Too much?

[dorkulon]

[Capt. Obvious]

1. I'd say yes

[MichiganVote]

2. Its what he was hired for afterall by the biggest bullshitters in gov. office-the Bush family

[Kalidurga]

3. Yes

But, I can understand why someone would feel that way.

[elleng]

4. Its only one section of the Act that's being considered now.

'A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members. . .

the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures,. . '

In reauthorizing the provision for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. Much of the argument concerned that coverage formula. . .

Section 5, originally set to expire five years after the law was enacted, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966 as a rational response to the often flagrantly lawless conduct of some Southern officials then.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[dorkulon]

5. True, but Thomas has expressed his opinion the the Act is unconstitutional. /nt

[elleng]

7. thomas thinks, incorrectly, that MANY laws are unconstitutional.

I'm not really concerned about his opinion.

[robinlynne]

19. Is that like counting some of the votes in Florida? or like being sort of pregnant?

sarcasm, just in case.

[quinnox]

6. the truth hurts sometimes n/t

[Skittles]

8. yes, too much

and I truly detest that bastard

[TwilightGardener]

9. Yeah. I don't even like kicking this.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I'll check in an hour to see if this gets alerted.

I would have to recuse myself.

[demwing]

11. That you knew to ask

shows you probably already knew the answer

[BainsBane]

12. Way too much

It's racist. Thomas has a right to a legal and political opinion, as repulsive as we find it, without facing racist insults.

[baldguy]

18. Thomas doesn't have any legal opinions that aren't written for him by Scalia.

And if he absolutely needs to express his political opinion, he should resign from the bench & run for office.

[Quantess]

13. He deserves it.

He totally deserves it.

[Arctic Dave]

14. The truth is at times, ugly.

But thruthful none the less.

I can see why some would get uneasy about this graphic, I think we would rather believe these type of people don't exist.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Not for me...

But then, I've known people on the other side that would applaud the accuracy.

[Chorophyll]

16. Well...it's pretty spot-on.

Unfortunately.

[Blue Palasky]

17. no.

anyone saying yes should realize the roses are red.

[Poll_Blind]

20. Reminds me of how harsh and unflinching Mr. Fish can be.

So, no, I don't think it is "too much". You're ironically juxtaposing a black man indirectly supporting the goals of the Klu Klux Klan- and that's a pretty harsh reality.

PB

[Summer Hathaway]

22. Agreed.

The truth is sometimes presented in scathingly caustic terms - but it IS the truth, nonetheless.

[rhett o rick]

21. Not that I want to agree with him but the voting rights act may well be unconstitutional.

If someone can help me understand how it is constitutional, I would appreciate it.

Having said that, I believe that a voters rights act can be written that is constitutional. And that's what we should be working on.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. I think th burden should be on the party who believes the act is unconstitutional.

Curious to see why you think it's unconstitutional.

[rhett o rick]

27. I dont necessarily agree with that reasoning but here's my best.

I can find nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate voting in the states. The current law hangs on the argument that some states arent capable of regulating voting w/o violating civil rights. That seems like a weak argument. By what measure does the federal government make the decision which states and how long they need to be under federal control.

I am certainly not an expert on the Constitution so if someone can point me to somewhere in the Constitution where this is allowed I would appreciate it.

I think we should stop watching the train wreck of the SCOTUS and turn our attention to getting Congress to pass a new voter rights bill that applies to all states and is written with authority of the Constitution, like maybe under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. The Fifteenth Ammendment couldn't be ANY clearer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

[rhett o rick]

32. I stand corrected. Seems that does apply to this specific law.

Do you believe this can be interpreted to apply to all citizens not just on account of race, color, etc.? And the Voting Rights Act extended to all states?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. i don't see why not.

Edit to add: because I was on my phone earlier. If not the 15th then surely the 14th amendment can be used to set minimum standards for everyone.

[Zoeisright]

23. Not too much at all. Instead, dead fucking on.

That skunk is doing the work of his masters, all right.

[Luminous Animal]

24. It appears that your are using the KKK as a shield in order to call Thomas "boy".

So yes, too much.

[OldDem2012]

33. The clear intent of the OP was to show the KKK calling Thomas, "boy", not the poster. nt.

[dorkulon]

35. Thanks. I would hope that's clear.

I can think of many derogatory words to describe Thomas, but that's not one of them.

[Democracyinkind]

25. I object to the boy part - and I think the boy part is why it was posted here.

Very interesting to see who recced this. Some surprises, some pretty much expected.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Ouch

That's brutal.

[Fire Walk With Me]

30. Clarence Thomas is more a lapdog of Monsanto than the KKK. He's an ex-Monsanto attorney

and will not recuse himself from Monsanto cases brought before the Supreme Court. Sickening.

[Cha]

31. Maybe.

Edited from "No".

[Tom Ripley]

36. Not enough

[99Forever]

37. No.

Not in the least. Truthiness isn't always polite or politically correct.