Where is the National Guard?

[billd91]

You assert they made a wrong decision. Can you explain what decision they made and why?

Because they didn't remove any protections for people's civil rights. They removed the requirement for prior approval by the Federal government to enact state laws. Something that was questionably Constitutional to begin with. If a state passed a bad law, the remedies still exist.

Arguments for prior restraint based on nothing more than 'they might misbehave, after all, they've done it before' are poor arguments. To be completely open, I apply that to the sex offender registry, which is a tragedy of a law.

They didn't even do that, really, considering that preclearance had already been help up as constitutional three times (1966, 1980, 1999). They removed the specific set of areas covered by preclearance because it was based on a 40 year old formula, which basically rendered the preclearance impotent and, predictably, in a state that would never be addressed with GOP control of the legislature. Suddenly, Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina all passed laws that had all previously been denied preclearance. Hmmm... I guess maybe past behavior actually is a predictor of future behavior.

Moreover, they did this ignoring the thousands of pages of documents Congress generated as part of the reauthorization of the supposedly irrelevant 40 year old formula that showed a higher rate of issues being blocked by the Department of Justice in the most recent period since the last reauthorization than the preceding one - suggesting the problem was getting worse, not better (and this was blockages by the DOJ under GOP administrations for 16 of the 24 years so you can't even blame the Democrats for it). And on top of that, Congress also found that the area covered by the preclearance formula, over the last reauthorization period, generated complaints covered by the rest of the VRA's provisions at 4x the rate of the rest of the United States.

The majority, in asserting that the data used for formula were outdated, ignored Congressional evidence that it was not.

 

[MechaPilot]

To whit, you said. . .

I know what I said. I stand by what I said. I believe that free speech was intended to promote the discourse of ideas, and I do not believe that free speech was intended to encourage the dehumanization of people. Free speech as it exists today allows for both. Should that be changed? That's a question worth asking regardless of what answer one comes up with, because the evaluation itself has merit.

You were born in the wrong time. Brandeis and you would be bosom buddies. By the by, Brandeis was on the same court as the 'fire in a crowded theater' Holmes mentioned earlier, and joined Holmes in the unanimous decision that quote is part of to incarcerate some guys that said out loud that the draft was a bad thing. You see, it was considered very unpopular at the time, even offensive, to question the war effort in Europe, so they took a periodic evaluation, applied the current beliefs, and whammo, questioning the draft is jailable. Brandeis in particular said almost exactly what you just said -- that rights should be reconsidered at times to adjust for current society. You're in good company.

I don't know Brandeis, and I've never read a biography of the man. As for the notion that he and I would have been "bosom buddies," I find that unlikely. There are people who I entirely can't stand who agree with me about individual topics.

It's also worth pointing out that evaluation of the status quo is also what led to the repeal of prohibition. Evaluation is good. It teaches you what works, what doesn't, what could be improved, and what should be discarded. So it would seem that I am in the company of Socrates, to whom the saying "the unexamined life is not worth living" is attributed.

 

[Lord Twig]

To whit, you said:

Furthermore, the right to free speech is intended to promote the debate of ideas. It is not intended to encourage the dehumanization of people, which is the point of racial slurs and hate speech.

While engaged in replying to how you view civil liberties. That's a clear statement that you do not think the 1st Amendment covers the dehumanization of people or racial slurs and hate speech. It's a little late to start backing down and saying 'but I never said it should be illegal' when you said was that you didn't think such things should be protected by law. If you think they shouldn't be illegal and that they shouldn't be protected under law, I'm extremely unclear as to what's left. Could you illuminate the middle ground there?

I think I am finally figuring out what Ovinomancer is doing. To him saying "the right to free speech is intended to promote the debate of ideas. It is not intended to encourage the dehumanization of people, which is the point of racial slurs and hate speech." Is exactly the same as saying that language that dehumanization of people should be illegal. Which is not what you said at all.

Which is exactly what I pointed out as a flaw of the Right in the first place.

 

[Kramodlog]

"I am not anti-government... I like taking their money."

He is against the government redistributing wealth only when black people are at the receiving end. Classic conservatism.

 

[Lord Twig]

He is against the government redistributing wealth only when black people are at the receiving end. Classic conservatism.

I think this goes too far. I would be willing to bet that some (most?) of them would be happy to give land back to a black rancher that owned some of the property 100 years ago. That fact that there probably aren't any is besides the point.

Also they don't seem too keen to give the land back to the Native Americans.

But I'm going to be generous and say that both cases are because they are self-centered and narrow-minded and haven't taken the time to actually think about the various intricacies of historical politics that led up to the Federal Gov't owning that land.

They got the idea that the Feds stole it from Ranchers and haven't bothered to actually question whether that belief is actually true or not. Or even if it is, whether there might be some other injustice that would take precedent. Or if maybe the better action would have been to realize that the past is the past and if they really think it is an injustice then they should work to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future.

 

[Istbor]

He is against the government redistributing wealth only when black people are at the receiving end. Classic conservatism.

He might be. I don't know his stance on that, but if we can take what was said in this article as his word, then he is against the Feds from picking on the little guys. Saying it is their job to deal with the world and not with local issues, politics, and general goings on. Or basically that the Federal government are out to get him and those like him or generally everyone.

I cannot 100% dismiss what he is thinking but I would certainly categorize him into a more extreme group than most people who may feel that way.

Whenever I think the Government is out to get me, I too generally occupy a building and refuse to leave for no real reason. I mean what are they even DOING at this point? Part of me feels that it is going to continue only to save face. No one has come out to say they want them there. Not locally, not nationally, and certainly not the individuals who sparked this whole thing.

 

[Kramodlog]

But I'm going to be generous and say that both cases are because they are self-centered and narrow-minded.

I agree with this. I would summerize it this way: "Me! Now!". There has been so many politicians and other authority figures who have pandered to those feelings under the guise of "liberty", that having the needs of a child is considered the norm and some people think it is acceptable to kill and die for it. Worrisome.

 

[Maxperson]

Histrionically, the land of Palestine has been held by, well, just about everybody: Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Arab Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mongols, Ottomans, the British, and modern Israelis and Palestinians. If there's a place on the planet that could be said to not reallybelong to one people, it's Palestine.

But, let us take as granted that they had been displaced. That displacement happened a long time ago. We are then in "two wrongs don't make a right" territory - displacing modern residents to make up for a wrong of prior centuries isn't really just to the modern people who have made their lives there. So, kinda naturally, they're cheesed off.

I can understand them being upset. I can understand the Jews being upset. It's too bad they just can't share and get along.

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that these things are cleanly separable. Note that separation of politics from religion is, as far as history is concerned, a pretty modern concept. Even if we put it into a document in 1789, much of the rest of the world simply doesn't hold to the concept. When you are talking about a religious state, there is no primary and secondary.

I look at the primal cause. Wanting an Islamic state is founded first and foremost in religion. Yes, religion and politics are tied together pretty securely, but you can still see which precedes which in most cases. In the U.S., it's religion being added to government for the religious folks who want religion to be a part of the government.

 

[Maxperson]

Nobody is passing any laws and intentionally calling them "voter suppression laws" when they try to get them passed.

There are laws that have been passed, or proposed, that would have the effect of suppressing voting among some groups. The most notable recent such cases I can think of were claimed to be voter identification laws, supposedly intended to eliminate voting fraud. Not that the voting fraud was occurring at a rate such that any recent election would have been impacted, mind you. And a couple of legislators have gotten caught on camera within memory, referring positively to the suppression of a minority groups votes as a desired effect.

Small potatoes. The electoral college does such a tremendous job at suppressing votes that it dwarfs the very small number of people who would lose votes over these laws. Every Republican in California has his vote suppressed during presidential elections. Ever Democrat in Texas is likewise disenfranchised by the electoral college.

If you're really worried about people losing votes, that's the place to start.

 

[Maxperson]

That is very true. After all, the SCOTUS is comprised of people, and people are flawed and imperfect. Fortunately, as a panel they usually make well-reasoned and well-informed decisions, but even that can't prevent them from making the occasional boner.

Yeah, and allowing Obama's fine for no health insurance was one of them. With that ruling, the government literally has the power to tell me that I have to buy 10 pairs of fruit of the loom underwear a month or face a tax.