beardycarrot:

onlyblackgirl:

gahdamnpunk:

This is messed up

What the fuck.

Yep, this is apparently an actual thing. The law requiring a residential street address to vote was signed last year, and while it wasn’t in effect during the primaries, it is now. There was an injunction on the law (because, uhhh, YEAH, it’s preventing US citizens from voting), but then the ND district court stayed the injunction, so the NARF obviously wanted to vacate the stay… and that’s what the Supreme Court shot down. That’s a lot of big useless words, so here’s the part that actually matters:

Native Americans are less likely to possess several of the accepted documents than are their non-Native counterparts. Among North Dakota residents who lack a valid piece of ID because of the address requirement, 48.7 percent of Native Americans, or an estimated 2,305 Native eligible voters, do not possess at least one of the supplemental address documents accepted under the law. Comparatively, only 26.2 percent of non-Natives who lack a valid piece of identification because of the residential address requirement do not possess at least one of the supplemental address documents accepted under the law.  This amounts to 15,908 non-native eligible voters.

Not only does this disproportionately affect native voters and those under the poverty line (by design, I’d imagine), but that’s also a solid 2.4% of the population. It’s unlikely that a race in North Dakota would be close enough for that to make a difference, but that’s not the point. I know that 2.4% doesn’t SOUND like a big number, but try thinking of it in more… human, terms. One out of every fifty eligible voters in North Dakota is unable to vote under this law. Let that sink in for a minute. Going by averages, every single class in a North Dakota school would have at least one student who had a parent unable to vote.

Needless to say, this is completely unacceptable.

chaoswolf1982:

slim2k6:

ohnoagremlin:

hongkong-97:

justsomeantifas:

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/998576678363435008

clarification (the situation is still as bad as it sounds in this tweet): the supreme court ruled that employers can have you sign class-action waivers that bar employees from suing them.

this effectively means you have to find a lawyer willing to represent you over a couple hundred or thousand in missing wages against a multi million or billion dollar company and you must go to court as an individual (read: out of pocket). casual reminder lawyers tend to set higher fees for cases they see as less winnable and that this will be out of your personal free time

so one of your rights is gone. not going, but gone!

HOW…IN…THE….FUCK…

……WHAT IN THE FUCK MADE THESE IDIOTS THINK THAT THIS RULING IS A BENEFIT FOR THE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS!!!!

You seem to be assuming they thought it did.

They knew it didn’t.  They did not care.

killer-robo:

cumbler-tumbler:

dariasroom:

micdotcom:

Kamilah Brock spent 8 days in a NY mental health facility because she owned a BMW 

Kamilah Brock, a former New York banker, has filled a suit against the city after she was detained for eight days in a mental health facility against her will. Brock says she was committed after trying to pick up her BMW, which skeptical police did not believe she owned. To add insult to injury, Brock was then charged a hefty sum by the hospital.

WHAT THE FUCK

WTF!!!!!!

the link to the mic article seems to be broken, so i googled it and found out she won her suit

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-woman-held-psych-ward-obama-twitter-claim-article-1.2159049

https://anonhq.com/court-awards-damages-african-american-woman-detained-eight-days-owning-bmw/

and apparantly not only did they not believe she owned a BMW, they didnt believe she was a banker or that she was followed by Obama on twitter, thought they were evidence of delusion, and were trying to get her to deny those facts during her treatment at the mental hospital.