

26 Jun


Look at these headlines:

The ugly SCOTUS voting rights flim-flam


Obama “Deeply Disappointed” With Voting-Rights Ruling


Skewering the Voting Rights Act Decision


Voting Rights Act gutted




I’ll confess I had only the vaguest understanding of the Voting Rights Act until it blew up all over media and my Twitter feed, and god bless me, I am no lawyer, but how in the hell is it possible that virtually every media story gets the facts completely wrong?

Let’s start with some history.  The Act, which came into effect in 1965, was a response to certain jurisdictions in the United States (especially in the Southern states) enacting conditions that determined who could and could not vote, and most of those conditions had the curious effect of disenfranchising mostly Black voters.


For example, requiring voters to pass a literacy test before they could cast a ballot. Or requiring that all back taxes be paid before a citizen could vote.  Lots of jurisdictions fucked around with registration requirements, making them at inconvenient times (planting season) or requiring long periods of residence or creating complicated re-registration rules, all of which had the effect of disenfranchising mostly Black voters. No doubt, a few White citizens were caught in these webs, too, but the overwhelming effect was to make sure Black citizens could not vote.


So the Supreme Court stepped in and said “enough of this fuckery” and the Voting Rights Act was born.  Section 5 of the Act gives the justification for the Federal Government to override the powers of the states to determine how their electoral processes will work.  States with a history of vote suppression are not allowed to make any changes to their voting procedures, no matter how small, without the federal government’s approval.  Section 4 lays out the formula to determine which specific jurisdictions were subject to the Act.


In considering Shelby County v. Holder, SCOTUS determined that Section 4 is constitutional – yes, the Federal government can require preclearance.  Section 5, however, was ruled unconstitutional.  The formula that worked 40 years ago does not work today.

And that’s it.  That’s the ruling.  SCOTUS passed the ball to Congress, as they are supposed to do.

An objective headline that actually reflected the facts would read something like this:






Instead, we are bombarded with End of the World as we Know It headlines that seem designed to stir up controversy and anger and appear to me to be little more than race-baiting.

But I think there is more going on here than meets the eye.  The SCOTUS ruling and the press coverage are joining hands to convey a message to Americans:  what worked 40 years ago doesn’t work today and what doesn’t work is going to change.

That is the cause of all the hysteria, if you ask me.  A very necessary piece of legislation has evolved over the course of forty years so that the original purpose of the legislation has been lost.  And the Voting Rights Act isn’t the only piece of law that is in sore need of updating.


The exact same day that SCOTUS ruled on the VRA, it also tackled a case involving Affirmative Action.  Abigail Fisher filed a case against The University of Texas, claiming she was denied admission by a policy that favors any race but Caucasian.  In a 7-1 decision, the Court decided that there was something fishy going on at U of T, and they will be giving the case more consideration.


Again, Affirmative Action was a piece of legislation designed to address universities and colleges that actively discriminated against Black and other minority students, particularly by having admissions standards that favored White middle class students.


The first Affirmative Action laws were in place as early as 1961, but conditions have changed dramatically since then, and Affirmative Action is no longer doing the job it was designed to do.  Rather than address actual discrimination and inequalities, it is now being used to unfair advantage.  Sasha and Malia Obama require special treatment to access university?  Bullshit.


Do middle class kids of any race need affirmative action? They don’t, but upper and middle class kids who are part of a racial minority are the ones who primarily benefit from the law as it stands.


You know who does need affirmative action?  Poor kids of any race.  Affirmative Action based on class would address unfair and discriminatory admissions policies far better than race based legislation.


And the group that experiences the lowest rates of college enrolment?  Oh that would be White men from impoverished backgrounds.

white man


And yet they are the students who benefit the most from a college education.



Military veterans are particularly hard hit by Affirmative Action programs based on race.  Well, as long as they’re White.


SCOTUS is tackling these issues, and addressing the fact that laws designed to ameliorate problems that really did exist 40 years ago are now being exploited for unfair advantages, because the culture has changed so much.


Here’s another ideology that has moved from necessary protections to pure exploitation:  trade unions.  Trade unions were designed to give workers power to force through laws that protected their interests, which were being exploited ferociously by industrialists.  And that’s the way capitalism works. If there is no law saying ALL companies must provide paid sick days, then NO company will, because it will put them at a serious competitive disadvantage.  Laws requiring that ALL companies abide by the same rules level the playing field.

Unions were absolutely key to giving workers needed protections.


And now?  Unions are basically taxpayer rapists.  Look at this report from Canada.  Public sector workers earn as much as 42% premium on their private sector counterparts.  And who pays for that premium?  The private sector workforce.  In certain provinces, HALF the teachers don’t show up for work on sunny Fridays, sticking the taxpayers with a multi-million dollar bill to pay for supply teachers.

sunny day

On one sunny Friday last month, almost one in five teachers called in sick in suburban Toronto’s sprawling Peel district, leaving officials scrambling to fill the void. In the Toronto District School Board itself, figures show 6,500 more teachers were absent with an illness this May than in either 2011 or 2012. In one Toronto school, every day this spring, 25 per cent of the teachers were off sick, says Toronto trustee Jerry Chadwick, a former principal.


How do they get away with that?  The teacher’s union.


My brother, who is a gasfitter, works for a large industrial heating and air-conditioning company and he and his employees are constantly harassed by trade unions to join.  All the men (and yes, his workforce is 100% men, except for….. you guessed it.  The secretaries!) are wildly opposed to joining any unions, because the rules would handcuff them and prevent them from tackling jobs the way they want to.

And it would slow down the work dramatically.

And it would cost them more money in wages, overtime, benefits, perks, etc.  Part of the reason my brother’s company is so profitable is because they are not unionized. And the workers who want to work make money.


Unions, once key to creating a functional economy and launching the American Middle Class, are now organized crime units that rob mostly taxpayers of their own money.

votes for women

Here’s another ideology that has worn out its welcome:  feminism.  Once, feminism was absolutely vital to ensuring that women had the same basic protection as men under the law, although the early feminists were careful to make certain women had the same rights, but not the same obligations.


Now, the goal of feminists seems to be to capture as many benefits as they can, while still avoiding most of the responsibility.  It’s now reached the point of utter absurdity.  Here is Vicky Pryce arguing that women should never be sent to jail!


Oh, do you mean this woman, Vicky?  The one who beat her two year old son to death in a prolonged and vicious attack that brings tears to my eyes to even consider?


Linsey Black and Gary Attridge.

Or how about this one, who picked a TOTAL STRANGER off the Internet, accused him of raping her and ruined his fucking life?


SCOTUS has turned its discerning eye towards laws that were written 40 some years ago to address situations that no longer exist.  The media hysteria surrounding the decisions on the VRA and Affirmative Action are cries of fear.  The wolves are circling.


Underserved benefits are about to come under scrutiny, and the Court seems unwilling to keep their heads in the sand and they are point blank refusing to ignore wide-spread abuse of laws designed for a very different purpose. The world has changed, and for the better.

Three out of four Black people are now out of poverty. That’s the change Affirmative Action was designed to effect.

In 2000, the [poverty]  rate for Blacks dropped to 22.1 percent and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent—the lowest rate for both groups since the United States began measuring poverty. By 2010, however, the poverty rate for both groups had risen to around 27 percent.


Does that mean Black people no longer face discrimination?  Of course not!  Hello, Paula Deen.  But it does mean that Affirmative Action needs to change to help the 1 in 4 who are still mired in poverty, without giving unfair advantages to well off Black students.



Class, not race.

We need laws to reflect those changes, and to keep the formerly down-trodden from becoming the masters.  Competition for resources is human nature.  The whole point of a civil society is to make sure than no one group has an unfair advantage over another.  That’s how a meritocracy works.  You rise and fall according to your own talents.

And that is why legacy admissions to elite colleges are also a giant steaming pile of bullshit.  If you can’t get in just because you’re Black, then you can’t get in just because your White daddy went there ahead of you.


George.  You fucker.  If you had to apply on the basis of merit, you’d be going here:


Not here:


Democracy:  a thousand idiots getting together and agreeing to make a really stupid decision.  That’s the downside.  But there is no better way.  The idiots will always be with us.  And the only way democracy works is to have a social meritocracy.

Here are your bootstraps. Yank them up.

Or sit down and shut the fuck up.


You get out what you put in.

Lots of love,


23 Responses to “Oh, what the fuck! Can any of these retards READ? SCOTUS did NOT strike down The Voting Rights Act! What is all this ridiculous hysteria about?”

  1. reyeko June 26, 2013 at 16:22 #

    wow I never actually though I would see the day affirmative action actually got some serious scrutiny. This is a good day.


  2. judgybitch June 26, 2013 at 16:26 #

    Justice Clarence Thomas said he would over turn it if he gets to rule on it.


    But a 7-1 agreement by the Court that something needs to be done is pretty dramatic.


  3. Feminism Is A Lie June 26, 2013 at 17:23 #

    I’m still trying to get my head around this whole issue because Australian politics have been going through some fuckery today as well (karma’s a bitch, Julia), but to me it seems that all this media frenzy is indeed race-baiting and just all-round distracting people from understanding the real issues at hand. All this is doing is creating more idiots who jump on the bandwagon of supporting whatever makes them feel better, rather than what works logically in the current social and political climate. The more uninformed idiots you have supporting something based in their feelings rather than fact and logic, the more you can exploit the people while appeasing the current status-quo.


  4. Tytalus June 26, 2013 at 17:55 #

    JB, just a point about Canada.

    Our corporations do not want to pay Canadians a dime, and there was recently a big scandal about the offshoring of good well paying IT jobs to India. They have been sitting on PILES of cash they refuse to spend. They endless bitch about how “people won’t take the jobs we want to hire them for”, and we actually have socialist and capitalist economists agreeing on the issue, Corporations in Canada don’t want to pay people what they’re worth, so they won’t get a job. (At least outside of the Maritime provinces, which have different problems.)

    Every recession and semi little downturn is an excuse to fire people or lower their pay. 20 years ago Government jobs were considered crap because the corporations had better pay and benefits, now it is the opposite *because* of the union protection they have.


  5. Alex June 26, 2013 at 18:58 #

    I feel like ” Affirmative Action has done is job race-wise and must now be tailored to affect class” has been said somewhere before.


  6. Exfernal June 26, 2013 at 19:04 #

    Meritocracy works, but it has a tendency to transform into credentialism over time. Just one of possible futures…

    As for feminism, an amusing read encountered today. Apparently, there are people still trying to fix it, turning it back from the road to absurd. I wonder whether it’s possible.


  7. Nathan June 26, 2013 at 19:10 #

    Just discovered you from Free the animal, love the blog. I was intrigued by your mention of meritocracy (it’s something most people know about let alone discuss) and wanted to pass along some further info regarding helping us as a species move closer in that direction (just copy/paste in your address bar). Keep people thinking, it’s our only hope.


  8. Modern Drummer June 26, 2013 at 20:25 #

    It doesn’t take long before people need protection from the “protection”


  9. TMG June 26, 2013 at 20:30 #

    Pulling race and gender cards has been helping Leftists wreck our country for decades now. It shall continue.


  10. tarzanwannabe June 26, 2013 at 21:17 #

    Just wow. I was only a kid, but I recall when we thought that “the times, they are a’changin'” and everything was “blowin’ in the wind.” On the whole, it was some good conscientiousness. For back then.

    Context is everything. The “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” of that era was equally poetic & prophetic. Of another era, Yeats told us “The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” I feel like a vampire for having been around long enough to actually witness another “turning in the widening gyre”. Haha!

    Cool, huh? Now it’s time for an upgrade. That’s all, and it’s all good.

    Thank you, JB!


  11. feeriker June 26, 2013 at 21:29 #


    The more appropriate question here IMO is how the hell can anyone still believe that the MSM could get anything right? What should be scaring the hell out of all of us in this case is the idea that there are STILL people out there who, despite decades of in-your-face evidence proving the contrary, think that they can rely on the MSM for accurate, truthful reporting on anything of importance.


    In George’s case, I really think he would most likely have ended up here. His mommy and daddy would probably still have had to bribe the admissions department, but it would’ve made for an interesting example of academic meritocracy in action.


    More accurately, 950 idiots getting together and agreeing to make a really stupid, destructive decision that they will force down the throats of the remaining 50 semi-intelligent people in the group who want nothing to do with it (yes, I know, I’m being generous in assuming that there would be as many as 50 semi-intelligent people in any group of 1000). IOW, dumbocracy is majority mob rule. Never a good thing, as history has shown us so often. (North America certainly ain’t excluded from history’s lessons either. The election to the Oval Office of the chimptard you mention whose parents paid his way into Yale is one such lesson. The election of his successor is another.)

    That’s the downside. But there is no better way.

    Actually, I would argue that there is: anarcho-capitalism. BUT… since that would require personal responsibility and respect for the freedom and property of others (not to mention the fact that the crony-capitalist class in power will never stand for it), there’s a greater chance of the majority eagerly selling itself en masse into actual chattel slavery than accepting true freedom. Gotta keep the Soma stream flowing, and heaven forbid the junkies be required to pay for it themselves!

    All of the above said, while it’s encouraging to see the black-robed tyrants exhibit a burst of occasional common sense, their decision here certainly doesn’t fall within the realm of either “groundbreaking” or “advancing the rule of constitutional law” (my search of the Constitution for a clause that clearly empowers the federal government with “preclearance” in state elections comes up rabbit eggs). At best, it’s an act of legal gymnastics. Nothing to see here. It does, however, answer your rhetorical question in the title, JB. No, the sheeple majority does not read, especially not anything involving a subject as brain-busting and attention span-straining as law and government. The prevailing reaction to this case is really nothing more than one of don’t you DARE touch MY entitlement, I don’t care what you think you’re doing to fix it! LEAVE IT ALONE!

    “Brainstemming” is the word I prefer to use in describing it. This term also applicable to the current TradCon reaction to the SCOTUS’s striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) today.


  12. Moose June 26, 2013 at 21:34 #

    Reading is not conducive to hysterical outbursts of feeling. So no, they can’t likely read.


  13. tarzanwannabe June 26, 2013 at 21:43 #

    Yes, but add a few more decades and include the Rightists. Left or Right — It’s just what *ists do. lol


  14. John June 27, 2013 at 02:46 #

    It’s not about skin colour, it’s about political affiliation. Section 4 was dropped by the Republican leaning majority in the Supreme Court because it frustrated many efforts Republican states and officials had made in recent years to stop minorities (i.e. likely Democrats) from voting. More details here:



  15. Mike Hunter June 27, 2013 at 04:12 #


    That quite simply is bullshit. I’m a public sector worker in a ‘right to work’ state. I work as an accountant. I make half of what my friend does who works as an accountant, in a nearby town. Yes I do similar work.

    Can unions misbehave if they get out of hand? Of course they can! But don’t for a second pretend that the private sector can’t wreak even more havoc if given the green light to do so: Enron, Halliburton’s murderous mercenaries, the gulf oil spill, the massive fraud and incompetence during the housing crisis that led to the greatest economic downturn since the great depression. I could go on and on.

    Unions play an important role in counterbalancing employers that have monopsony power; increasing both worker welfare and social welfare. Read the basic Micro Economy theory on this subject if you don’t believe me. I work in a “company town”. All the jobs around here are state jobs. I would flee this hellhole for the private sector, but I’m stuck here due to my parenting agreement. The result of fathering a child with a lying bitch who “accidentally” got pregnant. If I sound bitter I am.

    Business in the United States aren’t required to provide paid sick days. Not even businesses in the food service industry, and they don’t. Last winter I was out sick with the flu for a week after I ate at a local restaurant and saw my server wiping her nose every 10 seconds after I finished my meal. This legislative session trade unions lobbied for a law only giving workers in the food industry 5 sick days so restaurants would stop spreading infectious diseases. Our teaparty Governor vetoed that legislation, along with a proposed wage theft law, and then caught the next flight to Paris with his wife the same day.

    Yeah. Unions are the thieves and rapists. Whatever you say.


  16. Liz June 27, 2013 at 13:51 #

    It’s a matter of perspective, and experience. I have a very different opinion on unions now than I had ten years ago. Oddly enough, I recently had a big argument with my mother about unions (she’s very anti-union).

    A union which becomes so powerful it virtually owns the workers (under the guise of protecting them) and company is a problem. On the other hand, many companies will fire their employees for no performance-related reason two years before their thirty year retirement, offering them almost no compensation whatsoever. The system, particularly one without collective bargaining protection, can be very cold. People who have been with the company the longest usually make the most money. From the bottom line standpoint you can layoff someone who’s been with a company for 30 years and replace him with two new people with half the pay for each. This leaves the older person out of a job at an age when it is difficult to start over. Case in point, Southwest just absorbed Airtran and the pilots working for Airtran would have been left out in the cold without Union protection….it would have worked great for Southwest pilots, who would gain seniority in the pecking order and more money, but in the end it’s better for job relations when treatment is more equitable for everyone…and it shows in performance, employee and customer satisfaction, which results in better safety for everyone with the retention of pilots with valuable levels of experience.

    In my personal experience (the one I mentioned to my mother), I’ve known unions to save lives and improve outcomes. Example would be the last healthcare facility I worked, where nursing union membership was elective but the union protected all fulltime nursing staff. They made an agreement with the hospital that required cutbacks to be evenly distributed for all nurses…in this way, when times were tough they could not lay off or disproportionally cut the hours of more seasoned staff and run the floor with far less experienced, but also cheaper nurses. Experienced nurses are absolute gold, any honest nurse will tell you her first year on the floor is a critical learning curve, and if she doesn’t have seasoned personel to look to for guidance it’s an accident waiting to happen. Many accidents waiting to happen.

    Workers and company leadership each have their own independent perspective and objectives which sometimes conflict. The workers often need a voice. I am against government enforced labor laws, so the only way I can see to offer that is through collective bargaining. For some industries, the unions MAY have outlived their usefullness, but others have a need like never before.


  17. Liz June 27, 2013 at 14:14 #

    Guess I should add the caveat, rereading the last, that I am not against ALL government enforced labor laws, but a great many of them (like affirmative action) have outlived their usefulness. I wouldn’t want to return to The Jungle days, or the Charles Dickens workhouse years. I’ve read that in the very early 1900s, an average of a thousand people a week died in work related incidences.


  18. Tilon June 27, 2013 at 18:12 #

    Alright then John, explain to us how an ID is racist.

    Then explain to us why we shouldn’t be repealing laws against ID for alcohol. After all, if ID discriminates against race in voting, it discriminates against race in access to alcohol.

    Good luck! Explain that “disparate impact” theory for us. And while you’re at it, explain to us why we should be letting black kids off the hook in school in the name of “prosecuting all races equally” even if blacks commit more offenses.

    Come on, explain it to us.


  19. Luke June 28, 2013 at 02:22 #

    No to all race-based affirmative action.



  20. John July 5, 2013 at 00:56 #

    First, it’s not just a requirement for a certain kind of ID that is used for voter suppression, votes are also suppressed by:

    (1) tactical voter registration refusal disproportionately focussed ethnic minorities (particularly Hispanics);

    (2) voter roll purges using so-called “caging lists”;

    (3) and voting “spoilage” – *millions* of votes regularly go uncounted in US elections. According to the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will be “spoiled” is 900% higher for African Americans and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters.

    Second, it is not the requirement for ID that is at issue, per se, it is the requirement for certain forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for the poor.

    Third, these requirements were brought in to “solve” a non-existent problem: fraudulent voting. Fraudulently registering to vote, and voting are felony crimes, and given that people have to give their address to do it, it’s quite easy to catch perpetrators. However, despite concerted efforts, there have been only a handful of cases in the entire US over many, many years.

    Finally, the appeal to ID laws for buying alcohol is a false analogy. There is no problem with fraudulent voting in the US, but people regularly try to buy alcohol illegally. Also, it could be agreed that ID laws for alcohol do discriminate against the young poor, whilst it being denied that this is a sufficient reason to repeal the law.

    As an aside, though, the history of drug laws in general in the US is famously racist – the excellent documentary The House I Live In, describes this very well.

    (I’ve no idea what you’re talking about with the school stuff, btw…)

    Greg Palast has been blowing the whistle for over a decade about the various voter suppression tactics, I include some links to a selection of his numerous articles on the issue below, although the issue has gone mainstream relatively recently. On the one hand, people should be shocked by the scale and mendaciousness of what is going on; on the other hand, the political classes, red and blue, have been up to this sort of stuff since forever. Although things are pretty bad right now, it has to be said.






  21. Erik Norén November 13, 2013 at 15:18 #

    In short the private sector workers haven’t kept up salarywise rather than public sector racing ahead thoughtlessly fast?


  22. Erik Norén November 13, 2013 at 15:23 #

    Maybe american unions aren’t working as intended but in other places, say here in sweden, they are. As far as i can tell they aren’t very intrusive but then i’m not in a physical workarea.also we get compensation from our unions if we loose our job.

    Makes me wonder what way exactly your brother wants to work in that the union would like to block.



  1. Can any of these retards READ? SCOTUS did NOT strike down The Voting Rights Act! | Viva La Manosphere! - June 26, 2013

    […] judgybitch.com […]


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: