Barry Jive wrote:I'd like to see some northerners go after their own racists in the new version of the Voter Rights Act. the South being singled out is hypocritical as hell.

Barry Jive wrote:yes, I struggle with the "proof." PA tried to pass voter ID laws last year, remember

td11 wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:yes, I struggle with the "proof." PA tried to pass voter ID laws last year, remember

republican state legislatures around the country tried to make voter ID laws more difficult, including the south. at least in those southern areas, due to section 4/5 of the VRA, they couldn't just ram changes through without some kind of federal oversight. now they can. and i'm very doubtful that this congress-- successors to the worst in american history-- will actually get anything done to revise the formula that was used.

but yeah the silver lining here is that there is now room and an opportunity to improve the the 1960s formula, so i guess there's that

Barry Jive wrote:I'd like to see some northerners go after their own racists in the new version of the Voter Rights Act. the South being singled out is hypocritical as hell.

MSNBC's Chris Hayes described the decision as "one of the most stunning exercises in 'judicial activism' ever," and it's an important point. While "judicial activism" is generally an unfortunate euphemism used by ideologues to mean "rulings I don't like," in this case, it has real merit. The people's elected representatives in Congress approved the Voting Rights Act, then re-approved it on three separate occasions, each with large bipartisan majorities. It's received the support of several presidents, also elected by the people, from both parties. This morning, five justices effectively declared, "The principles are legally sound, but we don't like where you're applying those principles." This really isn't what the federal judiciary is supposed to do, vetoing parts of laws they deem ideologically unsatisfying.

The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their titles also included groups whose names included the words "Progressive" and "Occupy," according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.

The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use "key word" shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.

But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such "be on the lookout" list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama's health care law, and applications that dealt "with disputed territories in the Middle East."

Groups involved more generally in carrying out the Affordable Care Act were also sent to the I.R.S. for “secondary screening.”

And “occupied territory advocacy” seemed subject to the most scrutiny of all.

“Applications may be inflammatory, advocate a one-sided point of view, and promotional materials may signify propaganda,” according to instructions with a lookout list.

The inspector general report that fueled the IRS tea party targeting scandal is "fundamentally flawed" because it failed to include details that progressive groups were also flagged for extra attention, a senior House Democrat said late Monday.

Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, is demanding answers from Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George about whether it investigated the use of search terms aimed at liberal organizations in the same manner as it probed the agency's oversight of groups that used terms such as "tea party" or "patriot" in their application for a tax exemption.

"The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS," Levin wrote. "That same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way."

td11 wrote:on cue
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/us-s ... ula/nYTnw/

pacino wrote:the IRS targeted more conservatives!:

The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their titles also included groups whose names included the words "Progressive" and "Occupy," according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.

The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use "key word" shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.

But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such "be on the lookout" list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama's health care law, and applications that dealt "with disputed territories in the Middle East."

so, it's not a political controversy, and never was. it's a process issue, one i'm not even sure is much of a problem since the exemption itself is crappy.

Groups involved more generally in carrying out the Affordable Care Act were also sent to the I.R.S. for “secondary screening.”

And “occupied territory advocacy” seemed subject to the most scrutiny of all.

“Applications may be inflammatory, advocate a one-sided point of view, and promotional materials may signify propaganda,” according to instructions with a lookout list.

The inspector general report that fueled the IRS tea party targeting scandal is "fundamentally flawed" because it failed to include details that progressive groups were also flagged for extra attention, a senior House Democrat said late Monday.

Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, is demanding answers from Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George about whether it investigated the use of search terms aimed at liberal organizations in the same manner as it probed the agency's oversight of groups that used terms such as "tea party" or "patriot" in their application for a tax exemption.

"The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS," Levin wrote. "That same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way."

boy, i wonder how he forgot about those parts

Wearing pink tennis shoes to prepare for nearly 13 consecutive hours of standing, a Democratic Texas state senator on Tuesday began a one-woman filibuster to block a GOP-led effort that would impose stringent new abortion restrictions across the nation's second-most populous state.

Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth began the filibuster at 11:18 a.m. CDT Tuesday. To derail a vote in the GOP-dominated Senate, she must keep speaking on the bill until midnight — the deadline for the end of the 30-day special session.

Before Davis began speaking, her chair was removed. CBSDFW.com reports that Davis must speak continuously -- and stay on topic -- the entire time. She is not allowed to lean against something for support. And she will not be able to stop or take a break, not even for meals or the restroom, during the entire 13-hour ordeal.

pacino wrote:SHE WAS HELPED WITH A BACK BRACE AND BROKE THE RULES!!!!!

jerseyhoya wrote:Read the decisions, and I'm not a lawyer so that caveat applies, but this is an area of interest. Like most 5-4 decisions, both arguments seem pretty persuasive on their own.

Roberts seems to be starting from the position that any federal legislation that puts states under different levels of federal supervision requires a uniquely significant rationale. In 1966, that existed when the Court approved of the VRA handling the covered states differently under Section 5. Also the formula devised in Section 4 was a means inextricably linked to the goal. Given the changes of the past 40-50 years, Congress just reauthorizing the formulas based on statistics from so long ago comes nowhere near clearing the bar for demonstrating that same linkage, which means that part of the law falls short of the burden he started with. The focus is also a very macro level picture look at voter registration and turnout numbers since passage of the VRA, with the conclusion drawn that many of the covered states are no longer uniquely deserving of targeting from the federal government on voting rights issues.

Ginsberg has a lot of problems with the majority opinion, but the crux of it is that Congress put a lot of time and thought into the reauthorization of the VRA in 2006 and the Court has shown deference to Congress when it tries to protect rights using the Civil War amendments. She takes a more micro level look, citing specific instances in some of the covered jurisdictions where violations were prevented by the law, as opposed to Roberts' focus on the macro level.

On the whole, I think the majority is in the right. There should be a significant burden for the federal government to treat states differently, and the formula is outdated. The Court is hesitant to overturn acts of Congress, but this wasn't a surprise. They signaled four years ago that the current law was unacceptable, and this would happen if they didn't update the formula themselves.

As a side note, at one point in the dissent, Ginsberg asks if Congress isn't allowed to make laws differentiating between states, specifically citing (among a few others) the law banning sports betting in all but four states. Given the recent court controversy over New Jersey attempting to start sports betting, it'd be nice if this could be used as precedent for overturning that from Congress as well.