all laws affect different states differently.

Different outcomes are evidence of an unequal playing field? That crap again?

1. Disaster-relief laws benefit disaster-prone states at the expense of disaster-free states. 2. Pollution-control laws burden industrial states. 3. Progressive taxes burden states where the rich are concentrated. 4. Thanks to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency can single out states with serious pollution problems, 5. the Justice Department can keep an eye on states with serious corruption problems, 6. and immigration authorities can single out border states for surveillance.

Numbers above are emendations for convenience. But it turns out I didn’t need them.

1. But the same standard should apply to everyone.
2. But the same standard should apply to everyone.
3. But the same standard should apply to everyone.
4. But the same standard should apply to everyone.
5. But the same standard should apply to everyone.
6. But the same standard should apply to everyone.

Indeed, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will continue to burden states with substantial minority populations relative to other states, just because you can’t discriminate against a minority population that doesn’t exist.

Skipping it.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/06/more-on-robertss-embarassing-opinion#.UcpUmAKODRk.facebook

Axe on June 26, 2013 at 9:39 AM

DOMA unconstitutional.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Living in the past.

Bmore on June 26, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Dear Strict Constitutionalists. Can anyone locate the principle of “equal soverignty” in the Constitution? It is the basis from which John Roberts invalidated section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM

IT’S IN THE PENUMBRA, YOU IDIOT!

Check with the Wise Latina, liveasaslaveanddie.

Solaratov on June 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Just wanting you to locate the part of the Constitution where the principle of “equal sovereignty” is laid out by the founders. If you’re unable to you have to concede that “judicial activism” is part of conservative jurisprudence. Thanks!

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:37 AM

What a hypocrite! As long as “judicial activism” benefits the left’s agenda, it’s just fine.

But any ruling that doesn’t go their way is obviously blatant “Conservative judicial activism” – and a bad, bad thing.

Shouldn’t you be out chasing little boys, liveasaslaveanddie?

Solaratov on June 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 8:44 AM

And nowhere in your little rant do you deign to mention that the “terror against black people” was committed by the democrat terror arm: the KKK.
And, people like you always seem to “forget” that MORE white Republicans were lynched by the democrat KKK than blacks.
That, somehow, doesn’t fit your agenda.

But then, you leftists have never been known for an adherence to the truth.

Solaratov on June 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

poor al sharpton…no more love for the rest of the day on msdnc…

cmsinaz on June 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

They broke no laws. Sorry you don’t like Democracy.

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Prop 8, hypocrite!

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

This crazy rant against black people is somehow relevant to the discussion of Roberts violating conservative legal theory by inventing a new Constitutional principle “equal sovereignty.” How, pray tell?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Ok, let me see if I get your point… a state did something bad at some point; therefore they need punished forever without anyone ever limiting or ending the punishment?

Any other crimes for which you declare permanent unending punishment?

How do you feel about the death penalty? Is permanent punishment for MURDER still too much to expect; but permanent punishment for being in a state where people hundreds of years ago did something wrong is a crime deserving of stripping your state of the rights to self-sovereignty?

I get that you hate giving up any power of the Federal Government at any time for any reason as the Federal Government should have all power in your view… but you do get that the Constitution wasn’t designed to create an all-powerful Federal Government, don’t you?

How does someone who isn’t me doing something bad mean you have to punish me for their actions?

I get that you believe that the Constitution means that I should be punished for the “sins of my father”, but I’m not seeing where that was written.

gekkobear on June 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5