What the hell does this mean, exactly:
After days of Democratic deference to John Roberts, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday that documents made public so far indicate the Supreme Court nominee holds a “rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act.”
Materials that Roberts drafted while at the Justice Department and White House counsel’s office during the Reagan administration “certainly raise some questions in my mind about his commitment” to civil rights, said Kennedy, D-Mass.
Kennedy’s remarks showed a willingness to raise pointed questions when most other Democrats have stuck to pleasantries about Roberts’ credentials ahead of his confirmation hearings.
Does this mean he thinks people should only be allowed to vote once, and should be required to show ID? Because that doesn’t bother me. [/sarcasm]
What exactly is a ‘cramped’ view of the Voting Rights Act? Does the timing of this statement from Kennedy have anything to do with to do with this:
Key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act are set to expire soon, but staunch supporters warned Tuesday that a permanent extension could reverse many of the law’s gains for minorities.
Some lawmakers may try to make permanent certain provisions that expire in 2007 in an attempt to torpedo the act, said Theodore Shaw, director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense Fund. Although Shaw acknowledged a permanent or nationwide approach may seem wise, he called it a “Trojan horse.”
“If they are permanent, it is a trap,” Shaw said. “They will be struck down as illegal and unconstitutional.”
One part of the act set to expire is the provision that states with a history of racial discrimination _ mostly in the South _ must get federal government approval before changing their voting laws or district lines. Shaw said judges might decide Congress can’t separate jurisdictions based on race issues without an occasional review of whether that separation remains necessary.
Again, I am just asking what Kennedy meant to imply.
mac Buckets
It’s Teddy Kennedy, so by definition, it’s all meaningless, partisan blather — or the self-loathing paranoia of ten thousand whiskey-induced nightmares (I can never quite decide which is sadder). Kennedy is the biggest punchline in America. It’s frankly amazing anyone even writes down what he says.
Steve
On behalf on Sen. Kennedy, I apologize for the implication that conservatives have ever sought to apply the Voting Rights Act narrowly. That’s really, really, really out of bounds, I gather from John’s tone.
Ted Shaw, incidentally, was my Con Law professor. Smart guy.
ppGaz
It might be constructive to review the history and backstory that led to the need for the Voting Rights Act.
The voting rights issue is not about Ted Kennedy or John Roberts or any other personality in the news. It’s about the protection of the most basic of American rights. It’s about democracy and how it works at the grass roots level.
John Cole
Steve- I don’t know what he was implying. Does anyone know what he was referring to?
Steve
Eh, John, when a mild-mannered guy such as yourself starts off a post by saying “what the hell does this mean, exactly,” the inference tends to be that you know what it means and don’t like it, rather than that you are consumed by honest curiosity. But okay.
There are like a million different issues relating to the Voting Rights Act, and the article doesn’t give specifics of the discussion between Kennedy and Roberts, so it’s impossible to know what the specific issue was. Democrats (except those durn Southern Dems!) have long been in favor of a broad construction of the VRA, and Republicans have long been in favor of a narrow construction, for reasons that are partly political and partly ideological.
So there’s not much news, really, in the fact that a conservative judge like Roberts might believe one thing and Ted Kennedy might believe another.
John Cole
I meant ‘what the hell’ as in, ‘what the hell- this is vague as all get out and I can’t figure out what he is trying to say,’ not as in ‘what the hell is that insidious bastard suggesting now?’
Jay C
It’s about the protection of the most basic of American rights.
Oh please. Voting is not a “basic American right.” It’s a priviledge extended to us by the government. The fact that not every American can vote is proof of that.
I’m so sick and tired where any questioning of The Voting Rights Act somehow translates into somebody’s “troubling” views on “civil rights.”
And John, how did you get that preview function in the comments?
Steve
The issue that Shaw brings up in the other quote is interesting, although I don’t know if the one has anything to do with the other. He points out that courts may create a requirement that districting plans under the VRA be reviewed periodically to see if they remain necessary – which is fine as far as it goes, but gives rise to the “Trojan horse” problem he mentioned if Congress tries to make the districts permanent.
I am a big supporter of the concept of affirmative action, to tell you the truth, but it seems blindingly obvious to me that any method of remedying discrimination, including affirmative action, should be designed with the notion that someday the remedial methods will no longer be necessary. We can argue about when that time comes, or whether it has already come, but I can’t get my head around the concept of “permanent” affirmative action, or “permanent” racially-drawn voting districts. I guess if the courts do impose the kind of requirement that Shaw is talking about, it’s common sense to me.
ppGaz
Now that’s a great slogan! I urge you to run for office and make that your central theme.
It needs a name: I’m calling it Neopopulism.
Steve
Wow, that’s a quote worthy of DougJ.
I would point out in response that the government’s very existence is a privilege extended to it by the people.
Mike
He means he wants it expanded so that if fathers of presidential candidates need to step in and pay off politicians and influential folks in places like say, West Virginia in order to get them elected, then that’s not seen as a problem.
Sojourner
And the government is us, so what’s your point?
ppGaz
“We the people, in order to enjoy the privileges that a kindly government might extend to us …”
Something like that.
Jesus. Voting, a privilege extended by government.
I swear, Steve, you want to run for office on that idea. I will contribute $100 to your campaign just to get you started.
I’ll run against you. My slogan is: Governing: A privilege extended by the voters.
Steve
ppGaz, I think you got me mixed up with the other guy.
Jay C
ppGaz, can 17 year olds vote? Can convicted felons?
If voting were truly a right, why would there be any need for constitutional amendments for women to vote and for 18 year olds to vote? Why do we need to show identification? Why do we have to register? Why do we have to vote in a particular precinct? Using your logic, requiring that I register denies me one of my “most basic rights”, right?
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people are regarding the difference between priviledges and rights.
Any why would I want to run a campaign based on that? The majority of the voters are just as ignorant as you.
Steve
First of all, if you can’t spell “privilege,” you end up looking like a fucking moron when you call someone else “ignorant” in the same sentence.
Second, there’s a reason they didn’t call it the “civil privileges movement.” Voting is a basic civil right, some would say THE basic right. The fact that we have denied it to various groups at times in our history doesn’t change that fact. We may have had slavery in the past, but that doesn’t mean freedom is some kind of special “privilege” that you’re lucky if the government decides to extend.
Geek, Esq.
Wow. This may be the most ignorant thing ever posted in the comments here. Somebody fell asleep in high school civics class when they talked about the relationship between government and citizen in a democracy.
Not sure what Kennedy means, but Roberts does seem to be of the view that the courts should sit on their hands instead of protecting individual rights against majoritarian abuses.
Defense Guy
Jay C
On this one you are wrong, voting is definately one of our rights. Constitution.org lists it as a ‘Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract’.
Source
Ken Hahn
Just how would applying the same standards to Massachucetts as are applied to Mississippi limit civil rights? Kennedy and the liberals know what Goldwater pointed out forty years ago, this act is blantantly unconstitutional. It might be right and it might be just but it is unconstitutional. Making it temporary allows activists judges to protect it as an emergency matter.
Roberts would apply the same standards to Boston as to Birmingham and Kennedy’s hometown would be exposed as the racist hub it is, or Blacks could see Democrats are always in favor of civil rights, so long as it’s not in their district.
What Kennedy is saying, John, is “Roberts would expose me as the hypocrite that I am and I can’t allow that”.
Jay C
First of all, if you can’t spell “privilege,” you end up looking like a fucking moron when you call someone else “ignorant” in the same sentence.
Oh please. When people resort to pointing out typos as proof of another person’s intelligence (or lack thereof) then I know that half the argument is over.
Voting is a basic civil right, some would say THE basic right. The fact that we have denied it to various groups at times in our history doesn’t change that fact. We may have had slavery in the past, but that doesn’t mean freedom is some kind of special “privilege” that you’re lucky if the government decides to extend.
Your knowledge of history and what constitutes a “basic right” is poor.
The most basic right that we have is the right to our own life. If you think voting is more important than the right to your own life, then your priorities are truly lopsided.
In addition to denying people in the past the ‘right’ to vote, we do so today as I pointed out. A young man who turns 18 on December 1, is out of luck, while the another young man who turned 18 on October 31, will be able to vote. As I also said, convicted felons are not allowed to vote. If it was “THE basic right” you claim it to be, why should a convicted felon be excluded? A true right, is something the government should not be allowed to deny you, nor take away.
Your comment about slavery is a strawman. Clearly slavery is a violation of our personal right to life. Why? Because by shackling people in chains, you’re denying them their freedom of access by the use of force.
Steve
Let’s apply some “Jay C” logic here:
1) Your personal right to life the most basic right;
2) A true right is something the government cannot take away;
3) If someone shackles you in chains, they’ve denied your right to life;
4) Therefore, the government cannot shackle you in chains…
But wait, if you commit a crime, of course the government can imprison you. You forfeited your basic right to freedom by committing a crime.
But back to Jay C…
1) A true right is something the government cannot take away;
2) The government can take away a convicted felon’s right to vote;
3) Therefore, the right to vote is not a “right” at all.
You just made the exact same argument in two separate cases, and ended up proving two opposite results!
If you commit a felony, of course the government can take away your liberty, even your life if the crime is serious enough. So of course they can take away your right to vote if you commit a felony!
Nor do I think it matters much that we have an age of majority in this country, considering every culture in history has had one. What are you suggesting? If we recognized voting as a “true” right, infants would be allowed to vote as long as they can crawl into the voting booth? Or should we judge people’s maturity on a case-by-case basis, since the fact that we have a bright-line rule strikes you as so arbitrary?
Look, if voting is not a basic civil right, then I have no idea what the heck we’re doing in Iraq, since Saddam’s form of government was equally legitimate to ours. If a dictator decides not to extend the privilege of voting to anyone, gee, I guess that’s his right!
Jay
Let’s apply some “Jay C” logic here:
1) Your personal right to life the most basic right;
2) A true right is something the government cannot take away;
3) If someone shackles you in chains, they’ve denied your right to life;
4) Therefore, the government cannot shackle you in chains…
But wait, if you commit a crime, of course the government can imprison you. You forfeited your basic right to freedom by committing a crime.
This is so breathtakingly stupid, that I hope Cole saves it for all eternity.
First off, where did I say the government could not take away your rights? I said it’s something they should not be allowed to deny you or take away from you. The difference makes your entire entry bogus.
Second of all, only a fool would compare somebody being a slave(a person who is forced to labor for another against their will) to a criminal as though locking up a murderer was somehow the same as making somebody a slave.
A person who commits a crime has violated the rights of somebody else. Such a person most certainly has forfeited their rights in some manner (ie through imprisonment and/or financial restitution). But what you fail to explain is how the punishment for let’s say, robbery, has anything to do with voting for a Congressman. The person in question is being punished for his crime against another individual(s).
Even after the criminal has served their sentence and made restitution, they can still have their voting privileges revoked.
Look, if voting is not a basic civil right, then I have no idea what the heck we’re doing in Iraq, since Saddam’s form of government was equally legitimate to ours. If a dictator decides not to extend the privilege of voting to anyone, gee, I guess that’s his right!
Another head scratcher. How do you assume that because somebody says that voting is not truly a right, that it’s not worth fighting for democracy? Just because voting is not a right, doesn’t remove it’s importance.
Steve
I see you are one of those people who substitutes name-calling (“breathtakingly stupid,” “only a fool”) for making a good argument. That’s the Internet, I guess.
I will wait for a second opinion before I concede that I am the idiot in this debate. Until then, I stand by my position that voting is a right, not a privilege.
Jay
I see you are one of those people who substitutes name-calling (“breathtakingly stupid,”
I didn’t say you were “breathtakingly stupid”, I said what you wrote was “breathtakingly stupid.” And if there are people who draw no distinction between those who are made to be slaves against their will and those who are locked up because of crimes they have committed, then yes, that person is a fool. That’s not merely name calling. That’s truth telling.
Considering that you were using spelling errors as a measuring stick for ignorance of an issue, you’re hardly in a position to complain about something like that.