Smart people will overcome the barbarians. It just may take a long time.
1 Like
Sahil Kapur, thanks for explaining the meaningful distinctions in voting law cases like this, after the Supreme Courtās strike-down of part of the VRA last summer.
Making it necessary to prove intent seems like a handy way of rigging the system to ensure vote suppressorsā advantage in these cases. Plausible deniability is just too easy. So Iām surprised that the Texas court found discriminatory purpose in the latest Texas voter ID law. But Iām glad that weāre going to get to see how this thing ā the Supreme Courtās vision of a āmodernizedā VRA ā plays in real life.
Iām not going to get too hopeful that Texas will end up in the penalty box. The system is too rigged and the SC is too willfully obtuse.
1 Like
Iām sure the Supreme Court will fix it for Texas.
Oh for heavenās sake. Think.
The Constitution has no explicit mention of marriage either, but all citizens have a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to do it.
3 Likes
This other TPM story might be relevant, no? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-voter-id-whites-african-americans-photo-support
1 Like
Itās a right-wing talking point and it is so wrong it isnāt funny. Yet they pronounce it like itās some eternal verity. It goes to their essential stupidity. The right to vote is, in fact, mentioned in the constitution:
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitudeā
3 Likes
Fascinating. Horrifying. Nauseating.
It makes you realize just how terribly gullible and naĆÆve the right-wing base is, that something explicitly in the Constitution can be thought by them to be not there and they donāt even bother to look it up!.
2 Likes
Iām very curious to know why you think that. Did someone you trust tell you that? Have you ever tried to look it up in the Constitution? Do you usually just accept at face value what some people tell you about politics and government? If so, you are one of the principal problems with politics today.
5 Likes
A great deal of civil rights law is based on the opposite presumption - that there can, indeed, be a difference between intent and outcomes.
People and entities get in trouble for discriminatory effects, without any discriminatory intent, all the time. This is one of the cornerstones of how modern civil rights law works.
So concluding that intent and outcome must be linked is not a good doctrine.
1 Like
I see photos of Rick
I always think evolutionary "Teanderthalāā¦
1 Like
True.
I was trying the much harder thing ā you know, trying to illustrate that whole āunenumerated rightsā concept thatās crucial in understanding the U.S. Constitution.
But yeah, they could literally look that one up. Of course, theyād still have to do a bit of reasoning to understand that by forbidding the deprivation of peoplesā right to vote, the Constitution is implying an understood right to vote.
Heh. Throw a double negative at 'em and theyāll have to take aspirin and go to bed with a headache.
3 Likes
Some how karma is catching up with Texas. The first case of Ebola in the country and what an organized response from that private hospital, just brilliant.
Now the voting rights of every person in Texas in on the line because some Texans believe in so much privelage you canāt vote unless you are a conservative.
Rick Perry tipafies everything that is wrong with Texas. This is what happens when you elect a Governer who is a hair shy of being unhinged.
1 Like
Sorry. I see how it reads now that you have pointed it out to me, I was intending to be sympathetic to those who have been the victims of discrimination. My point about what āpeople may have feltā was to emphasize the lawās position in favor of people who, though not able to āhang their hatā on a discriminatory act, were nevertheless entitled to full protection under the law. And rightly so.
1 Like
You have a real point about the amorphous nature of discrimination and the difficulty of proving it. Thanks for the reply.
1 Like
I hope that those who are discriminated against by the wave of voter suppression laws get the same protection as those who have suffered while seeking housing. In the housing scenario, the bad actors are mostly private citizens working within the realm of private enterprise. But in the voting scenario, the bad actors are public servants and government employees who are working under the authority of the government to destroy the franchise it was intended to protect and grow.
2 Likes
Thanks very much for the reply, especially a very relevant point about intent.
The right to vote is mentioned five times in the Constitution, Beejy-boo. Do your homework or GTFO, and since Iāll be discussing your case with a mod very soon it may not even be an issue. Bye-bye Beejy!
1 Like