Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#30 : June 26, 2013, 08:03:19 PM

For the purposes of dialog, sure. Explain it. Or more to the point, what is your interpretation of the decision? Good decision? Bad decision?

good decision. 

Art VI Constitution supreme law of the land. Absent the Court that Article has no real meaning and Marbury is an example of that because Congress created a law in conflict with the Constitution. Absent judicial review the Constitution would not have been the supreme law of the land.

It was also a good decision because it was basically the Court protecting individual rights, in this instance a citizens right for remedy, a citizen against the President of the US.

You're upset because you think the Court got a ruling wrong? If so, how does that translate into judicial review is a bad thing?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#31 : June 27, 2013, 12:11:53 AM


"Uncle Tom" is a term generally used by African Americans towards other African Americans. It has no historical significance as a racial slur, because people of other races generally never use it as a pejorative against African Americans. Comparing this to Paula Deen using the N-word and throwing plantation parties is about as false an equivalency as there is.

Oh really?

I might just know a whole bunch of folks who would take exception to what you just said.

You might. I might also know an even bigger group of folks that wouldn't.

Uncle Tom is a term used within a ethnic or minority group to identify someone in the same group as being subservient to the dominant culture. African Americans coined the term, but others have used it, for example, Jane Fonda once referred to women in powerful positions who treat other women poorly in the work place as "Uncle Toms". It is not a racial pejorative, as it is rarely, if ever, used by one racial group to demean another racial group.

But if you want to pretend that this is akin to using the N-word and throwing parties that celebrate the culture of slavery, then have at it. It is, after all, a free country.

And the book written by Harriet Beecher Stowe dealing with African American Stereotypes during Slavery is called what?

Fail to see the point.

Bottom line, if you were to take a straw poll of 100 African Americans and asked them how they feel about a white lawmaker referring to Clarence Thomas as a n*gger for whatever reason, you would get a markedly higher rate of individuals who take great offense, regardless of their personal feelings on Thomas' political and social views, and regardless of the political party that the white lawmaker was a member of, than you would if you asked those same 100 people how they feel about a white lawmaker reffering to Clarence Thomas as an "Uncle Tom" for voting to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

You may think this to be an insignificant fact, but I fail to see your justification for continuing to argue that "Uncle Tom" is a racist term when you seem to take far more offense to it's use than the vast majority of the individuals who are members of the race that it is allegedly supposed to be demeaning. That's all I really care to say about that. Like I said, you are going to characterize it how you wish, and that is certainly your right to do so.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#32 : June 27, 2013, 12:17:08 AM

For the purposes of dialog, sure. Explain it. Or more to the point, what is your interpretation of the decision? Good decision? Bad decision?

good decision. 

Art VI Constitution supreme law of the land. Absent the Court that Article has no real meaning and Marbury is an example of that because Congress created a law in conflict with the Constitution. Absent judicial review the Constitution would not have been the supreme law of the land.

It was also a good decision because it was basically the Court protecting individual rights, in this instance a citizens right for remedy, a citizen against the President of the US.

You're upset because you think the Court got a ruling wrong? If so, how does that translate into judicial review is a bad thing?

Thank you for the responsem, Vince. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment to delve into it, but suffice it to say, I disagree. I'll post a reply later when I have more time on my hands.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28847
Online
#33 : June 27, 2013, 01:16:22 AM


Disappointing ruling to put it mildly. A giant step backwards for equal rights. Will Obama or Congress take action to combat this? Not holding my breath.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#34 : June 27, 2013, 09:15:53 AM


Disappointing ruling to put it mildly. A giant step backwards for equal rights. Will Obama or Congress take action to combat this? Not holding my breath.

It's a "disappointing ruling" and you're asking if an African-American president elected by a diverse group of voters will "combat" this?


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#35 : June 27, 2013, 12:47:59 PM

How is it a "disappointing ruling"??

The ruling was that the DOJ can't force ONLY certain states, based on 40 year old data, to get pre-approval for any voting changes. It said the DOJ can't put greater restrictions on JUST A FEW States because of something those states did over half a century ago.

The ruling specifically said the DOJ and the Courts can review changes post-facto and that the DOJ can require pre-approval if the criteria for pre-approval is based on more recent data or actions.

IOW the Court said you can't keep a state on the black list for 50 years without looking at the progress in that state regarding voter rights.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#36 : June 27, 2013, 12:52:29 PM

How is it a "disappointing ruling"??

The ruling was that the DOJ can't force ONLY certain states, based on 40 year old data, to get pre-approval for any voting changes. It said the DOJ can't put greater restrictions on JUST A FEW States because of something those states did over half a century ago.

The ruling specifically said the DOJ and the Courts can review changes post-facto and that the DOJ can require pre-approval if the criteria for pre-approval is based on more recent data or actions.

IOW the Court said you can't keep a state on the black list for 50 years without looking at the progress in that state regarding voter rights.

Most who would say it was a "disappointing ruling" have only read the headline on some "news" site . ..  as you do a good job of pointing out.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#37 : June 27, 2013, 02:02:41 PM

How is it a "disappointing ruling"??

The ruling was that the DOJ can't force ONLY certain states, based on 40 year old data, to get pre-approval for any voting changes. It said the DOJ can't put greater restrictions on JUST A FEW States because of something those states did over half a century ago.

The ruling specifically said the DOJ and the Courts can review changes post-facto and that the DOJ can require pre-approval if the criteria for pre-approval is based on more recent data or actions.

IOW the Court said you can't keep a state on the black list for 50 years without looking at the progress in that state regarding voter rights.

With the caveat being that racial discrimination in the voting process no longer exists. 


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#38 : June 27, 2013, 02:03:27 PM

How is it a "disappointing ruling"??

The ruling was that the DOJ can't force ONLY certain states, based on 40 year old data, to get pre-approval for any voting changes. It said the DOJ can't put greater restrictions on JUST A FEW States because of something those states did over half a century ago.

The ruling specifically said the DOJ and the Courts can review changes post-facto and that the DOJ can require pre-approval if the criteria for pre-approval is based on more recent data or actions.

IOW the Court said you can't keep a state on the black list for 50 years without looking at the progress in that state regarding voter rights.

Most who would say it was a "disappointing ruling" have only read the headline on some "news" site . ..  as you do a good job of pointing out.

Or perhaps we read Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's dissenting opinion and agreed with it.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#39 : June 27, 2013, 02:21:53 PM

Point is once again the press is going Mountain<<<Molehill.

The headlines are all "Court strikes down Voter Rights Act"  and not "Court invalidates one paragraph of the very lengthy Voters Rights Act and keeps vast majority of Act intact"


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#40 : June 27, 2013, 03:07:45 PM

Point is once again the press is going Mountain<<<Molehill.

The headlines are all "Court strikes down Voter Rights Act"  and not "Court invalidates one paragraph of the very lengthy Voters Rights Act and keeps vast majority of Act intact"

+1 although the lazy thread author is guilty of the same . .  oops/  You're right though


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#41 : June 27, 2013, 03:08:11 PM

How is it a "disappointing ruling"??

The ruling was that the DOJ can't force ONLY certain states, based on 40 year old data, to get pre-approval for any voting changes. It said the DOJ can't put greater restrictions on JUST A FEW States because of something those states did over half a century ago.

The ruling specifically said the DOJ and the Courts can review changes post-facto and that the DOJ can require pre-approval if the criteria for pre-approval is based on more recent data or actions.

IOW the Court said you can't keep a state on the black list for 50 years without looking at the progress in that state regarding voter rights.

Most who would say it was a "disappointing ruling" have only read the headline on some "news" site . ..  as you do a good job of pointing out.

Or perhaps we read Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's dissenting opinion and agreed with it.

hence the word "most"


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#42 : June 27, 2013, 03:20:16 PM

For the purposes of dialog, sure. Explain it. Or more to the point, what is your interpretation of the decision? Good decision? Bad decision?

good decision. 

Art VI Constitution supreme law of the land. Absent the Court that Article has no real meaning and Marbury is an example of that because Congress created a law in conflict with the Constitution. Absent judicial review the Constitution would not have been the supreme law of the land.

Judicial review does not grant the Constitution supremacy, it grants the Supreme Court supremacy over the Constitution. It was never the intent of the founders that the Supreme Court would be able to unilaterally strike down legislation at it's own behest. Even those within the founding fathers who believed in a strong judiciary believed that the Supreme Court would simply be in charge of determining constitutionality for the purposes of furthering debate amongst the other branches, not as a means of implementing compulsory rule changes to legislation passed by elected officials. This action gives the Supreme Court supremacy over the other two branches, and the founders were very weary of such absolute power being granted to the judiciary.

Marbury V Madison was in many respects, a complete miscarriage of justice. For starters, John Marshall should have never been allowed to even preside over the case, given that he was the Secretary of State under the president that issued Marbury's commission. Secondly, the primary reason Marshall decided to strike down a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was because he didn't think that he could enforce it. The Constitution does not, in fact, restrict congress from expanding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. If you read Article III, Section II, it actually can be interpreted to have a completely opposite meaning to which Marshall afforded it. Marshall made a politically convenient decision, and claimed the power of judicial review to validate it.

You're upset because you think the Court got a ruling wrong? If so, how does that translate into judicial review is a bad thing?

It isn't just this ruling that shows the inherent flaws in the concept of judicial review. It's in every decision that is made strictly along ideological lines, and in every decision that is made and then later reversed.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying this in regards to Marshall's power grab:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Jefferson was 100% right, and his fears have been 100% validated. If the Supreme Court was a computer, incapable of personal motivations and political affiliations, in which you simply inserted a law to be cross referenced by the Constitution and a completely unbiased answer was given, then perhaps this would be a good idea. But the Supreme Court is no less ideologically and politically motivated than the other two bodies of government. When the majority of Supreme Court Justices are conservative, it interprets the Constitution by the edicts of conservative principles. When it is majority liberal, it interprets the Constitution by the edicts of liberal principles. This is no different than how the legislative and executive branches operate. The difference is, the judicial branch wields significantly more power.

Case in point, Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board of Education. Both decisions dealt with the same issue, "separate but equal." In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court rules in 1896 that "separate but equal" is constitutional, and Jim Crow becomes the law of the land for nearly 60 years. In 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling then dictates that "separate but equal" is inherently unconstitutional in a unanimous 9-0 decision. It bases this ruling on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

The 14th amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, nearly 30 years PRIOR to the Plessy V Fergason decision. Regarding the decisions made by the court involving this issue, the Constitution did not change. The Supreme Court, however did. This example perfectly illustrates my point, and I'll repeat it for the sake of posterity; Judicial review does not grant the Constitution supremacy, it grants the Supreme Court supremacy over the Constitution. And that, my friend, is why judicial review is a bad thing.
: June 27, 2013, 03:23:19 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#43 : June 27, 2013, 03:54:34 PM

For the purposes of dialog, sure. Explain it. Or more to the point, what is your interpretation of the decision? Good decision? Bad decision?

good decision. 

Art VI Constitution supreme law of the land. Absent the Court that Article has no real meaning and Marbury is an example of that because Congress created a law in conflict with the Constitution. Absent judicial review the Constitution would not have been the supreme law of the land.

Judicial review does not grant the Constitution supremacy, it grants the Supreme Court supremacy over the Constitution. It was never the intent of the founders that the Supreme Court would be able to unilaterally strike down legislation at it's own behest. Even those within the founding fathers who believed in a strong judiciary believed that the Supreme Court would simply be in charge of determining constitutionality for the purposes of furthering debate amongst the other branches, not as a means of implementing compulsory rule changes to legislation passed by elected officials. This action gives the Supreme Court supremacy over the other two branches, and the founders were very weary of such absolute power being granted to the judiciary.

Marbury V Madison was in many respects, a complete miscarriage of justice. For starters, John Marshall should have never been allowed to even preside over the case, given that he was the Secretary of State under the president that issued Marbury's commission. Secondly, the primary reason Marshall decided to strike down a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was because he didn't think that he could enforce it. The Constitution does not, in fact, restrict congress from expanding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. If you read Article III, Section II, it actually can be interpreted to have a completely opposite meaning to which Marshall afforded it. Marshall made a politically convenient decision, and claimed the power of judicial review to validate it.

That's an interesting take.  A few comments:

"Judicial review does not grant the Constitution supremacy, it grants the Supreme Court supremacy over the Constitution. It was never the intent of the founders that the Supreme Court would be able to unilaterally strike down legislation at it's own behest."

1. The Judicial Act actually violated the Constitution so we know that neither Congress nor The President were going to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  As I recall, the Act called for the SC to issue a writ over something which it had no original jurisdiction, per the Constitution.


2. Judicial review does not grant the Supreme Court supremacy over anything. The case that is the subject of this thread actually illustrates that point perfectly, but in simple terms judicial review just means that the SCt acts as the final appellate review for questions of Constituionality.  Btw, as to what the founders wanted, I think if you research you might find that Marbury was more controversial for the lecture of Jefferson than judicial review.

3. In any event, the Constitution is a meaningless document if someone is not charged with making sure the laws of the nation conform. But that doesnt make the SCt supreme that makes the Constituion Supreme. In fact, if Congress doesnt like the ruling it can pass a new law or even amend the Constitution


 Its a bit odd that you of all people look down on Marbury when what the court did, essentially, was make sure a President couldnt wield his power against a private citizen.  Also, how is juducial review bad when it strikes a portion of the Voting Act but good when it rules in Brown v. The Board etc.?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19376
Online
#44 : June 27, 2013, 03:57:19 PM


You're upset because you think the Court got a ruling wrong? If so, how does that translate into judicial review is a bad thing?

It isn't just this ruling that shows the inherent flaws in the concept of judicial review. It's in every decision that is made strictly along ideological lines, and in every decision that is made and then later reversed.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying this in regards to Marshall's power grab:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Jefferson was 100% right, and his fears have been 100% validated. If the Supreme Court was a computer, incapable of personal motivations and political affiliations, in which you simply inserted a law to be cross referenced by the Constitution and a completely unbiased answer was given, then perhaps this would be a good idea. But the Supreme Court is no less ideologically and politically motivated than the other two bodies of government. When the majority of Supreme Court Justices are conservative, it interprets the Constitution by the edicts of conservative principles. When it is majority liberal, it interprets the Constitution by the edicts of liberal principles. This is no different than how the legislative and executive branches operate. The difference is, the judicial branch wields significantly more power.

Case in point, Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board of Education. Both decisions dealt with the same issue, "separate but equal." In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court rules in 1896 that "separate but equal" is constitutional, and Jim Crow becomes the law of the land for nearly 60 years. In 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling then dictates that "separate but equal" is inherently unconstitutional in a unanimous 9-0 decision. It bases this ruling on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

The 14th amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, nearly 30 years PRIOR to the Plessy V Fergason decision. Regarding the decisions made by the court involving this issue, the Constitution did not change. The Supreme Court, however did. This example perfectly illustrates my point, and I'll repeat it for the sake of posterity; Judicial review does not grant the Constitution supremacy, it grants the Supreme Court supremacy over the Constitution. And that, my friend, is why judicial review is a bad thing.

CBW, Jefferson was pissed at gettign  a lecture and Jefferson was in the wrong in the midst of a political power grab BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY he was just wroing in what he said.  Thisis is not true:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions"

The people -- who can amend the Constitution  ---are the ulimate aribters

Lastly, and I presume you know this, but the vast majority of decisions by the SCt do NOT break along presumed ideological lines and even less times in history has the SCt flatly reversed an earlier ruling.  You're using rare events to claim a flaw.  The SC is far from perfect, it gets things wrong it succumbs to pressure, but in Marbury the SC was actually thrust into the middle by POLITICAL shenanigans, and did what it should which is to interpret what the Constituion said about the issue.

If not for the SCt, who would ultimately decide whether a law is Constituional?
: June 27, 2013, 04:02:23 PM VinBucFan

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools