Supreme court leaves intact Mississippi law disenfranchising Black voters

Objection! Speaks to facts not in evidence.

 

Remember, under this Court “we’re doing this because we’re racist” is not evidence of racist motivation. Very unfair to assume that just because they say it. Voting restrictions are just based on other neutral motivations

 

Who said that?

 

Passim

 

It's quoted in the OP ... “We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time.

 

Better to be on the right side of things now and the wrong side then as opposed to what the republicans have done....the exact opposite.

The Great Switch: How Republicans and Democrats Flipped Ideologies

 

I haven’t studied that in-depth at all, and so I’ll probably step away from this argument. It still strikes me as a lazy way out to automatically brand the evils of the past as “the other guys.” I doubt every single Democrat switched parties, and they surely didn’t do it on one day. One thing to note is, I don’t think the Democrats kick those people out.

It kind of strikes me like modern-day Germans who refuse to except the Nazis were their ancestors.

Without further study, I’m not entirely convinced how much influence the Dixiecrats had on the Republicans. In my lifetime, there has never been a Republican nominee for president out of the Deep South. IIRC the closest one is George W. Bush from Texas.

I think it’s best if we all just except that none of our ancestors were perfect. Some even behaved very badly, whether genetic ancestors or political ancestors.

 

My bad. I thought he was referring to the current Supreme Court justices.

 

So based on the subject line of the post regarding disenfranchising black voters, does that mean only convicted black felons lose their voting privileges?

 

The answer you seek is in plain English, in post #1.

Do you think it’s only disenfranchisement if it’s 100%? If the law is applied only 30% unequally or 50% unequally that it’s ok?

 

Under Village of Arlington Heights (an Equal Protection Clause case), a plaintiff must prove discriminatory effect and intent. A plaintiff does not have to prove that the only factor is race. Basically, if a law has a disparate impact on Black people and was motivated by racial animus, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. That all said, just because the law says that doesn't mean "judges" will follow it.

So Bling is right. Disenfranchisement doesn't have to be 100% or only applied to Black people. If it's disproportionately wielded against Black people and the law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, it SHOULD be unconstitutional.

 

16 and 10% as referenced by the OP.

Don't see how we can use the blanket term "disenfranchise" for something that affects a vastly small percent of the population, when it doesn't even approach the 50% barrier. I'm not saying it has to be 100% to be the blanket but 10-16% is not even close to half.

 

A single person may be disenfranchised. Group size seems immaterial when it's intentional. It is still an injustice.

Per your numbers, 10% of all vote eligible Mississippians are affected by this law and 16% of the black population. Since 37% of the population is black, it seems like only about 6 percent of whites are affected. Therefore, it seems blacks are more than 3x impacted by this than whites.

 

No one told Rock there’d be math involved..

 

Why is it against blacks only?
Are they the only felons?

Simple solution don’t commit a felony and you don’t risk losing the right to vote.

 

Read. the. article.

 

Amusing to see people who celebrated the affirmative action decision now making excuses for a law passed with a racially discriminatory purpose. Sure undercuts the claims that ending affirmative action was about putting a stop to racial discrimination.

 

We all know their Heritage Foundation tested flimsy excuses aren't the real reason for their excitement.

 

What is sad in this thread is the complete lack of personal choice/responsibility from the left.
They blame the law, which is applied to everyone, but totally disregard the act of commiting a crime. They blame a myriad of external forces (poverty, institutional racism etc) but disregard the fact that members of the same family, neighbors, people in the same community who live with these external forces but still make the decision not to become criminals.

Now I will say if you have done your time and everything that was put on you as your punishment and came out clean and stay clean. You should get your rights.
But this law should be changed at the state level not the SC.

 

Great. I hope you took the same stance with the affirmative action case. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite.