bruh the abortion thing is obviously a conservative plot to prevent births, since they know young voters go democrat.
"obviously", you are typically wrong.
the TX anti-abortion charade is to appease the Repug Christian Taliban base.
TX abortions will go up from 80K/year to est 100K year.
The absence of perinatal care (plus backstreet abortions) for poor women will increase infant and maternal deaths.
while i'm generally pro-abortion, i dont think its the government's responsibility to worry about potential dangers of illegal acts.
TX Repugs' sociopathic laws encourage, force illegal acts, unnecessary sickness, disability, and deaths, but "Christ Told Them To Do It"
no. that's lazy excuse making.
wrong. (Free) contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions. TX Repugs have admitted a War on Contraception to go along with Christ's War on Abortion and Feminazis.
Planned Parenthood and other women's health clinics did much, much more than abortion, which was a tiny percentage of their activity.
Perinatal care of fetus, child, mother is critical for poor women of low education.
TX Repugs have killed most of it.
And they have refused to help the same population, killing some of them, by refusing to expand Medicaid.
nobody is forcing them to undergo illegal abortions. if they want to commit an illegal act, its on them. and that includes potential dangers of it. if you want to argue of what "should" be legal or illegal, that's an entirely different discussion, and one where we'd probably agree on most counts
Utterly BOGUS Ruling by 5th Circuit Reinstates Texas Voter ID Law
As most here have likely heard, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals--arguably the nation's most conservative federal court--has stayed the order of US District Judge Nelva Conzales Ramos, which struck down the state's voter ID law. Ramos rightly termed the law an "uncons utional poll tax."
But the Fifth Circuit reinstated the law in the stated interest of "preserving the status quo." Not requiring a photo ID would require too much training for poll workers.
Pardon my "ahem."
"Status quo" means the way things are. The way things have been.
The way things have been in Texas are clear: you don't need a photo ID to cast a vote. That's the way it was in 2012, when Mitt Romney carried the state by 16 points. That's the way it was in 2008, when John McCain won the state by 12.
Implementing a voter ID law is not "status quo" for Texas. Implementing a photo ID law does require intensive, new training for Texas poll workers and will invite chaos to countless Lone Star precincts come election day.
What is most infuriating about this ruling is that Ramos hit the nail on the head regards the primary effect of the law: disenfranchising minorities. Stopping "voter fraud" has nothing to do with it. , the
lawyers arguing for the law told reporters that people without IDs should just vote absentee, the method of voting proven most susceptible to fraud.
The Fifth Circuit's stay order is a blow against fairness and equal treatment, based on self-evidently wrong arguments and is nakedly partisan, in that, three weeks before an election, it strongly benefits one major party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...w?detail=email
How specifically do "people without IDs should just vote absentee" ?
intensive training?
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-15-2014 at 04:00 PM.
again, this has nothing to do with our original argument. you're just going off on a tangent
Nice backtracking edit
wrong thread, GFY
BREAKING: Unanimous Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Voter ID Uncons utional
Late Wednesday afternoon, the Arkansas Supreme Court released a unanimous decision holding the voter ID law passed earlier this year in violation of the state’s cons ution. The judges wrote: “The legislature can not, under color of regulating the manner of holding elections…impose such restrictions as will have the effect to take away the right to vote as secured by the cons ution.”
“We are extremely pleased,” lead attorney Jeff Priebe told ThinkProgress. “This decision really shows the importance of voting. The Arkansas Cons ution holds that the right to vote is a fundamental right, the gateway to all others. It’s so important that we can’t erect additional qualifications that would keep people from voting.”
The ruling affirms a lower court ruling back in April, saying the law is “uncons utional on its face.”
Unlike cases in Texas and other states where court battles over voter ID laws delved into the merits of the law — with those on one side arguing they address voter fraud, and opponents accusing them of intentionally suppressing votes — the Arkansas case turned on a purely technical question: can the legislature add any more requirements to vote than those already listed in the state’s cons ution? The court said today they cannot.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...ncons ution/
ing Arkies can't even understand their own state Cons ution.
yawn, SCOTUS5 comes through FOR voter suppression
Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law
The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/supreme-court-voter-id_n_6007300.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=101814& utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory
The right-wing LIE is that aggressive Repug voter suppression has NO EFFECT on voter turnout, which is exactly why the Repugs suppress voting!
With Voter ID On Hold, Here’s What Wisconsin Republicans Have Planned For Election Day
a GOP official urged Republican activists to take matters into their own hands to prevent voter fraud.
Milwaukee County’s Republican Elections Commissioner Rick Baas warned a crowd of volunteers and supporters Friday night to be “concerned about voter fraud,” and urged the hundreds of attendees to take an “extra step of vigilance.” “You as a Wisconsin resident can challenge people who are not supposed to be voting,” he said at the Milwaukee County Republicans event. “You’ve got to do that.”
Under state law, voters, election workers, official observers, or any member of the public can challenge the validity of someone’s vote, but to do so, they must swear under oaththat they have firsthand knowledge that the person is not qualified to vote. A challenge cannot be based on a mere su ion or hunch.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...-at-the-polls/
iow, all y'all's Repug politicians, the ones YOU elect, are ASSHOLES.
that should dispel any remaining confusion among Texas voters without proper ID, how much the State of Texas and SCOTUS value their right to vote. niceties between the Federal Government and the States apparently trump it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-20-2014 at 01:11 PM.
SCOTUS didn't touch the merits, so maybe it comes up later and they rule the other way. who knows?
The game changed when they gutted the VRA a while ago. We might be treading new ground here.
High court action on Texas ID law shows mixed record on voting rights
Roberts spoke then for the court’s conservative majority in striking down part of a federal election law so as to allow a wealthy Republican businessman from Alabama to give more money to candidates across the country.
The contribution limit restricted the donor’s free speech, Roberts concluded, and the Cons ution requires the court to err on the side of safeguarding that cherished 1st Amendment protection.
But the right to vote, which is the way most Americans participate in a democracy, has gotten far less protection from the Supreme Court under Roberts.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1
iow, the 1%/corps are protected "speakers" in rigging elections with their $Bs of "votes", but Human-Americans can be restricted in voting through bull voter ID against the LIE of election-skewing voter fraud (counting fraud is ignored).
That possibility remains, but the refusal to stay enforcement of the law is certainly suggestive of a view of the law's cons utionality among the current members of the Court (Justice Ginsberg has let it be known in no uncertain terms how she feels about it).
From a cons utional/philosophical standpoint, it's an interesting exercise to juxtapose the Court's recent interim action on: (1) same-sex marriage; (2) the Texas abortion law; and (3) the Texas voter ID law.
Of the 3 issues, the least settled at the high court level would seem to be same-sex marriage and the Court has issued confusing signals about where it might stand on it (though the inconsistent recent orders may have had as much to do with simple mistakes as as with any revelation of doctrinal uncertainty).
Of the 3 issues, the ruling on the Texas abortion clinic law might involve the most settled area of cons utional law, and the Court acted swiftly to insist upon the continuing respect for its existing precedent as the status quo while the law makes its way to a merits-based determination.
Of the 3 issues, the voter ID law ruling is (I think) further demonstration of the Court's willingness to speak pla udes about fundamentalism while acting in a manner inconsistent with both precedent and those pla udes. Allowing Voter ID to stand is conceptually related to the sea-change in electoral politics that Citizens United has created (or, at least, is likely to create). Our cons utional law has long held out the franchise as the most sacrosanct of fundamental cons utional rights, but our society has rarely treated it that way. We've long engaged in expansive efforts to deny the franchise to particular groups and then to limit it when denial became untenable. While it has frequently said it wouldn't countenance efforts to make it harder to vote, the Court is now quite willing to make it harder to vote. And after once holding dear the notion that all voices should count equally in electoral politics, the Court has now made it quite clear that some voices should be heard more loudly and have greater opportunity to influence the way in which those who are able to manage to vote should cast their ballots.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 10-20-2014 at 02:14 PM.
that's well put, FWD. it looks that way to me, too.
hands up, everyone who's in favor of creating second-class voters ...
holy , how do they get in time to wipe their ass and take their meds??
You have the right to ONE vote. If the state is not handling the representative democracy process with integrity, then all your plat udes mean nothing
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
