StrangeSox

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Not really but as long as you recognize that millions of working people in addition to people already reliant on public assistance are going to be impacted by this, public and private.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Yeah, stupid children born into poverty. Get your s*** together. Maybe some malnutrition and lack of medical care will toughen you up and next year you'll be more self reliant. It's not even his dumb "hurr durr welfare leeches and unions!" stuff. Unemployment rises during a recession, meaning millions will be losing their job through no fault of their own. You have to have a 5-year-old's understanding of the world not to realize this.

When the economy goes into recession, lots of people lose their jobs and become dependent on assistance. This is why the deficit has widened since the collapse, this is basic "how social safety nets work." I hope you're just quasi-trolling here and not really that ignorant on HS-level civics and econ and as narcissistic as you're coming across.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Case in point about B&B is currently there is no discussion to be had about he Bulls in their mind yet they are continuing ot have it. We all know the B&B think the Bulls are in basketball hell. Yes they are. We all know that the Bulls are not going to beat the Heat as currently constructed if the Heat is healthy. There is a debate if you'd like about how good the Bulls really are and comparable to other teams where would they be. This conversation can not be had on that show. Yeah, they're getting really repetitive on that. They just keep saying the same thing over and over and over without talking about how you might get out of "basketball hell," other NBA teams, anything else besides "the Bulls are screwed!"

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:44 AM) But then Mike from Milwaukee calls and all is forgiven. I can't stand the segment, it's terrible.

You don't do it in the middle of a very weak recovery when unemployment is still above 7% more than five years after the start of the crash. That will make unemployment worse, that will make the deficit larger, that will make lots of people suffer. A dysfunctional government is not conducive to a stable economy.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:36 AM) She called herself an affirmative action baby, bragged about all the s*** she got for being strong wise latina That was in reference to her college admissions, which she was using to make a point that AA allowed her to get in and then flourish. Not her appointments to various judiciary positions.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Agreed. They are not cutting spending. Sure they are, but that's besides the point: these cuts will be a further drag on the economy in addition to the cuts they've already made, sending the economy into a recession, which means you're going to have more social safety spending and less revenues. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) And both parties are to blame Yes, both are equally stupidly focused on the deficit right now.

You don't make things more efficient with ham-handed "across the board" cuts, but you do throw your country back into a recession.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) Yes, clearly this town needs more Mike North. lol

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 10:49 AM) I was one of the people that use to listen to B&B religiously, but I honestly don't understand how they are still doing so well. To me, they use to be very intelligent and give a lot of sports knowledge. It seemed like every once in a while they'd insult a dumb caller. Now it seems like that's their thing. If someone calls in and doesn't echo their opinion, they just turn to insulting the caller. The caller could have a great thought, but it doesn't fall in line with the host, so they just attack. Yet if they have a guest with these same "dumb" thoughts, they usually don't say a thing. Their Who You Crappin and Friday Fun, and what else are entertaining, but I stopped listening to them for actual sports talk. I have to assume a lot of their listeners just like hearing people be attacked. I know a buddy who loves B&B listens because of that. I've turned to CJH because they seem to be the opposite of the above. They might not have as much sports knowledge, but I don't have to listen to them rip callers constantly. i agree with those of you that said Holmes would be good on ESPN. I think he is what I use to like in B&B. Him and Carmen would be good. I generally don't listen to their caller-heavy segments. I get in the car around 5PM, so it's usually either someone like Hub during football season, "Who ya crappin?" or random, absurd conversation Fridays. When they've got several good callers and are having a decent conversation, it's great. When Bernstein finds a particular point of view, even if someone's playing devil's advocate, to be dumb, it gets unbearable quickly.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) Her words, not mine. Sotomayer described herself as the "affirmative action hire justice?"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:05 AM) Christ, let's overreact a little more shall we? Good argument.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) Im saying there's a whole lot of disenfranchisement going on in this country, and generally minorities aren't the victims. I'll ask again "what are you talking about"

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) I do think its funny that the affirmative action hire justice has taken even more of a particular interest in this case than Scalia. Talk about racial entitlement. See? Racism is dead in this country. No need for the VRA!

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) Why bother with any of this crap. How dumb do you have to be to think racially discriminatory laws are in any way better than the bevy of legal voterigging schemes? What are you talking about and how is it applicable to the VRA and Scalia's dumb statements?

So now combine the bail-out provision, which has never been turned down IIRC, with the low incidence rate, and tell me why Section 5 is a problem that the court needs to declare unconstitutional because they disagree with Congress's judgement? The low incidence rate could also be a reflection on the deterrence effect of the law. Why go forward with a discriminatory change when you know it's simply going to be rejected?

The law is so popular with the citizens that it must be struck down! We must kill democracy in order to save it! This is, essentially, the argument he's making here. It's complete nonsense and it's not his role as Supreme Court Justice to be some super-legislator and strike down laws he thinks Congress doesn't have the balls to strike down. Does this law suddenly become more legitimate if the vote had been 90-10? 80-20? 70-30? In what world does that make any sense? Yeah, nobody in the Senate voted against it, and few in the House did. That's 100% great. Is it any surprise that, in a country where it's harder to be explicitly racist and where minorities are a growing demographic and have their voting rights guaranteed, that modern legislators don't want to vote against a popular bill that would cost them their position? That is the essence of democracy. Make unpopular votes, and you'll lose your office. I'm glad you see that it wasn't an analogy. So now it's just one of the many "entitlements" he doesn't like? So voting rights protections for minorities still remain a "racial entitlement," which is still an incredibly racist and stupid-as-f*** thing to say. And if he's just complaining about all those other "entitlements" and "handouts" that the blacks and mexicans get? Still racist, still dumb-as-f*** but now worse because he's Limbaugh on the bench. What scrutiny standard gets rid of this? Congress compiled a substantial record in 2006 on the history of discrimination and found it was still reasonable to single out certain states and counties. He's simply saying that, since he disagrees with that conclusion, the law should be unconstitional? What's the actual, legal argument Scalia is making here? There appears to be nothing but an incoherent, political rant, not dissimilar from his SB1070 dissent. I've thought for a while now that Thomas gets unfairly labeled as a Scalia tag-along, and this just makes it worse. While I rarely if ever agree with Thomas, he's a lot more respectable than the clown Scalia has deteriorated into.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 1, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Isn't that even worse? You aren't even good enough to perform the sex act, you are just the support on the ground of the person peforming such act. I'm just gonna go with Reggie Rose was f***ing up his metaphors

e.g. if the Court makes an odd ruling the pre-clearance simply applies to all states, I'll happily accept the outcome but still disagree with how it was reached.

It's not analogy if he's talking about the law that's in front of them and citing the voting record on the law that's in front of them. That's just literally talking about a thing. Congress has the explicit authority to enforce the 15th amendment via "appropriate legislation." What is appropriate is a policy question, not a constitutional one, and even then, Section 5 is a perfectly rational method to address the problem. Congress went to considerable effort in 2006 to consider if this measure was still appropriate and necessary and found that it was. So long as this law is seen as an important and necessary law, it will and should remain difficult politically to get rid of. It simply is not the Court's role to make this determination. Liberal justices do sometimes usurp Congress's power, and sometimes I'm okay with the outcomes even if I'm not okay with the theory. But liberal justices don't pretend to be "originalists" or that the constitution is "dead," as Scalia does. Furthermore, the history of the Court's rulings on voting rights has recognized an enormous amount of deference to the legislature. Gutting the Voting Rights Act because it's politically difficult to "get rid of" would be the height of judicial activism.

Sotomayer basically shoots down the entire case in her first statements:

Giant recession? Increased unemployment? Larger deficit?