The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

June 25, 2013

Here’s what SCOTUS ruled on the Voting Rights Act, in lay terms

  • question The Voting Rights Act mandated that certain jurisdictions in the country with a history of voter disenfranchisement (all in the south) receive pre-clearance from the federal government before enacting any new voting laws. The case on which SCOTUS ruled today questioned whether or not this is constitutional. 
  • ruling The court did not strike down the concept of pre-clearance; rather, struck down the specific formula currently used to determine which states require pre-clearance. So, until Congress can agree on and pass a new formula for this determination, no states will require pre-clearance anymore.

It falls upon congress to decide on a new formula—essentially, to figure out which states should still require federal approval to change their voting laws. Given how congress is these days, we’re exceedingly doubtful that any agreement will be reached anytime soon. source

16:01 // 9 months ago
nbcnews:

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down a key part of 1965 Voting Rights Act
(Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters, file)
Live SCOTUSblog offers latest details.
Continue reading

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion on the case: "Nearly 50 years later, [the rules laid out by the Voting Rights Act] are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."
Thoughts?

nbcnews:

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down a key part of 1965 Voting Rights Act

(Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters, file)

Live SCOTUSblog offers latest details.

Continue reading

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion on the case: "Nearly 50 years later, [the rules laid out by the Voting Rights Act] are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."


Thoughts?

10:27 // 9 months ago
June 24, 2013
15:59 // 9 months ago
June 23, 2013
nbcnews:

Same-sex marriage opponents plan for DOMA ruling, weigh constitutional challenge
(Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP – Getty Images file)
Opponents of same-sex marriage prepare for their next chapter as they await highly-anticipated Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. If the decisions aren’t in their favor, they say they may pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Continue reading

Anyone seeing them actually being able to pull off such an amendment? Here’s what it would take, according to Wikipedia:

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention (known as an Article V convention) called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

The first route is unlikely considering the current makeup of the Senate in particular. The second route is unlikely because it would require a lot of movement at a grassroots level to make it happen.

nbcnews:

Same-sex marriage opponents plan for DOMA ruling, weigh constitutional challenge

(Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP – Getty Images file)

Opponents of same-sex marriage prepare for their next chapter as they await highly-anticipated Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. If the decisions aren’t in their favor, they say they may pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Continue reading

Anyone seeing them actually being able to pull off such an amendment? Here’s what it would take, according to Wikipedia:

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention (known as an Article V convention) called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

The first route is unlikely considering the current makeup of the Senate in particular. The second route is unlikely because it would require a lot of movement at a grassroots level to make it happen.

22:01 // 9 months ago
June 17, 2013
15:21 // 10 months ago
June 13, 2013
I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.
A big-deal case passed the Supreme Court this morning, with the court finding that genes can’t be patented. But the fun part of this decision is Justice Antonin Scalia’s reasoning for joining with the majority, which disregards a part of the opinion which notes that “Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms.” Apparently Scalia slept through biology class in high school, because that’s all way over his head.
12:28 // 10 months ago
May 13, 2013
19:39 // 11 months ago
April 29, 2013
21:29 // 11 months ago
April 27, 2013
17:13 // 11 months ago
March 30, 2013
timemagazine:

TIME’s new issue, featuring the story, ‘How Gay Marriage Won,’ hits newsstands Friday. Two couples who were photographed to illustrate the story appear on two separate covers this week.
Read the story here.
(Cover photographs by Peter Hapak)
 

How the times have changed, no?

timemagazine:

TIME’s new issue, featuring the story, ‘How Gay Marriage Won,’ hits newsstands Friday. Two couples who were photographed to illustrate the story appear on two separate covers this week.

Read the story here.

(Cover photographs by Peter Hapak)

 

How the times have changed, no?

18:05 // 1 year ago