Desperately need a drink of politics thread

by **pacino** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 17:06:05

it's been upheld fives times, including once by this court. i'm not sure what's changed. yes, different states and areas are treated differently, but for just reasons since most of the discriminatory laws have come from, even as recently as nowadays, come from those areas.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 17:25:43

High-Ranking Connecticut Lawmaker Tells Teenager Testifying Before Legislative Committee He Has a ‘Snake’ Under His Desk for Her

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 17:28:52

pacino wrote:it's been upheld fives times, including once by this court. i'm not sure what's changed. yes, different states and areas are treated differently, but for just reasons since most of the discriminatory laws have come from, even as recently as nowadays, come from those areas.

The Court signaled that they wanted Congress to address the formula on what states are included. Congress hasn't. Now the Court probably will.

by **pacino** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 17:29:35

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:it's been upheld fives times, including once by this court. i'm not sure what's changed. yes, different states and areas are treated differently, but for just reasons since most of the discriminatory laws have come from, even as recently as nowadays, come from those areas.

The Court signaled that they wanted Congress to address the formula on what states are included. Congress hasn't. Now the Court probably will.

an area can appeal to be taken out of it. places have, and have been taken off. thing is, they have to show evidence for why they dont need to be included anymore. shelby county, of all places, obviously can't, so they sued to change the rules.

by **Werthless** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 17:51:52

jerseyhoya wrote:High-Ranking Connecticut Lawmaker Tells Teenager Testifying Before Legislative Committee He Has a ‘Snake’ Under His Desk for Her

I feel like it's always those silly Republicans.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 00:46:48

Hail Armageddon

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 00:50:37

pacino wrote:it's been upheld fives times, including once by this court. i'm not sure what's changed. yes, different states and areas are treated differently, but for just reasons since most of the discriminatory laws have come from, even as recently as nowadays, come from those areas.

I just heard a talk about this--the basic problem with the law is that as written, it doesn't update which jurisdictions are under the relevant provisions of the VRA. It's based on 40 year old voting patterns.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 00:59:13

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:it's been upheld fives times, including once by this court. i'm not sure what's changed. yes, different states and areas are treated differently, but for just reasons since most of the discriminatory laws have come from, even as recently as nowadays, come from those areas.

The Court signaled that they wanted Congress to address the formula on what states are included. Congress hasn't. Now the Court probably will.

So "the Court's" itch to get all activist wasn't heeded by Congress, so now the Court needs to charge in to fix things. Check

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 01:38:16

The Supreme Court thought it was constitutionally problematic, and they've given Congress a few years to fix it. It hasn't even held a hearing on the matter in the interim, let alone made substantive progress on passing an improved version of the bill.

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 06:20:18

Said it before, but if republicans want to not be treated as racists, they should stop acting like racists. Want the Voting Act to go away?, stop passing racist laws and then you can request to get off the list.

Also, it's a shame that Scalia has gotten so old that his judicial restraint has been lost to senility. The guy should be on Jerry Springer, not the highest court in the land.

Scalia seems to have missed the real problem: Too many Catholics and Italians on the court. We need to go back to the day when Italians and other catholics were treated as lazy outsiders who don't belong here. They have taken the jobs of God fearing white folks and now have multiple votes on the most important court in the nation. Scalia and the other italians and catholics should get 1/2 votes on the court to make up for them not being real people. /Scalia logic

by **pacino** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 08:12:52

jerseyhoya wrote:Hail Armageddon

lame article. this decidedly directly affects many programs on a permanent basis unless it's fixed, namely WIC, which is one of the most effective programs we have ever created.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 08:39:51

jerseyhoya wrote:The Supreme Court thought it was constitutionally problematic, and they've given Congress a few years to fix it. It hasn't even held a hearing on the matter in the interim, let alone made substantive progress on passing an improved version of the bill.

so Scalia, envious of congress's powers to, y'know, make laws, lies in wait like a bulbous spider for a case to stumble into his web, providing his opportunity to strike....his intemporate public remarks already signaling his zeal to hold forth on the court's stage with his frankly weird conceptions of American cultural history as it has unfurled since the Civil War.

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 09:10:06

I don't think many high ranking public officials are actually racist. Usually it's more about winning elections so that big business can keep their taxes low. Minorities vote for the other guy, so make laws that stop them from voting.

But with Scalia, there's no doubt in my mind that the guy is a full blown racist. It's not just what he says, it's the way he says it. The guy hates people who are different from himself.

by **pacino** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 09:15:01

time to move on to the next crisis. then the next scheduled crisis.
this is a joke.

by **z ipper** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 09:15:30

why is it ok to label everyone as a racist?
bring jeff back. honestly.

by **pacino** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 09:23:28

I don't think many high ranking public officials are actually racist

why is it ok to label everyone as a racist?

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:18:34

I labelled Scalia a racist because he is a racist. I don't believe many are actually racist, though many support policies that are racist because it is politically expedient.

by **dajafi** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:19:26

The argument that "we raised taxes two months ago" is incorrect and irrelevant.

We actually lowered taxes two months ago. I know it gets lost in the consideration of really important things like whether Bob Woodward's feelings were hurt, but what happened was that the budget-wrecking Bush tax cuts, which inexplicably somehow didn't lead to a permanent economic boom and in fact exploded the deficit, expired. By doing nothing, we would have returned to the Clinton-era tax levels (and either undercut the recovery or taken the debt off the table as a political issue).

Congress instead cut taxes for the vast majority of Americans--as even the Republicans stated at the time. Now of course they're saying it was an increase, because that supports holding the line to defend the private jet loophole and all absurd giveaways to the unfathomably rich they value over spending that actually helps the economy and makes a difference for those less comfortable.

The issue of who "owns" the sequester is another one of these DC media circle-jerks that would be hilarious if it weren't so horrifying. They all do, first of all, and second the real question is who has a sane answer for it. The administration is proposing a mixed solution. The Republicans want to take it all out of the hides of the poor. The press knows the president has the better argument, but can't allow itself to say so.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:14:10

I really think Obama is using the sequester to get the Republicans to make another own goal. I'm not sure if this is by design, or if the Republicans are doing it to themselves, but they're really painting themselves into a corner. There is a real risk that Obama may go too far here, as Rove most assuredly did post 2004.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/ ... s-20130228

The new Pew poll, for example, found that 32 percent of respondents identified with Democrats, 10 points more than the 22 percent who called themselves Republicans; 41 percent initially called themselves independents. When the independents were pushed and asked which side they leaned toward, Democrats’ share rose to 51 percent. Republicans moved up to 37 percent, opening up a 14-point gap between the two parties. That is substantially wider than the 9.6 percentage point gap in leaned party identification that Pew Research found from all its polling for 2012.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:36:55

Even if Pew is exaggerating the shift in PID, if there's anything to it, the implications are interesting. Republicans drew district boundaries to favor Republicans. However, when you do this, smaller shifts in PID make more districts suddenly competitive. I also wonder whether conventional wisdom electoral trends of the past (The President's party loses Congressional seats during mid-term elections; only transformational Presidents (Roosevelt and Reagan) have been able to see their party hold the White House for more than two consecutive terms) aren't a lot less viable than in the past. Consider--the number of cases is pretty small to identify real patterns.

And at least some of the Republican reactions to the Pew Poll are sadly predictable--the polls are biased! Six months after so many pundits embarrassed themselves making the same claim regarding Romney/Obama.

Archived

Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread