Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Supreme Court Marriage Decisions

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jul 02, 2013 8:44 AM
And those "superior" and "inferior" stats you talk about are apples and oranges. The covered states have made attempt after attempt to racially discriminate, which have been denied by DOJ. If they could help it, they wouldn't have those "superior" stats. They were forced into them by, wait for it, the NATIONAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT!!!! Ginsburg's quote is priceless. Throwing out Sec 4 is like throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet.
In response to:

Supreme Court Marriage Decisions

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jul 02, 2013 8:39 AM
So, in other words, Congress has to pass a new statute to repeal or amend this one because the court's decision means the NVRA can be enforced against exactly ZERO jurisdictions (unless you count Sec 2 litigation, which has proven to be ineffective in eradicating systemic voting discrimination). At the very least that is constructive "repeal" of the NVRA. I mean, let's be real, that's how it operates.
In response to:

Supreme Court Marriage Decisions

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jul 02, 2013 8:34 AM
You don't get to make up special rules for laws passed by referendum, initiative process, or anything else. The legislature represents the people, so when they pass a law, the legal effect is the same. I'm not saying that you can't be attentive to the effect it will have in seeming to thumb your nose at a law that is closer in procedure to a public poll, but it still reflects a product of process that has just as much chance for manipulation (see the passage of Prop 8), so it is obviously subject to the same scrutiny as other laws. While I respect your position that private litigation between two parties are conceptually different than intervening as a matter of right in the government's case, the alternative would be a highly unworkable system. You can't have outside groups appealing government decisions not to pursue further litigation. We only have so much space in our courtrooms. We need to ensure proper judicial resources are spent on proper controversies with proper parties. The government's decision not to appeal did not invalidate Prop 8. The District court sunk Prop 8 on its merits. If the supporters are upset, they should have argued better at the District Court level. Their right is not preserved at any level after that.
In response to:

Supreme Court Marriage Decisions

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jul 02, 2013 8:27 AM
Wrong Kenneth, they effectively gutted the strongest civil rights law our country has. They invalidated Sec 4 (sorry, I said Sec 5 above). Section 4 determines the coverage formula for the preclearance scheme applied by Sec 5. If there is no Sec 4, then the enforcement mechanism of Sec 5 can be utilized against exactly zero jurisdictions. While supporters of the decision cite DOJ litigation under Sec 2 as remaining in effect, the Texas redistricting plans show us exactly why Sec 2 is insufficient on its own and why Sec 4 and 5 are necessary. When litigating on a case by case basis, many offending legislatures would manipulate the process by changing their offending voting procedures just slightly when a case reached a high court, thereby mooting the case, and requiring another one to be brought against the new procedure which started the clock all over again. Texas did EXACTLY this when replacing its redistricting plan pending litigation for a different, more racially gerrymandered map. The Supreme Court ruling did in fact overturn the substantive enforcement provisions of the NVRA.
In response to:

Supreme Court Marriage Decisions

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jul 02, 2013 8:14 AM
Boy, where to begin.... No, Phyllis, the standing ruling does not give the executive of the state the power to nullify duly enacted laws. He must defend the State's actions (enforcement of the provision)to a District court, and if the exec decides that the constitutionality of a law should no longer be defended by his or her office, the court accepts amicus briefs from supporters and usually allows an outside party to join the lawsuit in defense of the law. But joining WITH the gov't does not equate to intervening on the government's behalf as a matter of right. Should the Diatrict Court decide against the constitutionality of the law, another party cannot swoop in and appeal if the government chooses not to. Could you intervene on someone else's case to appeal when they decide not to? Of course not. The constitutionality of the law was given proper defense by the District court, and lost. They can't just force an appeal when they are not a principle party to the case. It's not a workable system. And I would simply refer the author to the case Marbury v. Madison. It pretty much spells out the Sup Ct's authority when set against the other two coordinate branches of government. In no way did they overstep that authority. And if so, I'd be interested to hear Scalia defend his decision on sec 5 of the NVRA and how that didn't equate to the same kind of judicial "arrogance" that he so pointedly denounces.
In response to:

Why Did Gabriel Gomez Lose?

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jun 28, 2013 1:55 PM
I'm pretty sure his "liberal causes" reflect what is important to Mass. voters, otherwise he would not be moving over to the Senate after 37 yrs in the House. He seems to be representing his constituents pretty well to me.
In response to:

Why Did Gabriel Gomez Lose?

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jun 28, 2013 1:52 PM
"The dissolution of this union due to irreconcilable differences"???? Hilarious. Do you think you're married to the US? You can't secede by taking your State through no-fault divorce proceedings, you know....
Hahahaha. Good luck, Robert... Wasn't there a Civil War fought along similar lines sometime in our history?... Oh well, I'm sure it worked out for those who rejected the progress of American society during the time in favor of seceding and clinging to their old ways... What??? It didn't? You're kidding...
Everything is grounded in some aspect of truth. Otherwise it wouldn't be relevant to us today, and it would have fallen on the historical ash heap long ago. But that doesn't mean we are on our way toward living out the plot line of Atlas Shrugged. Regardless of how much you sympathize with its message.
Seems like SloanDog has read "Atlas Shrugged" one too many times. You realize that is a book of fiction, correct? I don't think its in danger of suddenly taking place.
In response to:

Pathological Altruism

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 9:11 AM
What is the point of this column??? She seems to implicitly tie this state of pathological altruism to those attempting to better the "welfare" of others with no attention to objectivity. Is that not the problem identified by BOTH sides of the partisan divide? What I mean to say is, it seems both sides have mountains of their own "objective data" to point to, it's just a matter of not being able to agree on what those numbers mean or the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. The vagaries contained in her analysis of this study can be generally applied to both parties. The Iraq war has been a study in altruistic motives with unintended consequences. The Farm Bill has apparently degenerated into the same. It's never as bad on your side as it is on the other, eh? Too bad, it almost always is equally bad, everywhere.
Previous 11 - 20 Next