General Discussion

IrishAyes

(6,151 posts)

18. So why not?

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:32 PM

Mar 2013

Amend the law to cover all states? I don't remember exactly where now, but recently the whites in some town found themselves outnumbered and knew they would lose power in the coming election, so they just cancelled it.

Fortunately the court system forced reinstatement, but it just goes to prove that dirty bigot tactics still exist.

BTW, it's my understanding at least that the black candidate did win for mayor after all. What do you want to bet a lot of 'for sale' signs appeared on front lawns? In the best of all worlds that sort of thing would go on, because it's impossible to totally eradicate all the bigotry anywhere.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court Is On The Verge Of Making An Unprecedented Power Grab [View all] xchrom Mar 2013 OP

I agree that most likely the SCOTUS will rule that the law is not constitutional rhett o rick Mar 2013 #1

More's the pity. sulphurdunn Mar 2013 #8

Yes I agree. But I think the conservatives will say that the law treats citizens in the selected rhett o rick Mar 2013 #10

We can look forward to them citing Bush v. Gore as precedent, I suppose kenny blankenship Mar 2013 #11

Be very curious to see that since the earlier court said Bush v. Gore was never to be rhett o rick Mar 2013 #14

Am I wrong, or didn't they decide Bush v. Gore supposedly, in part, JDPriestly Mar 2013 #20

No you are not wrong kenny blankenship Mar 2013 #22

Yup. Especially Antonin "Fangul" Scalia, HoneychildMooseMoss Mar 2013 #62

Actually, the decided 7 to 2 to send back to Florida for final decision...then a bit later graham4anything Mar 2013 #26

the felonious five NYtoBush-Drop Dead Mar 2013 #31

The law treats citizens in the same state differently csziggy Mar 2013 #41

If the unequal treatment of states is an issue for the Supreme Court iemitsu Mar 2013 #80

I agree with you. However, it's up to Congress to make the VRA apply to all states. rhett o rick Mar 2013 #81

I'm sure you're right that the current congress has no more interest iemitsu Mar 2013 #85

So why not? IrishAyes Mar 2013 #18

The SCOTUS cant force Congress to "amend the law". So IMO they will rule the existing rhett o rick Mar 2013 #27

I wonder if the SCOTUS MynameisBlarney Mar 2013 #36

Yes they believe that and so do I. Our biggest problem is apathy. rhett o rick Mar 2013 #43

That is beyong shameful MynameisBlarney Mar 2013 #44

The public is starting to be affected and slowly awakening, but there rhett o rick Mar 2013 #45

They reinterpreted Congressional intent for the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #52

Thank you IrishAyes Mar 2013 #64

Sorry if I didnt give you appropriate credit. I was just trying to drive home the point that rhett o rick Mar 2013 #65

Just what I was thinking. Chemisse Mar 2013 #30

The 15th Amendment (Read Section 2) aggiesal Mar 2013 #38

Right. Equal protection is the issue. JDPriestly Mar 2013 #19

The conservatives have it bassackwards. The REASON for the law is to make the states equal. Thor_MN Mar 2013 #78

When the Constitution was written, the SCOTUS was considered the third most important rhett o rick Mar 2013 #2

If you used a flow chart you would see a SCOTUS decision... nolabels Mar 2013 #5

let us back up John2 Mar 2013 #24

I dont disagree with anything you said. I was simply saying that I believe the rhett o rick Mar 2013 #25

True IrishAyes Mar 2013 #66

That's an interesting sub-selection of quotes.. X_Digger Mar 2013 #33

I think the soon to be infamous John Roberts Court will prove Jefferson correct. rhett o rick Mar 2013 #42

Historically, the check on SCOTUS power is the leg and the exec branch.. X_Digger Mar 2013 #46

So how does Congress or the President correct the Citizens United decision? nm rhett o rick Mar 2013 #53

Anything from tightly crafted campaign finance ref (my preferred method) to const am (last choice) X_Digger Mar 2013 #54

"Citizens United" is Such a Broad Ruling that it Precludes Any Congressional Action to Change It AndyTiedye Mar 2013 #83

Have you actually read the CU decision? Not as broad as some make it out to be. n/t X_Digger Mar 2013 #84

I continue to believe it could be settled by reform in Charter law and probably best that way. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #86

Could You Be a Little More Specific? AndyTiedye Mar 2013 #87

Yeah, I think we should be much more specific in an organization's mission and grant mission TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #88

One way would be by amending the Constitution. Bake Mar 2013 #61

It always amazes me . . . aggiesal Mar 2013 #39

The Act should simply be made applicable to every state. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #3

Indeed, why mess around, "Federal Elections Authority". bemildred Mar 2013 #6

Agreed - With what has gone on in WI, OH, PA and others n/t socialindependocrat Mar 2013 #7

There you go. kenny blankenship Mar 2013 #9

That is why John2 Mar 2013 #28

The problem is that Congress would have to write a new law. I believe Roberts will use what you rhett o rick Mar 2013 #12

Boner won't bring it to the floor The Wizard Mar 2013 #21

No IrishAyes Mar 2013 #67

+1 gollygee Mar 2013 #57

A/K/A "legislating from the bench" mac56 Mar 2013 #4

Can anyone in the repuke party recall whining about "activist judges".? gtar100 Mar 2013 #13

"Activist Judges" rule in favor of "Liberal" issues Orrex Mar 2013 #15

Then would you please IrishAyes Mar 2013 #68

"wrongfully implies Southern states are more racist" annabanana Mar 2013 #16

Exactly loyalsister Mar 2013 #48

My answer IrishAyes Mar 2013 #69

It's amazing how stupidly blatant the right is being about this. Marr Mar 2013 #17

They are Being So Blatant Because They Know We Cannot Stop Them! AndyTiedye Mar 2013 #34

So.... IrishAyes Mar 2013 #70

Focus on the Senate, and try to Prevent them from Gerrymandering the Presidential Race Too AndyTiedye Mar 2013 #89

Didn't they do that when they elected bushie? jwirr Mar 2013 #23

When people voted for Nader in 2000, didn't they think what their vote would lead to? graham4anything Mar 2013 #29

Typical bag of crap. Nt xchrom Mar 2013 #35

Do you ever post anything that isn't an attack on the left or people who disagree with you? nt white_wolf Mar 2013 #47

Funny, I don't think W was on the left. Silly me I don't think Jeb is on the left either. graham4anything Mar 2013 #49

Oh please Obama is nothing, but a center right president. white_wolf Mar 2013 #50

I like Elena And Sonia. Two of the best. I don't like Alito and Roberts, Thomas, Scalia. graham4anything Mar 2013 #51

I'm with you there IrishAyes Mar 2013 #71

Please IrishAyes Mar 2013 #73

i doubt they thought it would lead to a judicial coup noiretextatique Mar 2013 #55

guess they found out that elections were no joking matter graham4anything Mar 2013 #58

stupid democrats voted for reagan noiretextatique Mar 2013 #59

It's quite simple 12 more years of democratic presidents=a complete different court graham4anything Mar 2013 #60

honestly IrishAyes Mar 2013 #74

What The Supreme Court Is Set To Do Is Unprecendented DallasNE Mar 2013 #32

Here is the 15th Amendment aggiesal Mar 2013 #37

+1 HiPointDem Mar 2013 #40

+ another 1 October Mar 2013 #63

A lot of people on our side wants the court to kill the 2nd amendment davidn3600 Mar 2013 #72

K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2013 #56

Regardless IrishAyes Mar 2013 #75

Hoping that possibly Kennedy splits with the Conservatives on this one. AnnieK401 Mar 2013 #76

Message auto-removed BristolSurprise Mar 2013 #77

The courts have done this since treestar Mar 2013 #79

Sadly, there isn't one damn thing we can do about it Doctor_J Mar 2013 #82