Reply With Quote
hey, wait a minute...Scalia and Alito are both fascist dego wop pieces of , they just add to the mountain of evidence about how slimy and untrustworthy Italians are
The same problem mysteriously popped up in black areas of Ohio in 2004 when it had a Republican governor. Urban areas had 7-8 hour waits late in the day so a lot of people eventually left. There was one polling place in inner city Cleveland where only 7% of the registered voters voted.
hey, wait a minute...Scalia and Alito are both fascist dego wop pieces of , they just add to the mountain of evidence about how slimy and untrustworthy Italians are
ok so explain to me like im 5 years old. What are the pros and cons of this
We've seen when Repugs take control of a state, they immediately start suppressing voters, so now they will be encouraged, esp in the racist Confederate states under VRA Sec 4, to push harder and faster to disenfranchise as many Dem voters as they can, but the real prize is purple/swing states, since they already ed over Dem voters in red states.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-25-2013 at 08:37 PM.
u mean u got to have proof of ID to loot the treasury!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cuz they all be voting thrice
^ I'm just glad to see racism isn't a problem anymore.
Not quite two hours after the decision came down, Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general for the state of Texas, announced the state’s voter identification law—which had been blocked last year by the Justice Department, thanks to protections afforded under the VRA—would go into effect.
“With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said in a statement. “Redistricting maps passed by the legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”
Voter ID laws are also now expected to go into effect in Mississippi and South Carolina.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ality+Check%29
red states, Confederate states love the Cons ution, love American democracy so much they MUST disenfranchise as many Dems as possible. Regugs, the VRWC to .
Just out of curiosity, why the selective outrage over racism? On the first pag of this thread you had some pretty damn racist comments about Thomas. Yet noone that leans left seems to care because he has a different set of beliefs regarding the cons ution.
Demographics are still changing, and while I know this will likely bring a good amount of attempts at race-based gerrymandering and vote suppression, it's just stuff that's not sustainable over time.
What you quoted was my first post in this thread. I challange you to find a single racists comment I've ever made on this forum.
not sustainable?
Congress will not re-do VRA Section 4. Repugs, who will exploit this bull ruling for decades, will block any attempt.
voter obstacles will proliferate and remain in place indefinitely. now completely sustainable.
I was not referring to any racist comment you made. I was simply referring to the overt racist statements made by other posters on page one but you only seem to care when its Ignignokt. Its really not that big of a deal but I just thought the selective outrage was par for the course. It seems strange that no one cares when people insult Thomas because he is not the right kind of black.
Thanks To The Supreme Court, Wendy Davis Will Probably Lose Her Senate Seat
On the very same day that Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) drew national attention for stopping a bill that would have closed every abortion clinic in the state and outlawed abortion after 20 weeks, the Supreme Court gutted the law that kept her in office in the first place.
In fact, just an hour before Davis launched into her 13-hour filibuster on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act that kept discriminatory voting laws from going into effect in areas of the country with histories of disenfranchisement. That includes states like Texas, where in 2011 the GOP sought to change the demographic composition of Davis’ district, who was elected in 2008 with strong support from minority voters.
As MSNBC’s Zachary Roth reported, lawmakers moved “tens of thousands of black and Hispanic voters into neighboring districts” and as a result, “of the 94 precincts that were over 70 percent minority, Republicans cut out 48,” effectively separating black and Hispanic voters and preventing them from forming a sizable majority.
Davis and the Department of Justice used Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — which allows the federal government to review election changes in areas of the country with a history of racial discrimination — to challenge the changes in court. In August of 2012, a panel of federal judges found that “substantial surgery” was done to predominantly black districts, cutting off representatives’ offices from their strongest fundraising bases, and blocked the changes,
“The map-drawers consciously replaced many of the district’s active Hispanic voters with low-turnout Hispanic voters in an effort to strengthen the voting power of [the district’s] Anglo citizens,” the judges wrote and accused Texas officials of trying to decrease the effectiveness of minority voters.
Following the ruling, Davis’s district lines were mostly restored and she was re-elected “by a nearly identical margin to her 2008 victory.”
But that victory could be short lived. Just two hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that the state would advance a voter ID law and the very same redistricting map that was designed to keep Davis out of office.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...r-senate-seat/
An. That's a fair point. If the amount of racism on this site was representative of the racism in the US, we're ed.
lol thinkprogress
it doesn't matter... there's only so much corralling you can do when you're heading towards being a minority... eventually, it will burst
Congressman Marc Veasey Is Suing the State of Texas to Stop Enforcement of Its Voter ID Law
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa...s_sui.php#more
http://txredistricting.org/post/5395...s-to-bar-texas
Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Decision Unpopular: Poll
Americans have mixed feelings about the Supreme Court's latest rulings, with a majority disapproving of its opinion on the Voting Rights Act, but in favor of two pro-gay marriage opinions, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday.
Just a third said they agree with the court's decision to strike down part of the Voting Rights Act, while 51 percent disagreed.
Knowledge about, and disapproval of, the VRA decision was especially high among African Americans, 71 percent of whom expressed disagreement with the ruling. Just 3 percent were undecided, while 16 percent of all adults had no opinion.
Other racial groups, however, also disapproved: Hispanic Americans disagreed by 50 percent while 40 percent agreed, and whites disagreed by 48 to 33 percent.
The Supreme Court decisions to expand gay marriage were far more popular, with a majority approving of both. Fifty-one percent supported the ruling that allowed gay marriage in California, while 45 percent opposed it. Approval for the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing same-sex couples to receive federal benefits, was even wider, with 56 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving.
Opinions on the gay marriage rulings, like those on the topic generally, remain sharply divided among party lines. Democrats supported the rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 by 68 percent and 62 percent, respectively, compared to just 36 percent and 29 percent among Republicans. Younger adults were also more likely to approve: 67 percent of those ages 18 to 39 approved of the decision on DOMA, while just 41 percent of those 65 and over agreed.
These views on the rulings echo other polling on gay marriage, which generally shows a rising tide in public support that's recently become a majority. An ABC/Post survey in June found that 57 percent of Americans say gay and lesbians should be allowed to marry legally, and 63 percent say that the federal government should give equal benefits to married gay couples.
The most recent poll surveyed 1,005 adults by phone between June 26 and June 30.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tent=NewsEntry
Of course, the racist Repug Congresscritters will obstruct, or at least gut/defund, all attempts to "correct" VRA section 4.
uh-huh.
"massive vote fraud, people voting dozens of times... it happens, I heard it on Fox "news". I'm outraged!!"
.... um "okaaay, can you prove this happens a lot?"
"OH MY GOD, LOOK OVER THERE!!!!" (scurries off)
GTFO
This pair of decisions pretty much sealed Scalia's legacy, as a hypocritcal, activist judge.5 - 4, natcherly
Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.
The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, found that “things have changed dramatically” in the South nearly 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was signed.
The court’s opinion said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the cons utionality of the Voting Rights Act” back in 2009. “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] uncons utional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”
Congress, the court ruled, “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”
“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” the majority said.
Nevertheless, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a wide-ranging dissent on behalf of herself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, justifying the continued vitality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision.
"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear*ance is no longer needed."
As for Section 4, Ginsburg wrote that "the record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear [that] second-generation barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as at*tempted subs utes for the
first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3429810.html
Next time some conservative complains about "activist" judges, Ima slap 'em.
He pretty much came out in one opinion about a law he agrees with saying "We don't have the authority to strike down laws passed democratically", and then turned right around and did just that to something he didn't like.
What an asshole.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
