-
“Perpetuation of racial entitlement!
Did that idiot Scalia just really say that? The law finally allowing and protecting blacks and minorities to legally vote in the South was nothing but a “racial entitlement?” and had created “black districts by law?”
Nothing like knowing the lawful right to vote was nothing but a racial entitlement that created black districts due to segregation in ghettos called that imaginative name “N-Towns.” Nice to know that he thinks that people were murdered and died for nothing but a racial entitlement. -
147 Replies
-
Equality means equality. Nobody should be entitled to special treatment based on race or ethnicity. I know you racist Democrats like to separate people into little groups or classes, so that you can claim to protect them, but until we get away from that mentality, there will continue to be those who feel entitled or aggrieved because of race. What happenned to “One America”?
-
There was no “one America” in 1964 and republicans certainly don’t think there is one now, what with “makers and takers” or “racial entitlements” and so on.
“One America” is Obama’s idea & he’s been told, “You lie!” for that belief by republicans.-
[font=”courier new,courier”][b][b][/b][/b][/font][b][/b][b]Section 1.[/b] 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.[b]Section 2.[/b] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriatelegislation
What Part of the 15th amendment does Scalia not understand? Is the Constitution not supreme? The Constitution gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote. That SCOTUS is even thinking about overturning an amendment is reprehensible. Nothing in this amendment gives SCOTUS the power to determine whether legislation is appropriate or not-
More liberal histrionics. There is equal protection so how can you justify different voting rules for northerners and southerners over discrimination that happened 50yrs ago?
-
So you are saying there is no difference between voting in Florida compared to say Montana?
There is equal protection because of the voting rights act AND the 15th amendment specifically allows Congress to enforce equality as they deem appropriate. If you don’t like it write your congressman and tell him/her to vote against re-authorization next time-
Quote from Thor
So you are saying there is no difference between voting in Florida compared to say Montana?
heh. well, here in Montana we don’t leave our chads hanging out. especially in the winter.
-
touche
-
-
Quote from Thor
So you are saying there is no difference between voting in Florida compared to say Montana?
There is equal protection because of the voting rights act AND the 15th amendment specifically allows Congress to enforce equality as they deem appropriate. If you don’t like it write your congressman and tell him/her to vote against re-authorization next time
Re-authorization is a secondary concern. The primary question is: Is it constitutional for the federal govt to give rights to make voting laws to some citizens and not others.
You glib, dismissive response, is typical of big govt liberals and reinforces my desire to live in a new nation with self-determination.-
Quote from billainsworth
…my desire to live in a new nation with self-determination.
I would imagine that would be a new nation of[i] “self-determination, or DIE!”[/i], right?
I mean, what do you do with citizens in that nation who have loads of “self-determination” but still can’t muster up the means to put food on the table? Do you give them a sword to fall on? Who pays for the sword?
Hey, I’m just askin’ what happens to the “have nots” in that superpower nation of yours.
-
Quote from Lux
Hey, I’m just askin’ what happens to the “have nots” in that superpower nation of yours.
They, too, can have self-determination. Go to your generous welfare nanny state or come to my “rugged individualism” land.
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
Hey, I’m just askin’ what happens to the “have nots” in that superpower nation of yours.
They, too, can have self-determination. Go to your generous welfare nanny state or come to my “rugged individualism” land.
But Bill, you started a new nation, not a new state. I feel no obligation to support people in your nation because I’m too busy taking care of my own. What your plan to take care of YOUR own? Set them out to sea on a raft with a [i]”May the odds be ever in your favor” [/i]send-off, or what?
Seriously, what’s your plan for those good people who move to your country with their passionate “self-determinism” which never pans out?
-
Quote from Lux
Seriously, what’s your plan for those good people who move to your country with their passionate “self-determinism” which never pans out?
You don’t support open borders???????
In Bill-topia (lol); without ridiculous minimum wage laws and cradle-to-grave welfare there will be full employment. -
Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act is no longer needed and has run it’s course. Proof is in who is elected in these states.
Routinely, minorities of either party are elected to office in these states weighted down by the Washington micromanagement. Right now there are three minority southern senators (3 of the 20 possible senate seats in the 10 states covered in toto by the 50 yr old outdated law). The liberals seem to ignore Sens. Rubio, Cruz and Scott as minorities since they are conservative republicans. There are also two minority southern governors again ignored by the lefts arguments because theyre conservative. Over 1/3 of the black congressional caucus comes from these states. And there’s real not imaginary Gerrymangering to get radical minority libs into office (i.e. NC district 12) enforced by obamas DOJ. It’s simply not needed.
-
We all love each other equally regardless of our race. There is no racism. All that is past. We all embrace all races, especially Republicans for Latinos and African Americans.
-
If section 5 is no longer needed Congress is within their bounds to repeal or not re-authorize. It passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 390-33 in 2006 including in ALL states under section 5 provisions . The Constitution is quite specific on this one. Voting rights is about access to the polls not just who gets elected.
-
Quote from Thor
The Constitution is quite specific on this one. Voting rights is about access to the polls not just who gets elected.
Then you can easily quote us the specific constitutional provision!
-
15th amendment…see above moron
-
Quote from Thor
15th amendment…see above moron
Except voting rights are not being abridged.
-
may be he should get the wisdom of the Pope and say it’s time for me to resign.
-
Again, avoidant answers that do little to counter the facts of now a few generations of racially balanced elections all throughout the South. Its also strange how you cherry pick through the republican congressional decisions you personally like (didn’t that same Congress vote to “rescue” Terri Schivo-do you agree with that also?). As CQ said of that vote, it was really of convenience and nearly all conservative law makers knew that the law was going to generate cases to go before the current Roberts court to be appropriate exorcised.
Sorry bud, the numbers of elected black, and other ethnic minorities are quite strong in those Southern states. There is nothing or any reason (sense of fairness, equality, etc) but distant memories that place Bull Conner in another century and time in American life to continue with draconian measures of Title V. The momentum to justify tilting the tables unevenly for racial preferences is not there. As my post points out, blacks, white other minorities get elected and thrown out of office randomly and not with bias. More logs for the fire-In the south, the same proportion of major racial groups in those states, more or less, show up at the polls to vote in the same proportions.
And , here is a real tricky point to make. Ready. Who’s prez everybody? Answer-someone considered a black man by Plessy v Ferguson, that’s who. Did he squeak on by into the White House? Ummm, no; as he was the first democrat in generations to receive a majority vote (over 50%) in two federal elections. If MLK was alive today and saw a black man get elected with the percentages he did, he weep the joy of victory and the words “free at last’ right along with Jesse Jackson. That is unless group-think oriented libs, like their often want, are really into forced redistribution of wealth proportionately among races. Some really dont even make it a secret. But sorry-no justifiable American common law can help out with the Marxist wishes of vanguard libs. -
I tell you. There is no racism any more. Especially in the south. History has been wiped clean. Everyone loves their neighbor as themselves regardless of skin color. Rejuvenation and rebirth is everywhere.
-
Quote from Weekendwarrior
I tell you. There is no racism any more. Especially in the south. History has been wiped clean. Everyone loves their neighbor as themselves regardless of skin color. Rejuvenation and rebirth is everywhere.
Exactly. We’re post-racial now.
-
Quote from Weekendwarrior
I tell you. There is no racism any more. Especially in the south. History has been wiped clean. Everyone loves their neighbor as themselves regardless of skin color. Rejuvenation and rebirth is everywhere.
Exactly. We’re post-racial now.
-
Except voting rights are not being abridged.
Really? Not even Shelby county is trying to argue that point…
Moreover, the VRA is to prevent abridgement of those rights…even if I accept your point it shows the law is working as intended -
Quote from Thor
Except voting rights are not being abridged.
Really? Not even Shelby county is trying to argue that point…
Moreover, the VRA is to prevent abridgement of those rights…even if I accept your point it shows the law is working as intendedFine. Then why do you not support federal oversight in Seattle, Peoria or Milwaukee?
-
If Congress deems it necessary they can pass a law as allowed by the 15th amendment….btw there is federal oversight in those communities as well not just to the same degree as the areas affected by section 5, but that is a different argument than whather the act is Constitutional
-
Quote from Thor
If Congress deems it necessary they can pass a law as allowed by the 15th amendment….btw there is federal oversight in those communities as well not just to the same degree as the areas affected by section 5, but that is a different argument than whather the act is Constitutional
Congress can pass unconstitutional laws, I agree. I just think they shouldn’t and the SCOTUS should throw them out.
The VRA law results in disparate impact on red states.
If there is a poll access problem—-let the DOJ enforce voting rights EQUALLY for all parts of the country. Why is that such a problem for you? -
So what where does it say everything must be equal or should we have just as many border patrol agents in Kansas as Arizona? Why is federal disaster aid not given out equally. The 15th amendment gives Congress the ability to ensure voting rights are enforced, it says nothing about HOW they must do it. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? Under what part of the Constitution specific language do you find the VRA unconstitutional? What is different now than the 4 times it has been UPHELD as constitutional? Why is Scalia trying to substitute his ideas for those of Congress? Why don’t you go to law school and get appointed to SCOTUS so we can all benefit from your wisdom and constitutional knowledge?
-
Quote from RVU
Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act is no longer needed and has run it’s course. Proof is in who is elected in these states.
Your’re kidding right?
It is FAR more logical to propose that the very provisions of Secion 5 are what keeps the voting process clean enough to result in those officials getting elected fairly in the first place.
-
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/voting-rights-act-provision-struck-down-by-u-s-supreme-court.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/voting-rights-act-provision-struck-down-by-u-s-supreme-court.html[/link]
A deeply divided U.S. [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/supreme-court/]Supreme Court[/link] threw out a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rolling back a landmark law that opened the polls to millions of southern blacks.
The justices, voting 5-4, effectively invalidated the laws requirement that officials in much of the country get federal approval before changing their election rules. The majority said Congresss formula for determining which states were covered was outdated. It left open the possibility that Congress could enact a new formula.
-
That noise you are hearing is the right wing cheering judicial activism, legislating from the bench and the living breathing Constitution usage in this case
-
Thor, the judicial activism is based on point of view. Sadly, the side you support has no examples of people “crossing over.” Name one. Only the so-called conservatives ever “give in” to the other side. The argument of activism [i][b]is one entirely against the left.[/b][/i]
-
No hammer, the noise I hear is you demo-crites sobbing uncontrollably at the loss of the illegals vote. Man, that is a real punch in the gut to you libs. Good job, SCOTUS.
-
Cigar, I think you are confusing consensus building and activism.
I don’t think it is fair to say that either conservatives or liberals are more “activist” in their rulings. Most people tend to apply the term “judicial activism” to rulings they simply disagree with. Activism is in the eye of the beholder. Your claim for judicial activism being entirely on the left is wholly incorrect.
With the exception of the dramatic ACA Roberts decision, I do not think there is a statisticly significant difference in crossover voting between the liberal block and the conservative block on typically partisan cases before SCOTUS. In recent history, Kennedy has voted more often with the conservatives, giving the court a right lean. (I hope he will pay me back by joining with the liberals on DOMA tomorrow 😉 ) -
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?pagewanted=all]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?pagewanted=all[/link]
Analyses of databases coding Supreme Court decisions and justices votes along these lines, one going back to 1953 and another to 1937, show that the Roberts court has staked out territory to the right of the two conservative courts that immediately preceded it by four distinct measures:
In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953.
Four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?inline=nyt-per]Antonin Scalia[/link] and, most conservative of all, [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per]Clarence Thomas[/link]. (The other two were Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist.) Justice [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per]Anthony M. Kennedy[/link], the swing justice on the current court, is in the top 10.
In some ways, the Roberts court is more cautious than earlier ones. The Rehnquist court struck down about 120 laws, or about six a year, according to an analysis by Professor Epstein. The Roberts court, which on average hears fewer cases than the Rehnquist court did, has struck down fewer laws 15 in its first five years, or three a year.
It is the ideological direction of the decisions that has changed. When the Rehnquist court struck down laws, it reached a liberal result more than 70 percent of the time. The Roberts court has tilted strongly in the opposite direction, reaching a conservative result 60 percent of the time.
The Rehnquist court overruled 45 precedents over 19 years. Sixty percent of those decisions reached a conservative result. The Roberts court overruled eight precedents in its first five years, a slightly lower annual rate. All but one reached a conservative result.
The “activism” now 60% to the right -
Removing the requirement for pre-clearance does not mean that those states are now free to deny qualified individuals the right to vote. It just means that if a polling place moves from a school to a community center, they don’t need prior approval from Justice. If they started to introduce things like poll taxes, it would probably take only hours for justice to obtain an injunction against them doing so.
Btw. congress is free to come up with a new formula to determine which counties are covered by the voting rights act. The supreme courts objection was that the current formula was based on past misbehavior of those jurisdictions, not the current situation. The current title 4 created a ‘guilt by birth’ situation for anyone who works in public administration in the covered areas, just because the person who held your job in 1950 was a racist POS does not mean you should have your work made difficult even though you have not done anything wrong. It is absurd that even in a black dominated jurisdiction like Atlanta or Mobile, city goverment can’t open new polling places due to buerocratic inertia at justice while in some rural county in OK the county administrator can make changes that discriminate against minorities without having to undergo review.
By freeing the folks in the civil rights division from lots of idle routine work, it will allow them to focus on complaint driven enforcement of equality provisions. When we look back 20 years from now, today will be a day that improved voter equality, not worsened it.
Interesting to look at how the dissenting opinions came down. Thomas, the black guy from the south, would have thrown out title 5 alltogether while Ginsburg is lamenting that ‘congress may be wrong, but they were unanimously wrong so we shouldn’t overturn it’ (by her argument, if 90% of congress decided that maybe involuntary servitude isn’t such a bad thing after all, any decisions they take to reintroduce it should be beyond judicial review).
-
[b]”Interesting to look at how the dissenting opinions came down. Thomas, the black guy from the south, would have thrown out title 5 alltogether while Ginsburg is lamenting that ‘congress may be wrong, but they were unanimously wrong so we shouldn’t overturn it’ (by her argument, if 90% of congress decided that maybe involuntary servitude isn’t such a bad thing after all, any decisions they take to reintroduce it should be beyond judicial review).” [/b]
[b] [/b]
“Thomas the black guy from the south”? Strange way to refer to a Justice of the Supreme Court. To be consistent, why didn’t you refer to Ginsburg as the Jew gal from……..? -
Quote from Point Man
[b] [/b]”Thomas the black guy from the south”? Strange way to refer to a Justice of the Supreme Court. To be consistent, why didn’t you refer to Ginsburg as the Jew gal from……..?
I had the good fortune to speak to justice Thomas for about 30 minutes during a flight on AA a couple of years ago and bothered to read his memoir sometime later. He will be the first one to acknowledge that his skin color and his cultural upbringing are part of who he is. In the setting of the voting rights act, who he is does matter, no need to ignore it out of a desire to be politically correct. -
It is clear that these provisions in the VRA were outdated. Empirical evidence where minorities routinely and proportionately get elected to and throw out of every type of elected office in the south. President Obama was in fact elected because of southern states voting for him. Of the 9 southern states effected by the VRA, there are 3 minority US Senators and 2 minority governors. Liberals hollering about this just dont like the fact that all these minorities are conservative.
The south was frankly being punished by successive democrat presidential administrations for having conservative politicians, and in particular conservative minority politicians. And that’s what the big feigned outrage is all about, not minority representation, but maintaining liberal strongholds. Libs are left to scream scream at each other and perhaps get an extra 1/2 a percentage more, from 99 to 99.5% to vote democrat in their minority carve-out districts. Sorry, maintaining affirmative action in voting results isnt American. -
“By freeing the folks in the civil rights division from lots of idle routine work, it will allow them to focus on complaint driven enforcement of equality provisions. When we look back 20 years from now, today will be a day that improved voter equality, not worsened it. ” -fw
Maybe. Or maybe it’s because of other reasons like the reality of demographic shifts overwhelming the attempts, past and present of voter suppression.
It does mean that the voters in those areas will have to become more active to stop that sort of shenanigans since they can’t rely so much on Washington to do it anymore. As for Congress coming up with new rules to replace those “outdated” ones, I have a bridge I can sell you too. As for Washington coming down when -if-these states try suppression shenanigans, I have another bridge.
But the landscape is magnitudes better now. Murdering over voting rights is not the problem anymore, it’s true. Minorities will have to work harder to protect their rights just like they did in the early 60’s. And as several in the GOP have acknowledged, old white men are less available to support the GOP, their main source of strength.
Evolve or die off.
-
What was also interesting is the gasp in the room & many outlets reporting on Alito’s facial expressions during Ginsberg’s dissent.
Talk about angry white men.
-
Quote from Frumious
Maybe. Or maybe it’s because of other reasons like the reality of demographic shifts overwhelming the attempts, past and present of voter suppression.
Well, if the ‘minorities’ have reached enough of a critical mass to look out for themselves, we dont need a special law to protect them, right ?
The supreme court didn’t even go that far. They just said that a formula based on 1960s misdeeds is not appropriate today.It does mean that the voters in those areas will have to become more active to stop that sort of shenanigans since they can’t rely so much on Washington to do it anymore.
The biggest shenanigans have been from DC where justice spent the last 40 years creating ‘majority minority’ districts in the south just so they can see some melanin in congress and state legislatures. With political allegiances following color lines these days, this has made the neighboring now lily-white districts a shoe-in for conservatives. One estimate has been that for every ‘majority minority’ district justice has created, 2 other districts have fallen to the conservative side. We wouldn’t hear 1/2 of the racist and xenophobic crap from republicans if they had to compete for the votes of 20-30% minority populations in their own districts.
The other problem is of course that those districts are not competitive. The democratic primary or district convention is the election. This has created a cadre of black career politicians that can do whatever they please once they hit congress. One guy was caught with 100k of nigerian bribe money in his freezer and the yellow-dog democrats still re-elected him to congress. Most of them just dont do a very good job representing their districts. More competition would do them good.As for Congress coming up with new rules to replace those “outdated” ones, I have a bridge I can sell you too.
Congress managed to get together to re-authorize the VRA a couple of years ago, they should be able to come up with something that fulfills the supreme courts mandate. It is really not hard, the VRA already had a mechanism that could drop counties if they had a clean record. Just introduce a reverse clause that includes districts with significant numbers of voting rights complaints into the VRA even if they are outside of the south.
As for Washington coming down when -if-these states try suppression shenanigans, I have another bridge.
They have frequently done so and filed lawsuits and injunctions under title 2 of the VRA. That power has been entirely untouched by yesterdays decision. The only thing that has been put on hold for the time being is the pre-clearance process.
-
Minorities have and are reaching critical mass, the reason behind voter suppression attempts & disenfranchisement, and minorities are not just blacks but include latinos and others. And “not appropriate today” might be trues except for the voter suppression attempts. Right after the ruling in Texas, a voter ID law that was struck down as deliberately discriminatory was declared now in effect.
DC is not anyone’s ideal of what a democracy should look like & they don’t have any representation anyway. But that is 1 compared to many other and better examples of shenanigans. Shenanigans as freely admitted by many GOP operatives for keeping down the Democratic vote or a more “benign” view of “they don’t vote Republican” since there is a growing shortage of angry white men who presently fill the ranks of the GOP. That’s not my interpretation of their statement, that IS their statement, specifically in regards to voter ID laws, gerrymandering & immigration, legal or not.
You notice corrupt black politicians a lot but you might have noticed there is no shortage of corrupt whites either. Jefferson, a Democrat had $ in his freezer but there is also Bronx Party Chairman Joseph Savino, a Republican, there was Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California, Sheldon Adelson pays out a lot of $, Rep Joe Garcia, Thomas Noe & Coingate and so on.
Come up with new laws to replace section 5? How exactly? First who is lining up to develop a majority vote to pass a replacement & what States will be nominated as the “still & not so new” or new outlaws? Can’t you see their Congressmen line up to declare their own States as discriminatory due to voter ID, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, etc? Ain’t never going to happen. Section 5 is dead, dead, dead & no voodoo will revive it.
Section 2 still stands but due to section 5 gutting and the plethora of suppression attempts expected, we’ll have to see the reality of the effect. Before it could be addressed collectively, now it’s more piecemeal.
It’s the new reality but IMO all this gerrymandering & voter suppression are attempts to preserve a diminishing power structure. Demographics & chasing young voters away from the GOP is the newer reality. -
I would bet voter fraud is as common as voter suppression so I guess its a wash.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
I would bet voter fraud is as common as voter suppression so I guess its a wash.
Once again “betting” and “guessing” continues to be the wishful thinking “reality” for some.
-
Can only hope she gets sentenced to full 6 years but I doubt it. Probably a slap on the wrist.
[link=http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130528/NEWS0107/305280074/Poll-worker-convicted-voting-fraud]http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130528/NEWS0107/305280074/Poll-worker-convicted-voting-fraud[/link] -
Quote from Frumious
Minorities have and are reaching critical mass, the reason behind voter suppression attempts & disenfranchisement, and minorities are not just blacks but include latinos and others. And “not appropriate today” might be trues except for the voter suppression attempts. Right after the ruling in Texas, a voter ID law that was struck down as deliberately discriminatory was declared now in effect.
The first little old lady who is being turned down for a state ID or concealed carry permit (one of the approved forms of ID) will have standing to challenge that law in federal court and hordes of civil rights division lawyers will assist her to file for an injunction.
DC is not anyone’s ideal of what a democracy should look like & they don’t have any representation anyway.
They have voted the same radical crack-head back into office 8 times over. Understandable that they can’t be trusted with a ballot box. They are not a state, if DC gets a congressman, we need to give a congressman to the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands.
You notice corrupt black politicians a lot but you might have noticed there is no shortage of corrupt whites either. Jefferson, a Democrat had $ in his freezer but there is also Bronx Party Chairman Joseph Savino, a Republican, there was Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California, Sheldon Adelson pays out a lot of $, Rep Joe Garcia, Thomas Noe & Coingate and so on.
All good arguments for term limits.
Come up with new laws to replace section 5? How exactly?
I guess you didn’t listen up in civics class. Either the house or senate initiates a bill. Once the initiating chamber passes the bill, it is then read in the other chamber and voted on. The president signs it and it becomes a public law. Nothing to it.
First who is lining up to develop a majority vote to pass a replacement & what States will be nominated as the “still & not so new” or new outlaws?
You make a rule and let the chips fall where they may. A statistical measure would probably be the most valid approach. Ajudicated voting rights complaints/100k/year in the top 10th percentile or something like that gets you on the shitlist.
Section 5 is dead, dead, dead & no voodoo will revive it.
It is dead because democrats will try to go back to the old system where they could tell the red states how to run their elections through the back door. If someone comes up with an equitable formula that is not clearly rigged to favor certain candidates, it will get passed.
Section 2 still stands but due to section 5 gutting and the plethora of suppression attempts expected, we’ll have to see the reality of the effect. Before it could be addressed collectively, now it’s more piecemeal.
You give section 5 too much credit.
It’s the new reality but IMO all this gerrymandering & voter suppression are attempts to preserve a diminishing power structure. Demographics & chasing young voters away from the GOP is the newer reality.
Gerrymandering and voter suppression cut both ways. In MD the demecrats redistricted their republican congressmen out of their districts when they had the chance to do so after the last census. They are no better, all too glad to play dirty if they have the chance to get away with it. -
This isn’t about black voters
This is more about Latinos as they are becoming a growing force politically
Coupled with possible immigration reform to make new citizens this is a 2013 attempt at Jim Crow
This is so obvious as to what the right wing is up to
-
Quote from kpack123
This isn’t about black voters
This is more about Latinos as they are becoming a growing force politically
Coupled with possible immigration reform to make new citizens this is a 2013 attempt at Jim Crow
Those new citizens will have naturalization certificates and after having gone through a couple of rounds with the immigration service, getting a drivers license is something they do on lunch break. The only people voter ID laws discriminate against are the folks who were born on the family farm and whose birth was recorded in the family bible. Still a couple of them around in the rural south. The discrimination from requiring ID is a canard. -
Quote from fw
Quote from kpack123
This isn’t about black voters
This is more about Latinos as they are becoming a growing force politically
Coupled with possible immigration reform to make new citizens this is a 2013 attempt at Jim Crow
Those new citizens will have naturalization certificates and after having gone through a couple of rounds with the immigration service, getting a drivers license is something they do on lunch break. The only people voter ID laws discriminate against are the folks who were born on the family farm and whose birth was recorded in the family bible. Still a couple of them around in the rural south. The discrimination from requiring ID is a canard.
Oh, I’d like to see some real federal stats on that demographic rather than the handwaiving implied in your post.
-
Quote from Lux
Oh, I’d like to see some real federal stats on that demographic rather than the handwaiving implied in your post.
On what demographic ? The new citizens or the old folks on the farm ?
I know some of these older folk who have difficulty getting the documents together for a non-driver ID (or who face logistical challenges to go to the DMV or courthouse). They are the same people who have to ask someone from their church to drive them home from the hospital after surgery. For that very small demographic, the voter-ID issue is a real obstacle to voting.
For a legal immigrant, who over the course of the immigration process had numerous appointments at application support centers and immigration service centers 2 states over, getting a drivers license or ID is a non-issue. The moment they are legal, they will get their drivers license (if they dont already have it). -
Quote from fw
For a legal immigrant, who over the course of the immigration process had numerous appointments at application support centers and immigration service centers 2 states over, getting a drivers license or ID is a non-issue. The moment they are legal, they will get their drivers license (if they dont already have it).
Illegal immigrants can vote?
Civics lesson? With or without an ID, whether driver’s license or other, illegal immigrants cannot vote. Are there hoards of illegals voting I haven’t heard about? I don’t think so. -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
For a legal immigrant, who over the course of the immigration process had numerous appointments at application support centers and immigration service centers 2 states over, getting a drivers license or ID is a non-issue. The moment they are legal, they will get their drivers license (if they dont already have it).
Illegal immigrants can vote?
Civics lesson? With or without an ID, whether driver’s license or other, illegal immigrants cannot vote. Are there hoards of illegals voting I haven’t heard about? I don’t think so.
I never said they could. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
The argument was made that this change in law was about the 13mil immigrants who would eventually become citizens (in about 15 years) under the new law. My point is that for those[u] legal[/u] immigrants, there is no obstacle to obtaining ID like a US passport or drivers license and that hence they are not likely to be affected by voting rights shenanigans. -
If you require a birth certificate, there most certainly is
-
Quote from Thor
If you require a birth certificate, there most certainly is
A naturalized citizen would typically provide their certificate of naturalization or a US passport as proof of citizenship when they register to vote. This has not been an issue and will never be an issue.
-
Unfortunately fw, voter suppression & disenfranchisement is not quite as simplistic as you portray. Most of us don’t have a “concealed carry” permit for example. A bit a facetiousness there. Especially not so simple for the very reasons stated by many Republicans for the rules, and it is not limited to that canard voter fraud and integrity. Some republicans are very candid about the reasons for the new rules that would limit or at least make more difficult access to voting for certain voters. That does not quite gel with your easy solutions.
[link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/voting-rights-act-decision-poses-a-crucial-test-for-republicans.html]http://www.thedailybeast….t-for-republicans.html[/link]
Over the last three years Republicans throughout the country have launched[link=http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/06/supreme_court_purges_civil_rights_best_weapon_from_voting_rights_act.html]aggressive attacks[/link] on voting rights and access to the ballot, often under the guise of voter integrity (despite the [link=http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud]nonthreat[/link] of voter fraud). In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting, require a narrow range of identification cards to vote (excluding student IDs, for instance), and impose lifetime disenfranchisement for felons. Likewise, in Virginia, Republican legislators have proposed a strict new voter-ID law that could disenfranchise the nearly 900,000 residents who lack the required identification. The same goes for a [link=http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/dec/19/hosemanns-data-prove-him-wrong/]Mississippi bill[/link] that could keep up to 40,000 people from the polls.
The path is now clear to pass laws that would keep hundreds of thousands of people from voting, of whom a disproportionate number are African-American.This isnt an accident. In places like Virginia, keeping blacks, Latinos, and other groups from the polls gives a significant advantage to Republican candidates, given the groups high support for Democrats.
-
Quote from Frumious
Unfortunately fw, voter suppression & disenfranchisement is not quite as simplistic as you portray. Most of us don’t have a “concealed carry” permit for example. A bit a facetiousness there. Especially not so simple for the very reasons stated by many Republicans for the rules, and it is not limited to that canard voter fraud and integrity. Some republicans are very candid about the reasons for the new rules that would limit or at least make more difficult access to voting for certain voters. That does not quite gel with your easy solutions.
I dont agree with voter ID laws because I dont believe that there is a sizeable enough problem to warrant the hassle.
But I strongly disagree with the assertion that it disenfranchises anyone. I have some older relatives who dont drive, all of them have a state-ID. Nothing to it, you take your birth certificate, social security card and a phone bill to the DMV, pay $12 or $16 and walk out with the ID in your hand an hour later. Been there, done thate, taken them down to the MV ofice. All those black churches in NC that get all bent out of shape over the reduction in sunday voting should probably invest their energy into gathering up anyone who doesn’t have an ID, put them in the church van and drive them down to the DMV. Heck, the DMV even comes to YOU with a mobile van to make drivers licenses and IDs if you put together a group large enough. The next election that counts is 18 months away, plenty of time to get everything lined up.
And then there is the canard about ‘that it costs hundreds of dollars to get a birth certificate’. Complete BS, in my state it is $3 and 50cents for postage. Maybe its $10 somewhere else.
The fact that 900k people dont have those IDs doesn’t mean that they can’t get them. It just means that they haven’t bothered to obtain one. Yeah, there are a couple of old folks in rural SC for whom the county seat is world travel and whose bith is recorded in the family bible. Even they can get a birth certificate and state ID, all it takes is someone to take the initiative.
Bohoo, you can’t use the student ID that you made on a color-copier. IF you spend $5000 and up on tuition and $200/month on beer, going down to the courthouse or DMV to get an ID or drivers license is too much to ask for ? Cry me a river. -
I don’t agree with your sarcastic boo-hoo scenarios but the rest is reasonable enough. Points taken.
-
did you ever try to get a copy of your official Birth certificate?
I did, It took me 8 months. I had the actual birth certificate with my hand and foot prints……………… but the state doesnt consider that official, so I had to go back to my home state and get the run around around because I no longer had their states driver license
Perhaps not a overwhelming hurdle but when a state puts legislation into effect 4 months before a general election it makes voting in that election nearly impossible
-
Quote from kpack123
did you ever try to get a copy of your official Birth certificate?
As I said. 3 bucks and a notarized form to mail in. -
In NC, fee for a walk-up birth certificate is $24. IF you want to have same day service, it’s $39. You can even order them over the phone through a contractor, that’s a bit more, $71 with same day fedex shipping. They have all birth certificates going back to 1913 (which would make you 100 years old). For older ones you have to go to the local register of deeds.
SC the fee for a walk-up birth certificate is $12.
Georgia it’s $25 for mail-in service.
In Virginia it is $12 for walk-up service.
If you dont have a currently valid ID, you have to bring two things like military discharge papers and a life insurance policy.
Disenfranchisement my foot. -
Quote from fw
Disenfranchisement my foot.
fw, this is specifically for you. And Florida is not the only example, Republicans have been very candid about their efforts for some time now! Go figure. Guess they are bragging to their base that they are not sitting down on suppressing the Democratic votes.
[link=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/]http://www.palmbeachpost….lled-power-play/nTFDy/[/link]A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
Remember this one?
[link=http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12814048-ohio-republican-admits-voter-suppression-aimed-at-african-americans]http://www.allvoices.com/…d-at-african-americans[/link]
On Monday, Ohio election board Republican Doug Preisse admitted that the goal of voter ID laws are to stop African Americans from voting.
Preisse told the [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html]Columbus Dispatch[/link] in an email: I guess I really actually feel we shouldnt contort the voting process to accommodate the urban read African-American voter-turnout machine. He also called, “Claims of unfairness by Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern and others ‘Bullshit.’ Quote me!, according to the Ohio Dispatch report.
Despite what some believe, it is now virtually impossible to hide the deep distain of Republicans for African Americans. But their efforts to “fix” the next election through voter suppression does not end with black voters. Voter ID laws, all implemented in Republican-controlled state legislatures, have been targeting the poor, elderly, Hispanic, and other non-white voting groups. If you do not believe that is evidence of racism and discrimination, you need a dictionary.
The fact that it didn’t work as planned & might actually have made voters angry enough to endure any obstacles doesn’t prove the “harmlessness” of the attempts. The attempts are real.
As you said, a canard. -
Quote from Frumious
The fact that it didn’t work as planned & might actually have made voters angry enough to endure any obstacles doesn’t prove the “harmlessness” of the attempts. The attempts are real.
The fact that it doesn’t work proves that requiring ID doesn’t disenfranchise voters. The DMV doesn’t deny you a drivers license because you are black or hispanic. If you bring whatever 3 out of 6 documents they require, you will get a license or ID.
The group of people who have difficulty obtaining an ID if they try is small. Some rural poor that can’t get to the courthouse, individuals whose dads dont acknowledge them, individuals whose moms abandoned them with some relatives etc. -
Quote from fw
Quote from kpack123
did you ever try to get a copy of your official Birth certificate?
As I said. 3 bucks and a notarized form to mail in.
Just let’s be sure to remember that for many American citizens, “3 bucks” puts the daily bread on the table for a family of four. That assumes they already know what “notarized” means (the [i]additional[/i] cost of notarization, notwithstanding).
-
Quote from Lux
Just let’s be sure to remember that for many American citizens, “3 bucks” puts the daily bread on the table for a family of four. That assumes they already know what “notarized” means (the [i]additional[/i] cost of notarization, notwithstanding).
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Just let’s be sure to remember that for many American citizens, “3 bucks” puts the daily bread on the table for a family of four. That assumes they already know what “notarized” means (the [i]additional[/i] cost of notarization, notwithstanding).
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health.
Oh jeez, more factless bigotry from the right.
-
The question about voter ID is why? What is the point? Voter fraud and you get 1 woman. Maybe a few more, certainly nothing to justify the $ and effort & ruptured spleens over insisting that it must be done to preserve the nation.
Regardless of everything, it is a canard. An invention.
Reality though is that the Supremes have ruled & until they retire or Congress puts up a fight, it is the law of the land for now. Time for the Democratic groups to volunteer their efforts to make sure ID is nothing more than a minor inconvenience. Changing demographics will fix the rest. -
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health.
Oh jeez, more factless bigotry from the right.
The US is the only country where poverty causes obesity, across race lines. Go to Walmart on sunday evening. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health.
Oh jeez, more factless bigotry from the right.
The US is the only country where poverty causes obesity, across race lines.
Why do you think that is, fw?
Do you also believe that poor people are poor because they don’t know how to manage money?
Do you realize there is a higher incidence of obesity among kids in affluent families today than kids in poor families?
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
The US is the only country where poverty causes obesity, across race lines.Why do you think that is, fw?
In part, this is the result of the food-stamp program, subsidized school lunches and WIC. Before food-stamps (SNAP or whatever you want to call it), not having money meant not eating. Pictures of starving kids in appalachia upset people enough to turn the goverment into a conduit for midwestern subsidized starch into the stomachs of poor folk around the country. Farmers got their price support, poor folk got something to eat. A political win-win that gets renewed every 5 years (being negotiated in congress as we speak).
Do you also believe that poor people are poor because they don’t know how to manage money?
Some are. Just look at banking. The walmart bank will give an account to almost anyone, still people will spend big fees at check-cashing places to get their paychecks cashed. Makes no sense.
Do you realize there is a higher incidence of obesity among kids in affluent families today than kids in poor families?
You got your numbers wrong. The incidence is higher in low-income kids. In absolute numbers, more fat kids are from middle income families, simply because there are more middle income families than poor families.
[link=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db51.htm]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db51.htm[/link]
[i]The prevalence of obesity among boys living in households with income at or above 350% of the poverty level is 11.9%, while 21.1% of those who live below 130% of the poverty level are obese. Among girls, 12.0% of those with income at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese while 19.3% of those with income below 130% of the poverty level are obese.[/i]
-
Quote from fw
Do you realize there is a higher incidence of obesity among kids in affluent families today than kids in poor families?
You got your numbers wrong. The incidence is higher in low-income kids. In absolute numbers, more fat kids are from middle income families, simply because there are more middle income families than poor families.
[link=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db51.htm]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db51.htm[/link]
[i]The prevalence of obesity among boys living in households with income at or above 350% of the poverty level is 11.9%, while 21.1% of those who live below 130% of the poverty level are obese. Among girls, 12.0% of those with income at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese while 19.3% of those with income below 130% of the poverty level are obese.[/i]
It’s no longer quite as simple as what’s portrayed in your cited article that uses old data from 2005-2008. The demographics of obesity in kids has been changing more recently:
[blockquote]In the UK, there is now a higher obesity rate in middle class kids compared to poor and rich. This was the study I had recalled when I made my statement earlier, and I did overread it a bit. We should only interpret it to indicate the situation around Leeds and not extrapolate to the USA…yet, so [i]mea culpa[/i] on this point:
[link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2013-02-13-study-finds-middle-class-kids-more-likely-to-be-fat/]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g…more-likely-to-be-fat/[/link]
There is a correlation between child obesity and families with a single parent (which is more prevalent among low income families), but kids with a single mom are more likely to be obese than kids with a single dad, implying that single moms experience more socioeconomic hardship than single dads and so must resort to cheaper, high caloric (USA fed-subsidized corn) foods:
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/marriage-obesity-in-children-linked_n_3322431.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…-linked_n_3322431.html[/link]
And more recently than the study you cited, the CDC study shows a declining trend in child obesity in low income families:
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/childhood-obesity-rate_n_2365422.html?utm_hp_ref=childhood-obesity]http://www.huffingtonpost…_ref=childhood-obesity[/link]
And there studies showing a [i][u]genetic[/u][/i] predisposition to obesity which may correlate to (but is [i][u]not the result of[/u][/i]) low income level:
[link=http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-genetic-obesity-mexican-young-adults.html]http://medicalxpress.com/…ican-young-adults.html[/link]
[/blockquote] The point is that then considered collectively, the data is pointing to a trending of obesity into higher income families and shows a cause based on genetics and family structure rather than being based primarily on family income.
-
You are funny. I post the relevant CDC data and you come back with opinion pieces in the huffpost [8|]
You are right. The ‘genetics’ is what caused a change since 2008, right. I suspect the only thing that changed for middle income kids since 2008 is the advent of the Xbox360 and the resulting inability to get them out of the house at all. -
Quote from fw
You are funny. I post the relevant CDC data and you come back with opinion pieces in the huffpost [8|]
You are right. The ‘genetics’ is what caused a change since 2008, right. I suspect the only thing that changed for middle income kids since 2008 is the advent of the Xbox360 and the resulting inability to get them out of the house at all.
A. You clearly didn’t read the content of those links, and,
B. Your so-called “relevant CDC data” is way outdated.
For those who follow Faux News: [link=http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/26/cdc-reports-dropping-rates-in-childhood-obesity/]http://www.foxnews.com/he…-in-childhood-obesity/[/link]
For those who don’t: [link=http://www.litchfieldcountymom.com/articles/2013/01/15//news/doc50f57f1e03ac2374280309.txt]http://www.litchfieldcoun…7f1e03ac2374280309.txt[/link]
Whether a child becomes obese is tightly correlated to whether they are breast fed, and in the past decade the number of low-income infants nursing has jumped more than 10 percent which CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and obesity claims might be responsible for the drop in low-income obesity they have measured more recently than the older data you cited.
But of course, once you get to the level of blaming a video game…
-
Quote from Lux
A. You clearly didn’t read the content of those links, and,
B. Your so-called “relevant CDC data” is way outdated.
You quoted among other things data from Leeds in the UK.
This past two weeks my kids were at a sports camp. The first week we packed them a lunch, the second week the department of agriculture tried to poison them with summer school lunches. I looked at the garbage they fed the kids for 2 days and went back to a packed lunch. -
John Roberts is …. wait for it… an [i]activist[/i] judge!
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/the-real-john-roberts-emerges/?_r=0]http://opinionator.blogs….-roberts-emerges/?_r=0[/link]
In its sweeping disregard of history, precedent and constitutional text, the chief justices 5-to-4 opinion in the voting rights case was startling for its naked activism, but no one watching the court over the past few years could have been surprised by the outcome. The court made clear in a [link=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/08-322/]2009 decision[/link] that it had Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provision, squarely in its sights.
The chief justices antipathy toward the Voting Rights Act itself was well known, and was a significant reason that major civil rights groups opposed his confirmation to the court in 2005. Following his nomination, memos came to light that he had written more than 20 years earlier as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration.
The debate within the administration then was over whether Congress should make it clear that a violation of the Voting Rights Act did not require proof of intentional discrimination, as a 1980 Supreme Court [link=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/446/55/]decision[/link] had held, and that proof of a discriminatory effect should be sufficient. The looser standard, which Congress eventually adopted, would provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes, John Roberts warned in a memo to Attorney General William French Smith.
Questioned at his confirmation hearing by Senator Edward M. Kennedy about his views on the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Roberts, then a judge, asserted that he had been acting at the time as a staff lawyer advising a client, but that as a judge he had an open mind. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
A. You clearly didn’t read the content of those links, and,
B. Your so-called “relevant CDC data” is way outdated.You quoted among other things data from Leeds in the UK.
This past two weeks my kids were at a sports camp. The first week we packed them a lunch, the second week the department of agriculture tried to poison them with summer school lunches. I looked at the garbage they fed the kids for 2 days and went back to a packed lunch.
You pick on details and are not looking at the bigger picture.
The facts today show pretty clearly that there is a trend of increasing obesity rates in higher income demographics and a decrease in obesity in lower income brackets, not only here but in other part(s) of the world.
As a matter of FACT, we also now know that obesity is not caused by income level but rather by family structure and genetics. You can resist the facts all you want by citing anecdotes and nitpicking details which, out of context, seem to support your twisted theories, but that doesn’t neutralize the fact that you do not have a broad enough understanding of the issue of this debate.
Now go ahead and carry on with your cherry-picking anecdotes in your continued effort to deny science as you try to justify your baseless and dangerous ideology.
-
I still maintain the most sweeping example of voter suppression and intimidation in the last 30 years was the use of the IRS and other administration depts. to suppress the Tea Party movement , the Constitution movement, during the Obama administration.
No lefty complaints though. Hypocrisy? I think so.
I believe in ensuring the integrity of elections. This means accurate vote counting, and ensuring that all who have a right to vote, can do so. If citizens cannot trust the results of elections, our country will be divided and cannot function. So, I support ensuring that overseas deployed military ballots are counted (left does not support this) and that basic picture ID is provided (like you must for a REDBox membership) before voting in the US (left does not support), and that mechanisms are in place to be sure multiple voters are blocked (left does not support, this is why the # of votes in Maine routinely exceeds the number of registered voters, due to cross voting from CT, VT, NH, and MA).
And stiff penalties for voter fraud, such as for ACORN in MO.
Left does not support. Seems quite straightforward to me. -
Quote from MSK/SW
I still maintain the most sweeping example of voter suppression and intimidation in the last 30 years was the use of the IRS and other administration depts. to suppress the Tea Party movement , the Constitution movement, during the Obama administration.
No lefty complaints though. Hypocrisy? I think so.
I believe in ensuring the integrity of elections. This means accurate vote counting, and ensuring that all who have a right to vote, can do so. If citizens cannot trust the results of elections, our country will be divided and cannot function. So, I support ensuring that overseas deployed military ballots are counted (left does not support this) and that basic picture ID is provided (like you must for a REDBox membership) before voting in the US (left does not support), and that mechanisms are in place to be sure multiple voters are blocked (left does not support, this is why the # of votes in Maine routinely exceeds the number of registered voters, due to cross voting from CT, VT, NH, and MA).
And stiff penalties for voter fraud, such as for ACORN in MO.
Left does not support. Seems quite straightforward to me.I’m not sure how your post precipitated from my post, but since you replied to “Lux” I feel the need to reply back.
I suspect that a few of the reasons you see [i]”no lefty complaints”[/i] about the IRS thing yet is that:
[ul][*]There has been no evidence presented that the “Obama administration” had anything to do with it.[*]The people responsible at IRS have come forth, taken responsibility, explained their actions, apologized, and in some cases resigned.[*]Not a single “Tea Party movement” application has been rejected in the IRS review process.[*]There has been no evidence indicating any tangible impact on voter suppression. [/ul] So what is the basis for the “hypocrisy” that you allege (other than perhaps the hypocrisy of people on the “right” making such an allegation without having a compelling factual basis)?
Likewise, I am on record as supporting voter ID mechanisms (do we really want to allow a lot of foreigners to come here to vote for the Putin or Jong-un apologist?), but I also happen to be on record as despising any attempt to introduce voter ID legislation to just a few weeks before an election in an obvious attempt to suppress voter turnout of those voters for whom such 11th hour legislation would impose an exceptional temporal and economic hardship (poor, sick, elderly) but who also happen to traditionally vote for the Democrat. My point is that such legislation seems reasonable, but only when you allow an ample grace period to allow everyone to secure the ID. People posting here have indicated that it takes MONTHS to receive a copy of their birth certificate after they send in a completely satisfactory application.
I also support overseas deployed military ballots, but I object to giving the military any additional exceptions, such as a prolonged grace period, compared to any other American citizen. While some on the “left” may be opposed to military ballots (just as some on the left oppose gay marriage) along with allowing duplicate votes from a single voter(?), you are incorrect in contending that the [i]”left does not support this”. [/i]Last time I checked, Maine is but one state in the union and its voter legislation is determined by an infinitessimal fraction of our population, so again, [i]”the left does not support this”[/i] is not an accurate perspective.
I don’t believe the “right” is against civil rights, but certain demographics are known to vote for the Democrat, and as McCain recently said, [i]”it’s all about elections, elections, elections”,[/i] and all that’s implied by that quip.A profit-driven “REDBox membership” is not a fundamental human right granted by the US Constitution.
What you do fail to point out is the many documented activities from the “right” that have their own brand of voter suppression. I clearly recall the day Tom DeLay organized a raid of the Homestead (FL) voting office in a desperate attempt to suppress the recount after Bush was decreed as having beaten Gore. That entire Katherine Harris episode still wrenches my gut.You seem to be against any attempt at voter suppression, so can we assume that you, too, despise those last minute politically motivated legislative manipulations?
-
What are you talking about MSK? Suppress Tea Party? When? How? All the IRS did was to ask -both sides – to justify their tax free status request. And the right- wing groups were granted that status. Any denied? So far no one has named a single denial.
You make things up.
-
MSK, just ignore the misleading posts and blatant misdirection from Lux and Frumi. Apparently there is nothing interesting to watch on NickJr so they feel obligated to post. They refuse to look at the truth staring them in the face. They are too intellectually lazy to think beyond stage 1. They can’t seem to comprehend the consequences of what they support. They probably aren’t even aware that pleading the fifth is not the same as apologizing and taking responsibility for one’s actions. They want to call the game after the first inning before the other team gets to bat. “Oh, the Obama admin is as clean as wind driven snow” No evidence that Obama was involved! Let’s make a judgement before any investigation! Low info voters.
They like watching Maddow and Stewart on their mom’s TV and think it represent real news. They disparage anyone with different opinions just like a schoolyard bully. Someday, when they grow up and have to pay their own way, and maybe pay some taxes, they will have a different opinion. Until then we will just have to put up with their rantings.
And it is a lie to infer that both sides were put through the same IRS scrutiny. A lie. And everyone with any intellectual curiosity knows it. -
Thanks RadMike. I agree.
-
[b]”They like watching Maddow and Stewart on their mom’s TV and think it represent real news”[/b]
And where is that TV located? In mom’s basement, of course. In the dark, damp, lonely basement – and friendless except for their cyber lib friends. -
Point Man and MSK, how you don’t characterize your above comments as avoiding the facts presented to you is one of the more hilarious hallmarks of these discussions. Time and time again you are presented with research and historic facts and instead of presenting your own facts in true professional debate style, you immediatly turn and run into the shadows as you pat each other on the back as if your cowardly retreat somehow proves to the audience that your perspective somehow prevailed in the discussion. It’s VERY obvious to any reader looking in. It’s just amazing how blatant you both are about it, that’s all.
-
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-democrats-get-a-gift-from-the-roberts-court.html?_r=2]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-democrats-get-a-gift-from-the-roberts-court.html?_r=2[/link]&
An interesting take on how the VRA ruling might be a gift to the democratic party from the Robert’s Court…
…. voter ID laws dont take effect in a vacuum: as theyre debated, passed and contested in court, they shape voter preferences and influence voter enthusiasm in ways that might well outstrip their direct influence on turnout. They inspire registration drives and education efforts; they help activists fund-raise and organize; they raise the specter of past injustices; they reinforce a narrative that their architects are indifferent or hostile to minorities.
So a lengthy battle over voting rules and voting rights seems almost precision-designed to help the Obama-era Democratic majority endure once President Obama has left the Oval Office. As [link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/25/does_the_gop_have_to_pass_immigration_reform_118952.html]Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics[/link] has pointed out, for all the talk about how important Hispanics are to the conservative future, the Republican Party could substantially close the gap with Democrats in presidential elections if its post-Obama share of the African-American vote merely climbed back above 10 percent a feat achieved by Bob Dole and both Bushes. If that share climbed higher still, the Democratic majority would be in danger of collapse.
Such a turn of events wouldnt just be good news for Republicans. It would be good news for black Americans, as it would mean that both parties were competing for their votes.
But for now, our politics is headed in the opposite direction. Liberal demagogy notwithstanding, voter ID laws arent a way for Republicans to turn the clock back and make sure that its always 1965. But they are a good way for Republicans to ensure that African-Americans keep voting like its always 2008. -
can someone explain to me How exacty the IRS thing is or was Voter suppression and or intimidation?????????????????
What left field did that foul ball come from
Maybe the most ridiculous sttement on this forum ever -
Quote from kpack123
can someone explain to me How exacty the IRS thing is or was Voter suppression and or intimidation?????????????????
It isn’t.
It’s simply a Hail Mary pass in the absence of any cogent argument to blame a Democrat for a few naive actions taken by worker bees to improve workflow efficiency in a satellite office.
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-democrats-get-a-gift-from-the-roberts-court.html?_r=2]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/douthat-democrats-get-a-gift-from-the-roberts-court.html?_r=2[/link]&
An interesting take on how the VRA ruling might be a gift to the democratic party from the Robert’s Court…
Looking back in history, the repeal of section 4 of the VRA will be as much a blip for voter participation as DOMA is for the ‘state of the family’.
-
I have friends and relatives in the tax business, and in govt tax offices.
Believe me they do NOT undertake rogue like actions of this magnitude without supporting cover from above. Career suicide is not a trait of accountants and tax attorneys. I hear this from the inside. -
Analogies are fun.
Delegitimizing votes of Congess and millions of people by 5 unelected judges will turn out to be as inconsequential as Mao’s victory after the long march.
-
Quote from MSK/SW
Analogies are fun.
Delegitimizing votes of Congess and millions of people by 5 unelected judges will turn out to be as inconsequential as Mao’s victory after the long march.
Look at China today. Mao was inconsequential. -
Believe me they do NOT undertake rogue like actions of this magnitude without supporting cover from above. Career suicide is not a trait of accountants and tax attorneys. I hear this from the inside.
What are you talking about? They had BOLO lists for liberal groups too. it was SOP to deal with an underfunded and undermanned staffing to try and highlight groups most likely ineligibile for 501c4 status and certainly did not disenfranchise any voters or prevent them from casting a vote -
You still believe that? Facts to the contrary. Look at how many groups were targeted on each side of the “political” aisle. Look at what was asked about membership, donations, etc… That is almost the definition of intimidation. And preventing these groups from having a tax exempt status and forcing them to spend time and money complying with their requests cost them money. More money than the cost that an individual without state ID would pay to get an ID. Yet you think one is allowable and the other is not.
-
You of course realize that “political” organizations should not be tax exempt in the first place. Now remind me again how this would prevent them from voting?
-
That depends on whether they are c3 or c4. Try not to muddy the waters. Notice the quote marks? I put them there for a reason. I guess I’ll have to spoon feed you from now on.
How does requiring someone to have a ten dollar ID prevent them from voting?
Denying or delaying tax-exempt status for no reason other than have tea party or constitution in their names is blatant discrimination based on supposed “political” affiliation. The IRS was making a judgement that these groups were “political” based solely on their name. -
Again
Answer the question
How is the IRS thing voter suppression or voter intimidation?
It was brought up by the right wing elements here all I’m asking is why you believe this to be true?
Simple question
-
If you can’t read then I can’t help you. Please think beyond stage 1. I am so tired of you being unable to put 1 and 1 together. Please see above posts, watch news on something besides MSNBC, and stop wasting my time.
-
The IRS was making a judgement that these groups were “political” based solely on their name.
What judgment would you make? If your job is to investigate whether such groups merit tax exempt status wouldn’t you start with such groups given limited resources? The fact that liberal political groups face similar scrutiny belies your theory as does the fact that no groups have been denied tax exempt status (which is the real scandal–how political groups right AND left are allowed to be tax exempt) -
How does requiring someone to have a ten dollar ID prevent them from voting?
Because it goes beyond the $10 to get the ID, but the conditions for the ID…but you are correct that this can be overcome which is why the right has taken to limiting polling places, moving polling places at the last minute, limiting voting hours, providing insufficient voting machines in the hopes they can simply make people give up -
Quote from radmike
How does requiring someone to have a ten dollar ID prevent them from voting?
It can prevent them from voting if it becomes a law 3 months before an election but requires 6 months to issue the ID after the application is sent, as was reported by another user in these discussions when he applied for his birth certificate.
And you still have not indicated how the IRS activity has caused “voter suppression”.
-
Quote from radmike
The IRS was making a judgement that these groups were “political” based solely on their name.
Wrong. Get your facts straight. The IRS made a judgment that the groups MIGHT BE politically based because they had “Tea Party” in their name. No one can deny that we are allowed to make inferences about an organization based on its name. When you pass a building called “St. Michael’s Hospital” no one in their right mind believes it could possibly be an orthodox Jewish kosher food store. The IRS put those applications through their review process and did not decline a single application it reviewed and therefore “made the judgment” that they actually were [u]NOT[/u] politically based organizations.
Please stop treating the rest of us like the idiots you are accustomed to bullying.
-
[link=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/30/20759664-justice-department-challenges-north-carolina-law-that-mandates-voter-id?lite]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/30/20759664-justice-department-challenges-north-carolina-law-that-mandates-voter-id?lite[/link]
The Justice Department said Monday that it would sue the state of North Carolina to block a voting law there that requires identification at the polls and restricts early voting.
ttorney General Eric Holder said the department would show that the law was meant to make it harder for minorities to vote. He said that more than 70 percent of black voters in North Carolina voted early in the election last November.
The Justice Department has also [link=http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/22/20138599-justice-department-to-challenge-texas-voter-id-law?lite]filed suit against a similar law[/link] in Texas.
The North Carolina law also blocks same-day voter registration and the counting of provisional ballots that are cast in the correct county but the wrong precinct. Civil rights groups sued immediately after North Carolina passed it in August. -
[url=http://thehill.com/homenews/house/248222-dems-float-compromise-linking-confederate-flag-to-voting-rights]Dems float compromise linking Confederate flag to voting rights[/url]
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House Democrat, said Thursday that Democratic leaders will drop their push to attach flag-related amendments to appropriations bills, freeing Republicans to pursue their spending agenda, if GOP leaders will agree to consider an update to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a central part of which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
The Democrats have been pushing a VRA update unsuccessfully for two years. With their new strategy, they’re hoping the high-profile controversy surrounding the Confederate flag which has only deepened since last month’s racially charged killing of nine parishioners at an historic black church in Charleston, S.C. will give them leverage in that fight.
…
The {2013 SCOTUS} ruling has had immediate practical implications, as a number of conservative states including Texas, North Carolina and Alabama have since adopted stricter voting requirements that had been on hold under the old VRA. Supporters of the tougher laws, which include new photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, say they’re necessary to fight voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the election process. Critics counter that problems of fraud are exaggerated, and the tougher rules are just a Republican gambit to discourage minority and other vulnerable voters, who tend to side with the Democrats. -
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/06/obama-calls-restoration-voting-rights-act/31199889/]Obama calls for restoration of Voting Rights Act[/link]
President Obama will mark the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act Thursday by calling on Congress to restore the law and urging people to register to vote.
Obama will discuss the landmark voting law at a national teleconference in the afternoon with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and voting rights advocates.
In a civil rights speech in Selma, Ala. in March, Obama called the Voting RIghts Act “one of the crowning achievements of our democracy.” But he also said the law “stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor.”
-
The racists think it’s time to come out of the closet. This poor customer is being discriminated against, she said,
I got a right to have whatever I want and thats it. No, I dont feel bad about nothing.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/10/black-delivery-driver-replaced-by-manager-after-lowes-customer-demands-white-employee/]http://www.washingtonpost…emands-white-employee/[/link]
Marcus Bradley, a delivery driver for Lowes Home Improvement in Danville, Va., was making a routine delivery last week when, he said, he received a call from a manager asking him to return the shipment to work.
I asked him why I couldnt do it, and he said because youre black and they dont want you at the house, Bradley [link=http://www.wset.com/story/29719850/lowes-delivery-driver-says-store-halted-a-delivery-because-hes-black]told ABC affiliate WSET[/link].
Bradley said his manager told him the customer gave the company specific instructions not to send a black employee to the home. When Bradley returned to the store, he was replaced by a white driver, WSET reported.
Bradley, an 11-year veteran of the company, said he was shocked, and so was fellow deliveryman Alex Brooks, who has worked with Bradley for years and was sitting next to him in the delivery truck when the manager called.
To me, it just aint right for a business that we work at to go on with the womans wishes, Brooks told WSET.
Brooks, who is white, told the station he refused to get back in the truck and complete the delivery without his longtime partner.
Chris Ahearn, a Lowes spokeswoman, told The Washington Post that the manager involved in the incident has been fired and that the company wants its drivers to know that we back them completely.
She should have claimed a religious exception.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Just let’s be sure to remember that for many American citizens, “3 bucks” puts the daily bread on the table for a family of four. That assumes they already know what “notarized” means (the [i]additional[/i] cost of notarization, notwithstanding).
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health.
“Them?” As in “those people?”
There is a long list of “those people” throughout history. -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Just let’s be sure to remember that for many American citizens, “3 bucks” puts the daily bread on the table for a family of four. That assumes they already know what “notarized” means (the [i]additional[/i] cost of notarization, notwithstanding).
For most of them, not eating for one day would be rather beneficial to their health.
“Them?” As in “those people?”
There is a long list of “those people” throughout history.
Yipes, be careful Frumious. You are tip-toeing on the hot coals of objectvitiy and “facts” again. You risk getting burned.
-
[duplicate deleted, sorry]
-
Then again, maybe I’m wrong and too pessimistic.
[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/no-the-voting-rights-act-is-not-dead/277281/]http://www.theatlantic.co…ct-is-not-dead/277281/[/link]
What [link=http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/on-voting-rights-a-decision-as-lamentable-as-plessy-or-dred-scott/276455/]the Court actually did[/link] was invalidate Section 4 of the law, which lays out the jurisdictions — mainly, but not all, in the South — that must get federal approval for any changes to voting-related laws. The Court didn’t touch Section 5, the part that imposes the so-called “preclearance” requirement; it just told Congress to better formulate and justify the areas affected by it. But the analysts believe that killing Section 4 will, in practice, constitute a death blow to Section 5, because conservative Republicans in Congress will block passage of a new bill that addresses the Court’s objections.
If that is indeed the case, it would be a powerful testament to changes in Congress and the Republican Party in just a few years. Think about it: In 2006, when the VRA was [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/voting-rights-act-congress_n_2829246.html]reauthorized 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House[/link], Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress.
Plenty of supporters told civil-rights advocates they were crazy to think they could get legislation through a gridlocked, Republican-controlled House and Senate back in 2006, noted Fernandes. “There was pessimism about the prospects for bipartisanship in 2004, when we first started working on the reauthorization,” she told me. “It turns out it wasn’t true at all. These guys worked together in a bipartisan way only seven years ago. We need to remind people that there are legislators from both parties who care deeply about protecting the right to vote.” For civil-rights advocates, the worst outcome would be to give up the fight for a new Voting Rights Act before it’s even begun.
-
Then there is also the issue of redistricting so abusive the courts rule it’s purpose is deliberate discrimination, as in Texas.
[link=http://www.thenation.com/blog/169602/federal-court-blocks-discriminatory-texas-redistricting-plan#ixzz2VAjBVLFk]http://www.thenation.com/…ing-plan#ixzz2VAjBVLFk[/link]In December of last year, the Justice Department asserted that Texass [link=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/justice_department_signals_concerns_with_rick_perrys_texas_redistricting_map.php]redistricting plans[/link] for Congress and the state legislature violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice. Today a three-judge federal court in Washington [link=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39233]concurred with DOJ[/link], writing that Texass redistricting plans were enacted with discriminatory purpose and did not deserve preclearance under Section 5.
-
Quote from Frumious
Then there is also the issue of redistricting so abusive the courts rule it’s purpose is deliberate discrimination, as in Texas.
[link=http://www.thenation.com/blog/169602/federal-court-blocks-discriminatory-texas-redistricting-plan#ixzz2VAjBVLFk]http://www.thenation.com/…ing-plan#ixzz2VAjBVLFk[/link]
In December of last year, the Justice Department asserted that Texass [link=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/justice_department_signals_concerns_with_rick_perrys_texas_redistricting_map.php]redistricting plans[/link] for Congress and the state legislature violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice. Today a three-judge federal court in Washington [link=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39233]concurred with DOJ[/link], writing that Texass redistricting plans were enacted with discriminatory purpose and did not deserve preclearance under Section 5.
Whites are now a minority in Texas, 38% of the state is hispanic. If they show up to vote, they will be represented. -
You are wasting your time, kpack. Voter ID is only a minor inconvenience at worst which is why the Right has devoted so much time and effort into it.
-
My point which you avoided was not cost
in Pennsylvania it’s 10 bucks
But it took me 8 months to get it despite the fact I had my original birth certificate from the hospital I was born at, a passport and a valid drivers license from another state
-
Quote from kpack123
But it took me 8 months to get it despite the fact I had my original birth certificate from the hospital I was born at, a passport and a valid drivers license from another state
Nothing on the vital records website states that it has to be a PA drivers license. Sounds like someone screwed up.
-
Fw
Yes. The vital records tells you nothing until you give them your credit card number and they bill you
Then they screw you over
So see it is not what it seems
-
There are millions of eligible voters who have no form of identification……..
-
Quote from Ben Casey
There are millions of eligible voters who have no form of identification……..
= not eligible to vote. If you think there are more people denied than are created out of thin air to vote without ID, you are as big a partisan hack as Noah’s Ark et al here.
Asking to prove you are a citizen, A CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to vote, is normal/common sense/healthy. Acting as if this request is burdensome, when much lesser things in society require it, not even considered by the Constitution, is delusional. A classic example of brainless lefty thinking since all they do is ends justify the means. The pawns they are trying to use for this endgame (the ones they claim to help) makes it actually hysterical. -
Sorry Cigar. Thought everyone would get the sarcasm. I agree with you.
-
Quote from Cigar
Quote from Ben Casey
There are millions of eligible voters who have no form of identification……..
= not eligible to vote. If you think there are more people denied than are created out of thin air to vote without ID, you are as big a partisan hack as Noah’s Ark et al here.
Asking to prove you are a citizen, A CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to vote, is normal/common sense/healthy. Acting as if this request is burdensome, when much lesser things in society require it, not even considered by the Constitution, is delusional. A classic example of brainless lefty thinking since all they do is ends justify the means. The pawns they are trying to use for this endgame (the ones they claim to help) makes it actually hysterical.
For the record, I totally agree with you. The problem is that the Republican hacks tried to pull the photo ID thing something like 60 days before the election. From my perspective, that imposes an undo hardship on the poor, sick, and disabled.
Pass a law with a reasonably longer grace period, then you are approaching fair legislation.
-
Quote from fw
The discrimination from requiring ID is a canard.
The canard is the stated reason for an ID, “voter fraud.”
-
Melowese Richardson, 58, of Madisonville pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting including voting three times for a relative who has been in a coma since 2003 in exchange for prosecutors dropping four other illegal voting charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman immediately convicted her, making her a felon.
Yea, its hard to vote 4 times if you have to show an ID. -
Quote from Ben Casey
Melowese Richardson, 58, of Madisonville pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting including voting three times for a relative who has been in a coma since 2003 in exchange for prosecutors dropping four other illegal voting charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman immediately convicted her, making her a felon.
Yea, its hard to vote 4 times if you have to show an ID.
You have to show ID for absentee ballots?
How? -
Melowese Richardson wishes there were voter ID laws. Maybe she wouldn’t be going to prison if there were.
-
This is not solely about voter ID
Basically any locale can now change any rule anytime
Even if it is illegal the election will be over by the time the case is heard
Again. This is Jim Crowe 2013 style
-
Quote from fw
The first little old lady who is being turned down for a state ID or concealed carry permit (one of the approved forms of ID) will have standing to challenge that law in federal court and hordes of civil rights division lawyers will assist her to file for an injunction.
I guess you didn’t listen up in civics class. Either the house or senate initiates a bill. Once the initiating chamber passes the bill, it is then read in the other chamber and voted on. The president signs it and it becomes a public law. Nothing to it.
It is dead because democrats will try to go back to the old system where they could tell the red states how to run their elections through the back door. If someone comes up with an equitable formula that is not clearly rigged to favor certain candidates, it will get passed.
Gerrymandering and voter suppression cut both ways. In MD the demecrats redistricted their republican congressmen out of their districts when they had the chance to do so after the last census. They are no better, all too glad to play dirty if they have the chance to get away with it.
You mean the little old lady who gets to court after she’s already been denied her vote.
Thanks for the obtuse civics lesson, you understand that at least. Now who are you going to get to vote for your new rules? Oh, you mean Congressmen. I never quite put it together before. Brilliant.
Historically many red states discriminated. Historically many people died, as in murdered when they tried to redress that discrimination. It only stopped when the Feds told the States they can’t do that. That’s “telling” States how to run their elections? Libertarians think discrimination is a prerogative? But that was the bad old days, true. Nowadays we are more polite, instead of violence we just create obstacles to suppress the Democratic voters.
There’s a fairly simple way to address gerrymandering aka, “rigging,” don’t allow Parties to create the districts, have a neutral party do it and set up open rules on how it will be done. Equitably. Let the chips fall… -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
The first little old lady who is being turned down for a state ID or concealed carry permit (one of the approved forms of ID) will have standing to challenge that law in federal court and hordes of civil rights division lawyers will assist her to file for an injunction.
You mean the little old lady who gets to court after she’s already been denied her vote.
No, when she gets turned down for one of the forms of ID months before the election because the DMV doesn’t want to accept her documents as valid.
In my experience of working with ‘marginally documented’ adults is that the social security administration will bend over backwards to accept nontstandard documentation of birth and so does the DMV once you get to the level of a supervisor rather than the drones at the front-desk.
Historically many red states discriminated. Historically many people died, as in murdered when they tried to redress that discrimination.
That was in the past. Now many of the jurisdiction who were guilty of this are run by minorities. The court recognized that times have changed, the democrats want to continue to use historic misdeeds as as a tool to do todays politics.
There’s a fairly simple way to address gerrymandering aka, “rigging,” don’t allow Parties to create the districts, have a neutral party do it and set up open rules on how it will be done. Equitably. Let the chips fall…
And when this happened, as in California after the last census, the crying and gnashing of teeth over the loss of some guaranteed democratic districts could be heard all over the country. -
Quote from fw
It is dead because democrats will try to go back to the old system where they could tell the red states how to run their elections through the back door.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-roberts-court-casts-aside-judicial-restraint-on-voting-rights-act-case/2013/06/25/c4bb645e-dddc-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…248b21f94c4_story.html[/link]
Yet, Congress concluded in 2006, the last time that it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, that the formula was still very relevant.
Congress spent months in 2006 amassing a massive record to show that, even though the first generation of discriminatory voting measures had been eradicated, subtler but significant forms of discrimination in jurisdictions subject to pre-clearance remained serious and pervasive. Lawmakers also considered evidence that discrimination still occurs disproportionately in those places. Because people and places change, Congress allowed jurisdictions with 10 years of good behavior to bail out of pre-clearance. It also allowed courts to bail in jurisdictions if need be. Both were essential elements of the system, allowing it to adapt to changing realities. That was the basis upon which a 390 to 33 majority in a Republican-controlled House and a 98 to 0 majority in a Republican Senate determined that pre-clearance requirements remained rational policy that deserved extension until 2031.
That’s called judicial activism among other less generous names.
-
.
-
Quote from RVU
Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act is no longer needed and has run it’s course. Proof is in who is elected in these states.
Routinely, minorities of either party are elected to office in these states weighted down by the Washington micromanagement. Right now there are three minority southern senators (3 of the 20 possible senate seats in the 10 states covered in toto by the 50 yr old outdated law). The liberals seem to ignore Sens. Rubio, Cruz and Scott as minorities since they are conservative republicans. There are also two minority southern governors again ignored by the lefts arguments because theyre conservative. Over 1/3 of the black congressional caucus comes from these states. And there’s real not imaginary Gerrymangering to get radical minority libs into office (i.e. NC district 12) enforced by obamas DOJ. It’s simply not needed.
How blind can you, and everyone else who uses this “argument” be? How do you think minorities have gotten elected in Southern states? It is because the Voting Rights Act prohibited the very actions that the Supreme Court has now given a green light. This decision is shameful.
-
So lets be honest…this was an activist decision where SCOTUS substituted their judgment for Congress and leaves themselves the arbiter of any future formulas without guiding how they can be lawfully created. There were 12,000 pages of evidence at the re-authorization hearings and the law passed with Republican majorities and a Republican President. The law and its formula had previously been determined to be constitutional.
Now the practical impact is that DOJ will have to challenge new voter laws in court rather then striking them down which will primarily benefit attorneys and simply leave this to lower courts–which is why the right also does not want to seat any new judges
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
Hey, I’m just askin’ what happens to the “have nots” in that superpower nation of yours.
They, too, can have self-determination. One can freely go to your generous welfare nanny state or come to my “rugged individualism” land.
-
-
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
More liberal histrionics. There is equal protection so how can you justify different voting rules for northerners and southerners over discrimination that happened 50yrs ago?
Affirmative Action/set-asides/quotas whatever you want to call them-are the water horses and dogs used against everybody else in society not labeled as ‘oppressed’. In other words, the industrious. Think of just about any obama regulation or policy suggestion, it takes from the industrious as if he was Bull Conner reincarnate.-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-ruling-heres-what-you-need-to-know/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-ruling-heres-what-you-need-to-know/[/link]
Lux over reacting.
-
-
-
Quote from Thor
[font=”courier new,courier”][b][b] [/b][/b][/font][b] [/b][b]Section 1.[/b] 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.[b]Section 2.[/b] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriatelegislation
What Part of the 15th amendment does Scalia not understand? Is the Constitution not supreme? The Constitution gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote. That SCOTUS is even thinking about overturning an amendment is reprehensible. Nothing in this amendment gives SCOTUS the power to determine whether legislation is appropriate or not
In reading this, one would think that the entire law was struck down.
Not so.
Only Sections 4 and 5 were struck down, leaving the heart of the legislation, prohibiting discrimination in voting, intact. Sections 4 and 5 were meant to be temporary measures, to correct the “exceptional conditions” of the Jim Crow south. Obviously the South now is not the same as it was in 1964. Sections 4 and 5 were constructed using 40 year old data, and are the same as they were then. The racial gap in states covered by sections 4 and 5 is less than the national average. In some covered jurisdictions, blacks have registered and voted in higher proportions than whites.
Can we not admit a success and move on?
That is what this decision does, in fact.
-
Well yes we do have to move on and I said above the practical consequence is only the lack of pre-clearance…However, what you quoted of mine still stands in regards to the decision. Why is SCOTUS deciding “the problem is solved”; the is simply a usurpation of power given in the Constitution to Congress
-
To remind…this is not only about voting but also redistricting plans
In some cases, black congressional members in Texas had economic drivers such as sporting arenas freshly carved out of their districts, though “no such surgery” was performed on any belonging to white incumbents, according to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Anglo district boundaries were redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent’s grandchildren,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, writing the 154-page opinion for the three-judge panel.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/texas-redistricting-blocked_n_1837364.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/texas-redistricting-blocked_n_1837364.html[/link]-
Identify the quote:
“That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.”
A liberal fuming at the VRA decision?
Oops..it is Scalia from his DOMA dissent..such an inconsistent little hobgoblin he is
-
-
-
In 2006 a bipartisan Congress agreed that issues still remained, albeit much more subtle than the outright violence committed during Civil Rights & Jim Crow eras. The oversight control did much to guarantee rights previously denied. Whether that changes things for minorities will have to be seen but they also have an obligation to protect their rights.
-
-
-
-
-
Regardless of how juvenile Scalia is, what’s going on is pretty clear. The Republicans are running around like chickens without heads as they circle the drain, and so they’re looking for any way to change the political infrastructure to their advantage. One no-brainer think they can do is revisit old-ass laws and see which of them can be changed in their favor. They’ve done it with various redistricting ploys, and they’re desperately trying to do it with voter ID cards. They’re running out of headway with that at this point, so they need to look elsewhere, and anything having to do with laws that could be construed to differentially affect a Democratic demographic vs. Republican demographic is fair game.
I agree actaully. I’m all for smoking out obsolete laws and tweaking them to keep up with modern times. That’s why I’m in favor of imposing more regulation on the Second Amendment (which already does mandate that it always be “well regulated”). In fact, I agreed with Reagan about not being in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment because, as Reagan said, it was redundant with what the Constitution’s equal protection provisions. Likewise, if the laws have changed since ’65 to better regulate voter equality, then let’s revisit older laws that have become obsolete. It’s up to the attorneys presenting to SCOTUS to make their case. The judges must consider the presentations, but if the lawyers give SCOTOS “garbage in”, then don’t be shocked when the ruling from SCOTUS is “garbage out”.
-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-voting-rights-act/2021/02/27/11ade0f8-7870-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics]https://www.washingtonpos…m_campaign=wp_politics[/link]
Supreme Court to again consider federal protections for minority voters[/h1]
The court on Tuesday will review the shield provided by the Voting Rights Act (VRA), first passed in 1965 to forbid laws that result in discrimination based on race.
The cases at the Supreme Court involve two voting regulations from Arizona that are in common use across the country. One throws out the ballots of those who vote in the wrong precinct. The other restricts who may collect ballots cast early for delivery to polling places, a practice then-President Donald Trump denounced as ballot harvesting.
But the greater impact will be the test that the increasingly conservative court develops for proving violations of the VRA, as new laws are proposed and state legislatures begin redrawing congressional and legislative districts following the 2020 Census.
[/QUOTE]
-
On the radio I heard there is something like 500+ pieces of regulation that are in state governments to restrict voting. Mostly targeting minorities, poor, and old people. That HR1 bill needs to pass in the US congress.
-
[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/541985-biden-presses-congress-to-restore-voting-rights-act]Biden pressing Congress to restore Voting Rights Act
[/link]
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, holding that times have changed and blatant voter discrimination was rare, contrary to the assault that was taking place on the ground, Bide will say. The late Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg wrote that the decision was like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm. Today, we have a hail storm, not a rain storm.
Biden will also hail the unprecedented voter turnout seen in 2020, despite the coronavirus pandemic, but condemn both the Jan.6 riots by former [link=https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump]President Trump[/link]’s at the U.S. Capitol attempting to overturn the results and proposed state legislation restricting voting.
The presidents remarks come on the 56[sup]th[/sup] anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when Alabama state troopers tear-gassed and beat peaceful civil rights protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma in 1965. The measure to restore the Voting Rights Act is named after the late civil rights leader Rep. [link=https://thehill.com/people/john-lewis]John Lewis[/link] (D-Ga.), who suffered skull fractures in the incident. President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law that August.
A few days before he passed, Jill and I spoke with John, Congressman Lewis. But instead of answering our concerns about him, how are you doing, John, he asked us to stay focused on the work left undone to heal and to unite this nation around what it means to be an American, Biden will say at the breakfast. Thats the Gods truth. John wouldnt talk about his pending death or his concerns. He said we just got to get this done.
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-01/supreme-court-puts-new-limits-on-voting-rights-act-in-6-3-ruling?srnd=premium]https://www.bloomberg.com…-3-ruling?srnd=premium[/link]
[h1][b]Supreme Court Puts Limits on Voting Rights Act in 6-3 Ruling[/b][/h1]
Voting 6-3, the court [link=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf]said[/link] Arizona didnt violate the landmark 1965 law with its criminal ban on what critics call ballot harvesting and its practice of rejecting ballots cast in the wrong precinct.
The ruling builds on a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that wiped out part of the Voting Rights Act. In the latest decision, the courts conservative majority laid out a tough legal test when a different part of the law, known as Section 2, is invoked to challenge policies that make it harder for minorities to register and vote.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the rules were justified in part to prevent fraud. Fraud is a real risk that accompanies mail-in voting even if Arizona had the good fortune to avoid it, Alito wrote.
The three liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented.
What is tragic here is that the court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to Americas greatness, and protects against its basest impulses, Kagan wrote for the group.
[/QUOTE]
-
Alito is a lying, disingenuous, moose knuckle.
-
Rick Hasen: Its been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alitos majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. Im angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken.
In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud.
-
Rick Hasen: Its been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alitos majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. Im angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken.
In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud.
-
Nah, Alito’s clock is much older. It’s an “original,” made long before 1982.
As an “Originalist,” Alito is angry he was born late and his opinions show it, wishing the original language, understanding and enforcement of the Constitution was still in effect.
All of it. -
Conservatives have always been against the idea of the VRA. Hell, they were against the idea of the Federal government “overreaching” against segregation and Jim Crow and its “separate but [i](not near)[/i] equal” treatment under the law. Alito and the Court’s Conservatives are firm believers in “State’s Rights” and all the evil it stands for as this decision clearly shows.
[link=https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/justice-alito-eviscerates-voting-rights-act-with-masterclass-of-sophistry/]https://abovethelaw.com/2…terclass-of-sophistry/[/link]
Theres a reason that the word sophistry is generally preceded by the word empty in common parlance. The ancient school of thought is remembered these days for elevating style through semantic games, logical fallacies, or outright trickery over substance.
And its a worldview put on full display at the Supreme Court this morning in [link=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf]Brnovich v. DNC[/link], as Justice Alito took a sledgehammer to what remains of the Voting Rights Act in the aftermath of Shelby County.
Despite some wishful thinking that dragging out this opinion hinted at Alitos opinion falling apart at the last minute, the six Republican-appointed justices duly lined up to take a swing at the VRA. If there were any behind-the-scenes quibbles at the last minute it would have been to fend off possible concurrences that might weaken Alitos assault on the law. As it was, the conservatives didnt waiver from the majority, leaving only a short statement from Justices Gorsuch and Thomas questioning whether or not theres a private right of action to enforce voting rights at all. Alito didnt say the VRA is non-existent, but functionally its hard to tell whats left.
It may not look like much, but with some word game fun, a law created to stand vigilantly skeptical of laws imposing barriers on specific demographics of voters is transformed into restrictions are presumptively legal if the state claims that it burdens minority voters in the interest of preventing fraud.’ Orwell has already shown up in this article and while, as a writer, I hate going to that well all the time, this SCOTUS-approved listicle does feel like rewriting half a century of civil rights law to say but some are more equal than others.
[blockquote][i]To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations, no matter how crafted, may well result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and noncompliance with voting rules.[/i]
[/blockquote] Theres a lot of attention around critical race theory these days and its mostly a catch-all term for not saying white people are awesome but this is an actualexample of where critical race theory would fit in. Where neutral is set to exclude employment, wealth, and education its being set to guarantee the scales are tipped and to suggest otherwise is just being deliberately obtuse about the state of everything in this country in 2021. But deliberately obtuse is a core facet of the voting rights assault.
[b]The threat to democracy posed by the Supreme Court at this juncture is palpable. Unelected, life-tenured jurists the majority appointed by presidents who entered office having lost the popular vote have rewritten a duly enacted law for the express purpose of limiting the franchise. Congress is a dysfunctional sideshow and the Supreme Court is apparently eager to rewrite legislation to enshrine their right-wing impulses knowing that Congress is incapable of passing legislation to counter the Courts word games.[/b]
[b][i]The Sophists have won. Its all just mummery at this point[/i].[/b]
-
-
-
-
-
-
