Discussion: Virginia Asks Court To Ignore Pre-1965 Discrimination In Voting Rights Case

Discussion for article #245771

ahhhhhhhhhhh…the rewriting of history to suit the needs of the bigots …

'They wuz happier back then when they knew their places!"

4 Likes

Virginia: Don’t judge us on our past discrimination, judge us on our new, improved discrimination. Just because it mostly targets people of color who might vote democratic, doesn’t mean we’re mostly targeting people of color who might vote democratic.

Remember, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with us; like the rest of the country, this is a post-racial society. And if there is anyone who knows how to conduct a fair election it is John Roberts. Okay?

10 Likes

Isn’t this along the same lines as those guys screaming about the Confederate flag being taken down and so on? This is more historical revision than anything we have seen and pretends a fairytale world exists where opinions change on a dime apparently.

In many place discrimination by the states took place well into the 70’s as court battles raged even after SC decisions.

2 Likes

Same guys, less pronounced drawl.

2 Likes

Majority SCOTUS: We agree completely. Racism and Voting restrictions have long been eradicated in this great country, thanks to Citizen United.

2 Likes

John Roberts says racial discrimination doesn’t exist anymore, so there’s that. I wish LBJ was still around.

3 Likes

“However, Virginia’s history as a former Confederate state is simply not relevant to the issue this Court is asked to decide.”

OK, then to be even-handed, the court will exclude any testimony about Virginia’s history prior to 1865.

4 Likes

These people are qualified to author Texas’ school books.

2 Likes

As a Virginian, I say this stinks! We are most definitely not the same as we were in 1965 – but, from what I can tell, we’re not totally out of the woods. Yes, that nasty history should be considered. And, yes, our improvements should also count --but, again, we are not out of the woods yet.

“Recent Supreme Court decisions warn against reliance upon non-contemporaneous history, on the grounds that such history is not probative in a challenge to a more recent legislative action,”

Not true and absolutely not the way I read it. It is absolutely relevant and absolutely probative of many issues related to the analysis here, but the SCOTUS decision indicated that it is no longer sufficient BY ITSELF to be determinative of whether a state should be subjected to . It is still totally relevant and probative of issues such as explaining how current behaviors are steeped in past behaviors, how current attempts to suppress votes and dilute voting power are echoes of past attempts to do so, etc. New, more sophisticated and less obvious methods they are employing have their roots in what was done in the past and that past highlights it…whereas considering all the new voter suppression attempts that have been part of The Great White Freakout in a vacuum gives them the opportunity to have their disingenuous rationalizations and justifications for those measures be considered without any point of reference. Meh…I’d have these guys twisted in knots over the number of issues that can easily make VA’s history of racism a relevant and probative part of the case.

Frankly, I think they might be looking for an appeal issue here, in hopes that they can claim it was an abuse of discretion to allow the evidence and push it all the way to whatever highest court they can, in hopes of getting an actual ruling that nothing prior to the VRA can be considered as a matter of law.

1 Like

When buying a house, I should ignore the nature of the foundation?

“No one denies Virginia’s troubling history of racial discrimination nor that Virginia was once part of the Confederacy,” the motion said. “However, Virginia’s history as a former Confederate state is simply not relevant to the issue this Court is asked to decide.”

Translation:

Dear Suh,

The Past - I say - the past is in the past. Let sleepin’ dogs lie (aftuh we paddle their bee-hinds, that is).

Yuhs sincerely,

F.H. Leghorn, Esq.

1 Like

We ask the court to ignore our historic position regarding discrimination against some voters…because we have turned over a new leaf…and we’ve found different ways to discriminate.

Bull!