Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Or ex-presidents automatically becoming justices?
edited 28th Feb '13 3:40:44 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."By the look of George W Bush's Political Activities since 2008, he isn't interested either...
Keep Rolling On![]()
As I've said before, I look on Bush's presidency and the kind of Republican Party he ran with a certain nostalgia. I'd rather have Bush than Romney, or Palin, or any of the current bunch bar John Huntsman. But, no, all in all, I wouldn't like Bush making decisions at all. I'd just dislike him less than the gang of idiots that run the Republicans nowadays.
edited 28th Feb '13 4:35:36 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei![]()
![]()
I misread the post above mine. I thought it read "Is X any better".
PS: Justices Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush...
About the fact that there aren't nine ex-presidents: In France only 3 of the Constitutional Council's current members are ex-presidents. Others are nominated by the three presidents of Republic, National Assembly (our House) and Senate.
edited 28th Feb '13 4:45:33 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Yeah not only is this greatly politically biased it is the very definition of judicial activism. If there really is no purpose to Section V in the modern day than the clause shouldn't be under dispute. As I recall we generally don't repeal laws that aren't applicable anymore in court, we let Congress decide that. What Scalia is doing is forcing himself into the role of a lawmaker and if Congress was at all decent he would be impeached for this nonsense.
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing."Judicial activism" has lost anything resembling its original meaning for most people and now means "A decision by a court that I don't agree with". That said, Scalia and the other conservative justices' attitudes towards VRA make me cringe.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In Section 5, voting systems must consult the Justice Department for clearance on any change in voting procedure.
The formula used to determine which states and other jurisdictions are covered by the preclearance requirement is set forth in Section 4.
And it turns out that Section 4 is also on the chopping block.
I suppose that if SCOTUS strikes down those sections, it means that racism is now officially gone in the United States, because our government says so. Our sordid past is behind us? Let's go celebrate!
edited 28th Feb '13 8:12:49 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Roberts claimed that Massachusetts has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African American voter turnout. To him, Mississippi is where African American turnout exceeds white voter turnout.
He quite literally argued that the "North is more racist than South (paraphrased quote)" as a way to justify removing Section 5.
edited 28th Feb '13 8:22:45 AM by Sledgesaul
To be honest, what wouldn't be too bad would be if they left Section 5 alone, but killed Section 4. i.e. preclearance is fine, but your formula for determining who needs it is unconstitutional. That would leave the door open for Congress to pass a better measure.
I don't think that will happen though.
Scalia says “I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”
Why didn't you say that when Bush was still in charge? The VRA was already renewed for another 25 years in 2006. The first major time you expressed interest in removing the VRA was in 2009.
edited 28th Feb '13 8:56:33 AM by Sledgesaul
Those facts about voting ratios are accurate when you don't take into account the demographics of the state. Massachusetts has one of the smallest percentages of African American residents living in state 7.8% compared to the average in the country of 13.1%. Mississippi has one of the highest number of African Americans per-capita at 37.3%. Of course blacks would be a higher percentage of the vote there.
What he's leaving out is that the ratio of African Americans over 18 to African Americans over 18 who vote is lower in Mississippi than Massachusetts.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI was going to say... statistics abuse for the lose. For those numbers to be comparable, you need to look at the ratio of minorities that vote by state and weight it by the overall turnout for each state.
If State A has 40% average turnout and 40% turnout among [minority], that's parity. If State B has 50% average turnout and 40% turnout among [minority], that's a potential problem.
edited 28th Feb '13 9:44:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"He quite literally argued that the "North is more racist than South (paraphrased quote)" as a way to justify removing Section 5.
It's possible to encounter a great deal of anecdotal evidence that sometimes suggests as much. Regardless, if a law like the VRA isn't to be applied to all fifty states, let it be applied to none.
It is applied to all fifty states. If a state demonstrates a significant pattern of civil rights problems, as determined in Section 4, it may become subject to the rules in Section 5 requiring federal oversight of any changes to its voting rules.
It is nonsensical to claim selective enforcement of a law that is specifically designed to be selectively enforced. It is, however, appropriate to raise concerns that the selection criteria are biased or improperly administered.
edited 28th Feb '13 11:36:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
To follow on, if the selection criteria are improperly administered, it is the job of Congress, not SCOTUS, to change that. The trend towards judicial legislation ever since the Warren Court is frankly worrying. Scalia's comments especially, where he seems to give policy and electoral advice to politicians. Absolutely not his job.
edited 28th Feb '13 12:04:30 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIt is nonsensical to claim selective enforcement of a law that is specifically designed to be selectively enforced. It is, however, appropriate to raise concerns that the selection criteria are biased or improperly administered.
I'm not sure of the quote's full context, but in isolation Roberts's question then comes across as related to the quality or effectiveness of Section 4 criteria—which would be a fair enough question.
Addressing problems with their application would indeed be Congress's job. But if the criteria themselves are problematic, that seems more like a judicial issue.
edited 28th Feb '13 12:19:21 PM by Jhimmibhob
It also seemed like whoever raised the "lower black participation in Massachusetts" argument was brazenly failing statistics. Justices who cannot handle basic factual arguments should not be on the bench. Even more so if they deliberately misrepresent the facts to suit their prejudices.
edited 28th Feb '13 2:23:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's how SCOTUS works when the senior justices are picked by the President. They are essentially political appointees, and the best kind of political appointees at that - they can never be voted out.
Schild und Schwert der Partei