Reply to SCOTUS

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "SCOTUS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Actually, one would only need to be 66 to have voted pre-VRA (passed in '65, which was 48 years ago, plus 18 years of age to vote). Given that most of the jurisdictions in question have made continued efforts to suppress the votes of people of color, which were fortunately stymied by the preclearance required by VRA, the sins are far less than 48 years old.  
 
 
[/quote]

You had to be 21 to vote in those days.  So, it was 69-not 7-.  My bad.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction.  Still... "When Congress last voted to extend it until 2031 — by overwhelming votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate — it cited about 2,400 proposed voting changes blocked during the previous quarter-century."

Two questions:  How can you still consider the sins 40+ years old when there have been almost 100 laws per year attempted and rejected in just the last 25?  And how can Scalia rectify his outrage over the DOMA ruling on grounds that it steps over the legislature when he just overturned one of the most widely supported laws in the history of Congress?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics