Skip to main content

Michael Knaapen (L) and his husband John Becker, both of Wisconsin, react to the 5-4 ruling striking down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 26, 2013 REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan
"Euphoric" is right.
Stu Rothenberg, taking a break from election prognostication to lament the decline of social conservatism:
The public and TV networks’ reactions to two recent Supreme Court decisions, one invalidating Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the other invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, were noteworthy.

Both decisions were 5-4, but only about the Voting Rights Act decision did I hear the high court widely described as “bitterly divided.”

In the days after the Voting Rights Act decision, you might have thought that the high court had taken away the right to vote from African-Americans. Journalists gave plenty of attention to voices opposing the decision and arguing that the ruling would overturn all the progress of civil rights since the 1960s.

The media’s coverage of the DOMA decision, on the other hand, was almost euphoric, geared overwhelmingly toward those celebrating the decision.

One decision gave new rights to millions of Americans. The other decision will serve to limit the rights of millions of other Americans.

This is not a perfect country, but it's clear that we celebrate as a people when rights are expanded, not taken away. We're kind of cool that way.

So conservatives might whine that the media wasn't "euphoric" when the rights of African American and Latino voters were effectively curtailed, but that's because Americans in general aren't assholes like them.

And conservatives might whine that the media didn't cry about the "bitterly divided" Supreme Court when the DOMA decision came down, but that's because everyone was too busy celebrating love—not just an American value, but a human one.

Funny that conservatives have a problem with that.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:45 PM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Conservatives should move to Saudi Arabia (9+ / 0-)

    They would love it there with all the family values, bigotry and hatred.

    Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

    by Joe B on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:48:42 PM PDT

  •  Kennedy has the greatest love of all, for (9+ / 0-)

    himself!  I agree with his DOMA decision and celebrate is as much as anyone else, but it's getting old having Kennedy be the king and the decider on so many issues.

  •  media framing and Overton Window casements /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:52:02 PM PDT

    •  S.O.? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Overwhelming evidence shows that too many politicians continue to win elections by unfairly manipulating election rules based on how voters look or talk. The Court’s decision makes this problem worse. The biggest problem will be the manipulation of election rules for local offices that are often non-partisan and escape national attention."

      Spencer Overton

  •  The five evil supremes can go to he!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, Denise Oliver Velez

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:53:24 PM PDT

  •  As many of us have said many times, (11+ / 0-)

    we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Likewise I can rejoice and lament SCOTUS decisions at the same time, just like I can be proud of my country while acknowledging that America isn't , never has been, and isn't likely to ever be, perfect.

    Conservatives, instead of being able to put one foot in front of the other and walk or chew gum, seem to just put their feet in their mouths.

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:53:42 PM PDT

  •  served to support opppresion (0+ / 0-)

    The vote ruling is giving power to those who wish to oppress more than it explicitly removes rights from the population.  I think this is an important distinction because many argue that the laws do not need to change because everyone, in theory at least, has equal rights.  For instance everyone who had the right to vote still in principle has the right to vote, but now it will be more difficult to find those that violate the right.

    Likewise, when traditionally oppressed people marry into less oppressed classes, this creates a situation where oppression is more difficult.  It is one thing to torture and murdering a black kid for looking at a white girl funny when it is relatively sure that black kid has no white relatives, but quite another when there is a chance that a white mother or father might go the papers and cry at the injustice of the murder.

    I think we, on balance, win because the laws on voting were not being upheld very well, and the states that are now dominant in suppressing votes are not those that were doing so 50 years ago. Also groups like the Tea Party are sending out the white christian thugs to suppress voting on a case by case basis, which does more harm that any laws.  

  •  Stu who? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gentle Giant

    You mean that malevolent infant from The Family Guy?

  •  That's putting it into excellent perspective. (3+ / 0-)
  •  The disparity reveals a schism (3+ / 0-)

    IMO, the DOMA decision has been getting much more positive attention on the left than the VRA decision has been getting negative...i.e., the euphoria is greater than the despair.

    I believe that is because a good part of the elite in the democratic party (and by extension, the left) is much more invested in the feel good, and generally more popular and attractive issue of same sex equality, whose representatives are telegenic well do do, connected GLBT's who are regularly portrayed positively in the media.

    This, contrasted with the issue of race, which is hard, still very divisive, associated with a LOT of strife this this country's history, and something most American's are uncomfortable talking about and would just as soon ignore. It just doesn't have the current cultural cache' that same sex marriage has.

    Not saying it's right, but sadly it is what it is.

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

    •  Marriage equality doesn't threaten the 1% (6+ / 0-)

          Poor people voting does.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:08:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  VRA doesn't require dispair as it is limited (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      just another vet

      action that needs review. The VRA is intact.  Preclearance requirement for a limited number of states is not.

      Laws should not apply to only nine states.  Voting Rights protections should apply equally to all states.

      Congress can and should act immediately to make sure, in all state that:

      1. Voting rights in general (no voter ID laws, no long lines, no closing certain polls) are protected.

      2. Redistricting is fair, balanced, and non-partisan

      •  The preclearance requirement is the VRA. (3+ / 0-)

        I mean, VRA is already the law of the land everywhere. Always has been. Without preclearance provisions, essentially what you have is a restatement of the 15th amendment with no way to enforce it. Worked pretty well for over 40 years.

        Why do you think this needs review?

        •  amen n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:40:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wasn't working as intended in Alaska. It has been (0+ / 0-)

          used merely as a stalling tactic by partisan Republican Redistricting Board.

          No law should apply only to some and not to others.

          •  Any enforcement needed must apply equally to all (0+ / 0-)


          •  So, tweak where you need to tweak. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The VRA allows exactly this sort of flexibility to deal with special situations. It has built in triggers.

            What you're saying is, there was a problem in Alaska, therefore scrap the whole thing, despite the fact its worked so well in places like Alabama and Georgia.

            Or, preclear everyone even in cases where there is and has been no pattern of voter intimidation or ballot restriction...or waste everyones time.

            What you say makes no sense. The Voting Rights was working just fine, judiciously applied and supported almost unanimously in Congress for 40 years. Nobody was complaining about it, not even you according to comment history. The only people who want to get rid of it are people who don't like the fact that its worked so well.

            •  Don't ever tell me what I'm saying. I'm saying we (0+ / 0-)

              need a law that applies equally to all states to protect voting rights for all. That's what I'm saying.

              •  We already had that. (0+ / 0-)

                It was called the Voting Rights Act.

                •  We still have the VRA, just not preclearance for (0+ / 0-)

                  nine states only.

                  We need one that is clear, concise, enforceable, and equally applicable to all 50 states.

                  •  Not a big fan (0+ / 0-)

                    of the civil rights movement are you?

                    The Voting Rights Act IS CLEAR. Nobody was confused about it for 40 years. Because it worked. The Voting Rights Act WAS ENFORCABLE. It worked everywhere it was needed to work. And where it wasn't needed, it wasn't used. That's called a practical, pragmatic approach to the law. And finally, the Voting Rights Act was equally applicable to all 50 states. Any state that did the sorts of things that the original sinner states did, could get triggered into the preclearance regime. That is written right into the law.

                    Now I realize there are so few black people in Alaska that civil rights probably isn't a big deal to anyone there. But in Alabama, where voting rights of blacks has been systematically under assault since...well since emancipation...the Voting Rights Act was a major success. You know why there are no problems there now? Because of the goddamn Voting Rights Act which came about because of the civil rights movement...another thing that didn't take place in Alaska.

                    So, I repeat, the only people who think the Voting Rights Act wasn't clear, concise, enforceable, equally applied, and most of all extremely successful, are people who don't want the Voting Rights Act in the first place. Namely, people who want to engage in vote suppression. I don't know what kind of legislation you think would be more effective than 99% success, but I'd be interested in hearing about it.

                    And I'll repeat it again, since you seem to not get it or (because you're just against the Voting Rights Act) don't want to: The preclearance regime IS THE HEART AND SOUL of the voting rights act. It is what gives it teeth. It means that before you engage in electioneering to suppress minorities, you have to you, you know...not do that. But now that that's gone, the racists are free to do as they please and minorities can only sue about out, AFTER THE ELECTION. You know, when it wont matter and nothing can be done to correct it.

                    The 15th Amendment already guarantees the right to vote. But for a hundred years, it was never enforced. At least in the South and many other areas. The only thing that fixed that problem? The Voting Rights Act's preclearance regime. Some of the best, most effective legislation ever written, almost unanimously supported by both parties in Congress and the general public for over 40 years.

                    But it does have its opponents. And they're all people who aren't for enforcing the right to vote in the first place.

                    •  There you go again. Putting words in other folks' (0+ / 0-)

                      mouths. Assuming the worst.

                      What part of equality and justice and voting rights--applies to all states--don't you understand?

                      •  You just described the Voting Rights Act. nt (0+ / 0-)
                        •  Agreed. Any problem with it applying to all 50 (0+ / 0-)


                          •  It does apply to all 50 states. nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Well, now it does. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  It always did. (0+ / 0-)

                            Only now there are no provisions to enforce it. I don't know why you think something other than the plain text of the law and the case law as it has been applied for over 40 years without controversy, but there we are.

                            I'm going to give you some links because this conversation clearly indicates either 1. You don't know or understand the Voting Rights Act or 2. You don't really care because you're just against it.

                            Section 2 of the act applies its provisions throughout the United States.Contrary to what you seem to believe, this is a permanent fixture of the law and is applicable in all states and jurisdictions.

                            Section 3 of the Act gives the Attorney General and the Courts the power to enforce the Act

                            Section 4of the act provides the formula for how ANY STATE or ANY LOCALITY can be triggered into the preclearance regime. Once again, ANY STATE OR LOCALITY can be triggered into the preclearance regime, provided they do the things to set off the trigger. ANY STATE. If you don't do those things, you wont have to be precleared. This seems obvious and pragmatic to me. There is no need to preclear the entire country if there are not any problems. It also then lays out the states that WERE TRIGGERED AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT, mostly in the south and some other jurisdictions. Without this provision, you have a toothless law. You simply have a restatement of the 15th amendment.

                            Section 5 lays out the preclearance specifics. Again, this section also applies to ANY STATE OR LOCALITY that does the kinds of things that will set off the trigger. If you're not doing those things, fine. The way to escape the provisions of the Voting Rights Act preclearance regime is know...not fuck with people's voting rights.

                            We're going in circles here. Lets just settle on the idea that you're against the Voting Rights Act for some elusive reason not grounded in facts or law, and I support it for the same reasons Martin Luther King Jr. did. Because you believing that the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to all 50 stats is just ludicrous and isn't based on anything factual or legal. If you want to know why Minnesota is not part of the preclearance regime, its because Minnesota isn't and hasn't been fucking with the right to vote. If they suddenly decided to, they'd be subject to the Voting Rights Act's provisions.

                          •  Or you are not able to hear an opinion other than (0+ / 0-)

                            your own.

                            Time to stop whining and write a new and better VRA.

  •  Yes, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    And conservatives might whine that the media didn't cry about the "bitterly divided" Supreme Court when the DOMA decision came down, but that's because everyone was too busy celebrating love—not just an American value, but a human one.

    Funny that conservatives have a problem with that.

    not "ha-ha" funny.

    Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:06:18 PM PDT

  •  Well said, K. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

    by itsjim on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:07:53 PM PDT

  •  They Believe States Have Rights (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gentle Giant, a2nite

    and so the other decision restored some rights to the states.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:10:01 PM PDT

  •  Democrats and especially Liberals (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buzzer, Fulgour, CwV, Forest Deva, a2nite

    will have to organize a monumental effort in educating the public where voting laws change and in getting voters to their assigned polling places.
    It will also help to have well-informed volunteers to "assist" the folks working at the polling places in properly applying the voting laws. Call such people "Voter Advocates".
    Those in the legal professions might be well-suited in that role.

    When the Right cheats to beat the Left, our response must be so overwhelming that the cheating still fails.

    Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:15:45 PM PDT

    •  They did a good job last year (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gentle Giant

          The nine-hour waits to vote in Florida still didn't deter the state's Democratic electorate.

          But... Dem activists need a reason to mobilize voters. And Obama's latest ACA cave is, shall we say, unhelpful....

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:21:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This statement is something I cannot agree (4+ / 0-)

    with more.

    This is not a perfect country, but it's clear that we celebrate as a people when rights are expanded, not taken away. We're kind of cool that way.
    That is exactly correct.
    It cannot be said enough.
    Woe be to any politician or political party that tries to run contrary to that statement.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:19:32 PM PDT

    •  We're not there yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Woe be to any politician or political party that tries to run contrary to that statement.
       It would be nice if that were true, but a lot of Republicans run on that kind of sentiment, and win.

        We've got a long way to go before bigotry consistently becomes an election-loser in this country.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:32:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gratuitous remarks are not helpful... (0+ / 0-)

    to public discourse in my opinion, when made by any commenter, no matter the political persuasion, and particularly those with the biggest pedestals.

    "Americans in general aren't assholes like them."

    Americans in general includes millions that identify as conservative. Are they included in the statement? They may have different views on issues, but tolerance (that we claim to represent) dictates that we not needlessly offend, not to mention it is contradictory with liberal standards of conduct.

  •  Perfect, kos, perfect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    So conservatives might whine that the media wasn't "euphoric" when the rights of African American and Latino voters were effectively curtailed, but that's because Americans in general aren't assholes like them.

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

    by gsbadj on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:26:06 PM PDT

  •  Life must be interesting for gay minorities. (4+ / 0-)

    "Hooray!!! Lets get married!!! Oh fuck, we can't vote."

  •  I would like to see his study (0+ / 0-)

    His statement is full of confirmation bias:  The media is against conservatives, therefore the reporting was skewed.  His view is worthless unless he shows the evidence to back it up.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:28:53 PM PDT

  •  Can we stop with all the gay stuff while the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomFromNJ, andgarden

    ... Zimmerman trial is going on and the Bolivian president's plane is forced to pick up Morsi in Cairo while Snowden stows away in a capsule atop a Soyuz rocket bound for the International Space Station?

    You seem to have a hard time figuring out what's really important, kos...

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:30:25 PM PDT

  •  The people aren't the problem; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the politicians  are the problem.

    My assessment of the rulings  is more in line with Fineman's skepticism .  

    John Roberts Shows Cold-Blooded Calculation In His Supreme Court Rulings

    The shrewdest, most manipulative and radical politician in this city isn't the president or a member of Congress. He's the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr.

    I am not skeptical about your three new hires; and yes, their credentials are impressive to say the least.   I hope they publish diaries along the way sharing their thoughts and experiences on progress being made.  q

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Elizabeth Warren 2016

    by dkmich on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:31:42 PM PDT

  •  Stu Rothenberg = Nattering Nabob of Negatism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ignore him and his ilk.

  •  Whining about equality (0+ / 0-)

    is typical of these wingnuts.  

  •  And the question remains (0+ / 0-)

    How do these fucking assholes get elected?  (not SCOTUS obviously but the conservative dickwads that applaud their assault on humanity).  Poll after poll shows Americans generally dislike everything conservatives stand for and yet they control both houses of congress.

  •  Cool for LGBT rights (0+ / 0-)

    Unless of course they are physically or financially unable to jump the hoops put in place to vote.

    This is not a perfect country, but it's clear that we celebrate as a people when rights are expanded, not taken away. We're kind of cool that way.
    Substituting some people's rights for others - business as usual.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

    by RUNDOWN on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:38:06 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site