RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/25/2013 6:37:20 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

At that point, so few governments had tried to free themselves from the advance approval requirement that, in 2009...............

You don't win the lottery if you don't play, so I am unsure how you can confuse this.

Who's confused.

The FIRST requirement was 17 years proven non discrimination against minorities - later amended to 10. PROOF for SEVENTEEN years. Hell you only have to keep tax returns for 7.
The second factor was minority election. Don't elect any minorities - can't get precleared. Regardless of merit. Thats a big red flag there.

Shelby county was forbidden bail out because there was ONE Setion 5 objection in ten years - against a single sub-unit - the town of Caldera.

These are all according to court filings. Go read the amicus briefs. The proof of the caldera allegation was never established. It didn't matter.
So long as any one - aclu, NAACP, the democratic party registered one objection - that was all it took for Shelby county to not be eligible for bailout.

So theoretically in a county with perhaps half a million employees - one allegation of impropriety was enough to derail bailout.

You don't think this qualifies as illusory? Especially with a hostile Justice department administering the law?

Get real.

Oh. And as for that 250 number (out of 12000)? It was actually 48 since 1984 when the bailout process was last amended. Les than 2 per year, over the last 29 years.

Regarding the elderly, special needs, etc et.al - texas is now in the same legal boat as colorado, nebraska, wyoming, New York etc. Which is as it should be.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/25/2013 6:44:24 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 21

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 7:38:48 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I am real, and you are somewhat less. What part of the law was not understood by you. One complaint in five years is one too many.

The only reason this was struck down was its age, had the law been streamlined for the here and now, it would have been a non issue, last update was 1975 or so.

quote:

The second factor was minority election. Don't elect any minorities - can't get precleared. Regardless of merit. Thats a big red flag there.

simple stats say that a minority should be elected at some point. and I am not going to read the amicae, because the case is decided, and not on grounds of discrimination, but on grounds of antiquity and current unsuitability.

What I think is illusory is that there is no schemes underway still to disinfranchise these voters. Voter ID legislation is running amok in all these teabagger welfare red states.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 22

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 3:23:16 PM

BitYakin

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And there goes voting rights in Texas.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-voter-id-law-could-start-now-attorney-general-greg-abbott.html/

I just checked no Texas DPS offices have any access for the elderly who cannot stand or for paraplegics or basically for anyone who cannot obtain a DL. So those people are now disenfranchised. They do get the chance to sue after they are actually denied the right to vote but the election results won't be changed and the process will of course take years and cost a lot of money. Even when the law is eventually tossed out, it is after all unconstitutional, the Texas legislature can simply pass another law and another after that.

SO I am just CURIOUS are you claiming the texas boter ID law is in violation of the TEXAS constitution or the US constitution?

cause the SC has already ruled voter ID laws are in and of themselves NOT unconstitutional and at this time 30 states currently have voter ID laws...

and therein lies the RUB, how can the feds DENY 9 states the right to do what 30 other have been allowed to do?

I mean really isn't that like sentancing someone to 10 years in prison then after thier 10 years are up saying wellll you did it once before sooo we're just going to make it a LIFE SENTANCE???

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 23

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 3:35:40 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am real, and you are somewhat less. What part of the law was not understood by you. One complaint in five years is one too many.

The only reason this was struck down was its age, had the law been streamlined for the here and now, it would have been a non issue, last update was 1975 or so.

quote:

The second factor was minority election. Don't elect any minorities - can't get precleared. Regardless of merit. Thats a big red flag there.

simple stats say that a minority should be elected at some point. and I am not going to read the amicae, because the case is decided, and not on grounds of discrimination, but on grounds of antiquity and current unsuitability.

What I think is illusory is that there is no schemes underway still to disinfranchise these voters. Voter ID legislation is running amok in all these teabagger welfare red states.

Ah sorry! Supreme Court apparently agreed with me. A bailout that could be denied on the basis of one allegation was illusory. So much for 'real'.

As for one allegation being to many man - are you kidding? The ex governor of pennsylvania (Dem ed rendell) admits they fabricated 200,000 votes and you're concerned about an allegation of ONE impropriety?

Well, theres no reasoning with you then.

As for the rest; I agree with you and I said the same thing. The statute was overturned because the remedy was no longer found to be consonant with the problem. Ie., nature of the south had changed, but the law continued to exact unreasonable burden on jurisdictions where it was no longer appropriate.

As for disenfranchisement in teabagger states - your ideological bias is obvious.

I will happily support every legal voter voting - if you will support making sure that those that aren't eligible don't.

You see it that voters are being disenfranchised. I see it as elections are being stolen. Lets work to a fair middle ground where fair elections are caried out, shall we?

Right now, I rather thing the balance of the evidence supports my side. For example - 130 cantons/precinct in PA & OH where not a single person voted for romney. Or Rendell admitting they fabricated 200,000 votes. OR dead people famously voting in Chicago. Or the democratic candidate that voted in both florida and virginia.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 24

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 3:43:25 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And there goes voting rights in Texas.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-voter-id-law-could-start-now-attorney-general-greg-abbott.html/

I just checked no Texas DPS offices have any access for the elderly who cannot stand or for paraplegics or basically for anyone who cannot obtain a DL. So those people are now disenfranchised. They do get the chance to sue after they are actually denied the right to vote but the election results won't be changed and the process will of course take years and cost a lot of money. Even when the law is eventually tossed out, it is after all unconstitutional, the Texas legislature can simply pass another law and another after that.

SO I am just CURIOUS are you claiming the texas boter ID law is in violation of the TEXAS constitution or the US constitution?

cause the SC has already ruled voter ID laws are in and of themselves NOT unconstitutional and at this time 30 states currently have voter ID laws...

and therein lies the RUB, how can the feds DENY 9 states the right to do what 30 other have been allowed to do?

I mean really isn't that like sentancing someone to 10 years in prison then after thier 10 years are up saying wellll you did it once before sooo we're just going to make it a LIFE SENTANCE???

It matters what the ID is and how hard it is to get. In this case many ID's that poor people, young people and old people have do not count. For instance college issued photo ID are not sufficient. In Texas just about the only things that will qualify is a Texas DL and a photo ID only available at the same locations that DL's are. Those DL facilities are only in 81 of the states 254 counties and there are parts of Texas where it is a 250 mile trip to the location serving that area. The demographics of those counties is also very telling, the more Hispanics, as a percentage of the total, the less likely the county is to have a DL office.

The courts already found the law was enacted for a discriminatory purpose (it is on appeal right now). So when it is brought back before the same courts, after citizens are denied their right to vote, the courts will again find against Texas.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 6/26/2013 3:47:05 PM >

(in reply to BitYakin)

Post #: 25

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 3:49:50 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Just finished rereading the ruling and realized something, Roberts says the map is unconstitutional but not how it is. So there is no guidance for what would be a constitutional preclearance map even though Roberts et al went out of their way to say that the preclearance requirement was in itself constitutional.

Roberts clearly does say why its unconstitution and by inference how.

Paraphrasing, he said that strenuous circumstances are grounds for imposing federal oversite into election law. However such a serious imposition into a state prerogative was only justified by serious and continuing disenfranchisement.

In reauthorizing the law, the congress relied on 25 year old data. That data was not sufficient to support the imposition of such drastic remedies.

This is why I said that those on the left got more than half a loaf here. The law was found to be constitutional. Which means that the federal government can institute new oversight into ANY area. All they have to do is pass new laws creating new maps.

This means if the republicans capture house and senate - they could impose sanctions on california, pennsylvania, new york -etc.

I oppose this.

The consittution clearly enumerates the right to vote. But federal oversite of state electoral policies - well I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. At least as currently constructed I think its a huge overreach.

To those on the left - how would you feel if a teabagger government got in and imposed the same remedies on you?

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/26/2013 3:50:40 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 26

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 3:53:17 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Rendell admitting they fabricated 200,000 votes

Citation would be helpful.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 27

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:05:03 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Rendell admitting they fabricated 200,000 votes

Citation would be helpful.

Can't find a functioning link any more taz. Was about March of 2012. It was in the Philly paper as well as times. He said that during his time in office they didn't necessarily follow all the rules and procedures for voting and that one they knew 1-2 hundred thousand votes were cast fraudulently.

But here is a similar aneqdotal link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/votes-romney-dozens-black-voters-prompt-cries-voter/story?id=17730238#1

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/darr/060322

or here:
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-philadelphia-democrats-will-use.html

The same kind of story - gop poll monitors removed from polling stations is documented here.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/nov/6/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-black-panthers-return-gop/

175000 fraudulent votes in florida here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/votes-romney-dozens-black-voters-prompt-cries-voter/story?id=17730238#3

108% of the vote in cleveland:
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/fraud-in-pa-obama-got-over-99-of-vote.html

10 counties in colorado have 104 to 180% voter participation - ie more voters than those registered.
http://www.examiner.com/article/voter-fraud-illegal-activities-reported-several-states

Election judge campaigning in polling place in violation of law; woman given two ballots:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/election-judge-wears-obama-cap-while-checking-voters-obamas-chicago-ward_661843.html

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/26/2013 4:43:30 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 28

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:06:15 PM

BitYakin

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The courts already found the law was enacted for a discriminatory purpose (it is on appeal right now). So when it is brought back before the same courts, after citizens are denied their right to vote, the courts will again find against Texas

I think you may be mistaken, and here is WHY, if it had been struck down as disciminatory in any lower court they would NOT be able to enact it immeadiatly as there would be a court order against it...

now I may be mistaken too, but I do think thats how it works, once a lower court rules against something it cannot be enacted unless they win an appeal in a higher court..

I don't know the exact wording of the texas law, but I do know this, 30 other state already have similar laws on the books, now if its ruled as to burdonsome then all they need to do is change it so the burdon is lessened

I have lived in texas, the people there seem to think going a hundred miles for something isn't that much of a BURDON...

and I'll also say this, if taking ONE DAY out of your life to get an ID so you can vote then maybe voting isn't really all that important to you anyhow. so unless the ID's have to be renewed with some frequency that means you have to set aside a day every 6 months or even once a year, I don't see it as so much a burdon

if you CHOSE to live some remote place, then you have to assume the BURDON of doing normal things is going to be traveling long distances to get it done

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 29

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:08:15 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The courts already found the law was enacted for a discriminatory purpose (it is on appeal right now). So when it is brought back before the same courts, after citizens are denied their right to vote, the courts will again find against Texas.

I don't think thats an accurate description of the court proceedings to date.

Texas voted a voter ID law (much as many other states have).
Justice department refused to preclear it.
Texas sued to have the law allowed.
The Court of appeals denied the suit.

Nonetheless, the appeal was against the justice department on the basis of the voter registration act.

So I'm pretty sure with the striking of section 5, the law goes into effect. Any attempt to block the law cannot rely on the previous proceedings but will have to start again.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 30

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:21:21 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Rendell admitting they fabricated 200,000 votes

Citation would be helpful.

Can't find a functioning link any more taz. Was about March of 2012. It was in the Philly paper as well as times. He said that during his time in office they didn't necessarily follow all the rules and procedures for voting and that one they knew 1-2 hundred thousand votes were cast fraudulently.

http://articles.philly.com/1993-12-02/news/25943544_1_voting-machines-absentee-votes-campaign-committee

Now, here is why I am wondering about the 200,000 votes.

That case should be significantly bolstered by the admission from the state itself that there is no history of in-person voter fraud in the state. Essentially it's a law in search of a problem.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/24/1113252/-Pennsylvania-admits-there-has-been-no-voter-fraud

As to the 200K number.. all I could find is this....

To: Born Conservative
According to CNN, Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry by 121,818 votes (out of more than 5.6 million cast - a razor thin margin).

Also according to CNN, Kerry received over 517,000 votes and Bush received over 124,000 votes in Philadelphia (or a ratio of 4.16 for Kerry).

Now, for the really interesting numbers. According to the recent US Census, the Population of Philadelphia that is of voting age is 1,105,066. This number includes people who by law can not vote (non-American citizens, felons, out of state college students, etc.). In 2004, there are 1,035,395 registered voters in Philadelphia, up 34,000 from 2001.

So, what does this mean?

First, even as Philadelphia looses population, the number of registered voters continues to increase year after year. Today, in Philadelphia, nearly 100% of every person of voting age must registered to vote (as compared to a national average of 60% by the Census Bureau). Second, the total lopsidedness of the 4.16 ratio is an absolutely astounding number - even heavily democratic Broward Country, FL (one of the only places Gore wanted recounted in 2000) only went for Kerry 2:1 and Cook County, IL (Chicago - THE definition of the democrat voting machine) only went for Kerry 2.5:1.

Either Philadelphia has the most engaged and civic population in the history of the World, or there is massive voter fraud.

And the amount of fraud easily exceeds the margin of loss of President Bush. For instance, if the registration was slightly above average and if Philadelphia was just your "average-democrat-rustbelt-city-union-stronghold with a 50 year democrat political machine," the vote for Kerry in Philadelphia would have been just over 300,000. The voter fraud in Philadelphia is worth about 200,000 votes - a deficit that any Republican running for statewide office must overcome with real votes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300493/posts

I dont think a posters views on what they believe constitutes being verified.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 31

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:43:14 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

I think there's a congressional district in Georgia that snakes and wiggles it's way from Atlanta all the way down to Savanna.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 32

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 4:45:40 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, I agree with what you reported tazzy, I know the case inquestion. But I also know what I saw. And very quickly like the next day - rendell was saying there wasn't any fraud. But I saw the newspaper article and I ain't lying.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/26/2013 4:47:28 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 33

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:16:02 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/darr/060322

2006 source... absentee ballots. ID would not prevent that.
........

quote:

http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-philadelphia-democrats-will-use.html

2004 source....Links broken... and pulling a gun for complaining?
..........

quote:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/nov/6/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-black-panthers-return-gop/

Long history of that.... And they were returned within an hour I do believe.
.......

quote:

175000 fraudulent votes in florida here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/votes-romney-dozens-black-voters-prompt-cries-voter/story?id=17730238#3

I asked about PA.

quote:

Where did all the extra votes come from? It turned out some voters had submitted their long ballots on two separate voting cards. Each card had been counted once, meaning many of the votes were double counted.

You do recall the hold up with Florida and the count, yes?

note* - turnout percentages will show over 100% due to a two page ballot. the tabulation system (GEMS) provides voter turnout as equal to the total cards cast in the election divided by the number of registered voters. also note that some voters chose not to return by mail the second card containing the amendments.

http://www.slcelections.com/election_results_2000's.htm#2012_Results

.........

quote:

108% of the vote in cleveland:
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/fraud-in-pa-obama-got-over-99-of-vote.html

No, Obama Didn�t Win 108 Percent of the Vote in an Ohio County

Well that would certainly be something, wouldn't it? If only there was some sort of independent ability to check the facts in the petition. Enter PolitiFact.com's Ohio branch, which does a typically hyperthorough job of dismantling the assertion. They trace the rumor to a blog post identifying Wood County, Ohio as the location of the 108 percent voter turnout. It seems that Wood County is home to Bowling Green college, which goes a long way toward accounting for the discrepancy between the Census-determined voting age population (98,213) and the number of registered voters (106,258 in September, 108,014 in November): Students aren't necessarily counted in the census and are also naturally transient meaning that there are a large number of inactive voters on the rolls (there are apparently a little more than 80,000 active voters in Wood County).

College Town... sorta clears that up.

...........

After all that, can you see how this all gets twisted?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 34

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:19:07 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yeah, I agree with what you reported tazzy, I know the case inquestion. But I also know what I saw. And very quickly like the next day - rendell was saying there wasn't any fraud. But I saw the newspaper article and I ain't lying.

Im not accusing you of lying. Problem is, the GOP here has stated that they have no record of voter fraud, they never looked.

Now, personally, I have no issue with voter ID laws. I had a major one with PA trying to push that law in less than 8 months, expecting 800,000 people to obtain all the documents needed to get their state ID cards, especially with many counties not having a DMV. Many of those people are elderly. I seem to recall someone saying that it could take months just to get a birth certificate if the information has to be verified.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 35

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:31:31 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yeah, I agree with what you reported tazzy, I know the case inquestion. But I also know what I saw. And very quickly like the next day - rendell was saying there wasn't any fraud. But I saw the newspaper article and I ain't lying.

Im not accusing you of lying. Problem is, the GOP here has stated that they have no record of voter fraud, they never looked.

Now, personally, I have no issue with voter ID laws. I had a major one with PA trying to push that law in less than 8 months, expecting 800,000 people to obtain all the documents needed to get their state ID cards, especially with many counties not having a DMV. Many of those people are elderly. I seem to recall someone saying that it could take months just to get a birth certificate if the information has to be verified.

I agree with you again. I think the law got stalled enough that when it was passed it was too close to the election.

I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

We have a legitimate interest in free, fair elections.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/26/2013 5:34:45 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 36

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:43:09 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

We do. But I dont think the fraud is at the voting polls.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 37

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:53:54 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Just finished rereading the ruling and realized something, Roberts says the map is unconstitutional but not how it is. So there is no guidance for what would be a constitutional preclearance map even though Roberts et al went out of their way to say that the preclearance requirement was in itself constitutional.

Roberts clearly does say why its unconstitution and by inference how.

Paraphrasing, he said that strenuous circumstances are grounds for imposing federal oversite into election law. However such a serious imposition into a state prerogative was only justified by serious and continuing disenfranchisement.

Nonsense. Congress quite specifically has the ability to set election standards and to enforce the 15th Amendment.

quote:

In reauthorizing the law, the congress relied on 25 year old data. That data was not sufficient to support the imposition of such drastic remedies.

This is why I said that those on the left got more than half a loaf here. The law was found to be constitutional. Which means that the federal government can institute new oversight into ANY area. All they have to do is pass new laws creating new maps.

This means if the republicans capture house and senate - they could impose sanctions on california, pennsylvania, new york -etc.

I oppose this.

The consittution clearly enumerates the right to vote. But federal oversite of state electoral policies - well I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. At least as currently constructed I think its a huge overreach.

To those on the left - how would you feel if a teabagger government got in and imposed the same remedies on you?

Wrong again. For something to be unconstitutional it has to violate some part of the document and the closest Roberts comes in his opinion is a one off mention of the 10th but he does not base his decision on that. He simply never indicates what part section 4 violates and how a new section 4 would not be in violation of that same section or amendment.

As to the feds having the ability to oversee the states on voting for minorities it couldn't possibly be clearer:
the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution

quote:

Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

As to sanctions on states and jurisdictions without a history or ongoing discrimination against minority voters, try reading the 15th again.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 38

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:55:19 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Rendell admitting they fabricated 200,000 votes

Citation would be helpful.

Can't find a functioning link any more taz. Was about March of 2012. It was in the Philly paper as well as times. He said that during his time in office they didn't necessarily follow all the rules and procedures for voting and that one they knew 1-2 hundred thousand votes were cast fraudulently.

You couldn't find it because it doesn't exist. No widespread vote fraud of that magnitude has ever been documented or admitted to.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 39

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 5:59:26 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

The courts already found the law was enacted for a discriminatory purpose (it is on appeal right now). So when it is brought back before the same courts, after citizens are denied their right to vote, the courts will again find against Texas

I think you may be mistaken, and here is WHY, if it had been struck down as disciminatory in any lower court they would NOT be able to enact it immeadiatly as there would be a court order against it...

now I may be mistaken too, but I do think thats how it works, once a lower court rules against something it cannot be enacted unless they win an appeal in a higher court..

I don't know the exact wording of the texas law, but I do know this, 30 other state already have similar laws on the books, now if its ruled as to burdonsome then all they need to do is change it so the burdon is lessened

I have lived in texas, the people there seem to think going a hundred miles for something isn't that much of a BURDON...

and I'll also say this, if taking ONE DAY out of your life to get an ID so you can vote then maybe voting isn't really all that important to you anyhow. so unless the ID's have to be renewed with some frequency that means you have to set aside a day every 6 months or even once a year, I don't see it as so much a burdon

if you CHOSE to live some remote place, then you have to assume the BURDON of doing normal things is going to be traveling long distances to get it done

No. You should have googled.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-30/politics/35491521_1_type-of-ballot-integrity-voter-id-law-republican-controlled-texas-legislature

There is no RO because Texas was covered by section 4 of the VRA and had to preclear any change. Now that section is no longer in effect...

A 250 mile one way trip for someone without a car is not a one day trip.

People do not always choose to live in remote areas. That could very well be where their family has lived for centuries (keep in mind a lot of those brown people you're so eager to disenfranchise have been in Texas longer than the whites.).

(in reply to BitYakin)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125