right-wing supreme court cancelled the 50 yr old voter rights act today

This is ridiculous. The ruling isn't going to change ANYTHING about the way we vote, or the voter turnout....

reply to post by jimmyx


You mean the same "Right Wing" court that just struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California?

I am really confused now.....doesn't "Right Wing" refer to extremely conservative?

Why is it so impossible for people to stop with the partisan BS and wake up to the fact that Left Wing, Right Wing, Democrat, Republican are all the same. They all seek ultimate control over all of us.

As many people here have already said, the ruling on the voting issue was not racist at all it mostly dealt with the formation and modification of districts and other rules. Besides why is it so friggin horrible to require ID to vote? Hell you need ID for anything else in the police state of today.

reply to post by littled16


If you vote absentee you won't have this issue.

I voted absentee and it was the easiest thing I've ever done.

Your complaint doesn't hold water if there are easier alternatives.

Absentee voting is one of them.

reply to post by grey580
Are you sure you are responding to my post? I wasn't complaining about anything. I haven't got a problem with producing my identification to prove I am a registered voter, I am glad that it is that way.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by madmac5150
It is about damned time that antiquated laws like this get dumped. And why is it, that anytime a bill is passed that attempts to verify that an individual is a legal voter, the liberals throw a fit? I guess if laws like that are passed, the illegals can't vote and the dems lose out...

Guess they havent read the immigration bill with its background checks!!

Which is a national ID LAW. but that's not racist!

edit on 25-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

how many hospitals in the deep south during the 40's 50's and 60's allowed black people to have their children born there? how many doctors in the deep south during the 40's 50's and 60's would give birth certificates to home born black children? and how many black people in the deep south were allowed to acquire birth certificates during the 40's, 50's, and 60's?......so what ID's are these southern states going to accept?....

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by neo96
Well that was a load of crap so how about some facts?

The 5-4 ruling rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.

But the justices said after five decades, the law has had a dramatic effect in ending discrimination in voting, and said Congress must now come up with new ways of deciding who still needs federal oversight.

Beneath the legal ruling is a broader social statement, with the justices saying that a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists.

Read the rest:
Source

There was nothing 'racist' about that decision.

there have already been five states that said they will enact strict voter ID requirements to vote, that ARE NOT subject to preview by the US government to verify that they are not discriminatory, before they are enacted...in other words... Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, south Carolina, all are waiting in the wings to pass laws before the next election THAT CANNOT BE CHALLANGED due to the time it takes to go through the courts, before the elections are over....that's is exactly why the law has been in place for the last 50 years......12,000 pages of voter discrimination was presented to congress when the ACT was up for review in 2006...
www.nationaljournal.com...
this is so racist I can smell it through my screen. there will be so many lawsuits filed for the election of 2014 due to racism in the voting, that it's going to be like being back in the jim crow days days the 1950's...this is absolutely racist, there is no question about it....but, of course, someone would have to actually read about what tactics the southern states used to deny black people the vote during that era, to be knowledgeable about it.

edit on 25-6-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

If you look at the maps of which states voted Democrat and which states voted Republican, then compare than against a map of which states require voter ID, you'll find there is a strong correlation between states with no voter ID and those that elect Democrat senators.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
reply to post by jimmyx

 

You mean the same "Right Wing" court that just struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California?

I am really confused now.....doesn't "Right Wing" refer to extremely conservative?

Why is it so impossible for people to stop with the partisan BS and wake up to the fact that Left Wing, Right Wing, Democrat, Republican are all the same. They all seek ultimate control over all of us.

As many people here have already said, the ruling on the voting issue was not racist at all it mostly dealt with the formation and modification of districts and other rules. Besides why is it so friggin horrible to require ID to vote? Hell you need ID for anything else in the police state of today.

they left it to the states to decide on marriage, if states do not want it, they, by federal law, DO NOT have to have it.
what form of ID do you think a 65 year old black woman, born to a poor share cropper in rural Mississippi is going to have? I guess she has a birth certificate from that white doctor in the late 40's, who came out to her shack out in the sticks, to birth her black baby....sure, right

Originally posted by jimmyx

they left it to the states to decide on marriage, if states do not want it, they, by federal law, DO NOT have to have it.
what form of ID do you think a 65 year old black woman, born to a poor share cropper in rural Mississippi is going to have? I guess she has a birth certificate from that white doctor in the late 40's, who came out to her shack out in the sticks, to birth her black baby....sure, right

The same identification she used to get Social Security and Medicare. If she is willing to move to Texas, we will give her a FREE photo ID to be used only for voting purposes. Illinois has voter ID laws, and no problems from the government. Texas passed voter ID laws in 2011 that are almost word for word the same as Illinois law, but Obama and Holder put a hold on those laws using provisions from the Voters Rights Act. I guess no discrimination there either?

I thought this was 2013, not 1940, 1950, or 1960. Maybe you should look around. That 65 year old black woman from Mississippi probably could use her drivers license. Or is driving forbidden to 65 year old black women in Mississippi?

www.projectvote.org...
www.aclupa.org...
moritzlaw.osu.edu...

here's a 2007 case
www.advancementproject.org...

here's another one from Michigan, republican lawmakers trying to "purge" voting rolls
www.advancementproject.org...

all of these can now take place right before the election, and it will not matter on how it affects the election....because the only recourse is to file a lawsuit...which will take months to litigate.

reply to post by retiredTxn


and here's the essence of that case
www.brennancenter.org...

reply to post by littled16


I wonder how that happened.
I was replying to jimmyx.
odd.

Originally posted by Gazrok
This is ridiculous. The ruling isn't going to change ANYTHING about the way we vote, or the voter turnout....

so, you have heard nothing about voter roll purges during the last few years?...or the difficulty of poor minorities acquiring the proper ID's within months of recent elections?....well, you will here about it in 2014

apparently, chief justice Roberts has been woring on this for a long time
www.dailykos.com...#

he seems to think it's going to change everything!

reply to post by jimmyx

Yep. Pretty much it. Texas claimed the Voters Rights Act was too restrictive and unconstitutional Just what the Supreme's said. It's a state thing. Just let us knuckle draggin', toofless, racist rednecks alone.

reply to post by jimmyx


Do what someone on page one said, use the paper ballot. The machines are crappily made and and can be manipulated. Don't worry too much either about using an ID, driver's licence and utility, they will be in all caps and belong to the Virginia company, the corporation of America or most of it. Your licence and utility and SS number are not you, just your corporate ID, the guys you reckon that get by with a wave or a shake are in the same boat ultimately.

Why is there not a method to give a negative flag in a post? Why is there only a way to give positive flags? Really, all we see is who a"agrees" with the poster. Lets face it, people see the flags as a marker of legitimacy. The "Deny Ignorance" motto seems to indicate a preference for fact over fiction.

How can you say the court is "right-wing" when, in the very same day, they gave another ruling that helps legitimize same-sex marriage. How do you rationalize these two seemingly ideologically disparate decisions? Is there ever a reason to end old laws? Does nothing change and always stay the same? Do you realize the President of the United States is a black man? Has nothing changed in 50 years?


V

Originally posted by Variable
Why is there not a method to give a negative flag in a post? Why is there only a way to give positive flags? Really, all we see is who a"agrees" with the poster. Lets face it, people see the flags as a marker of legitimacy. The "Deny Ignorance" motto seems to indicate a preference for fact over fiction.

How can you say the court is "right-wing" when, in the very same day, they gave another ruling that helps legitimize same-sex marriage. How do you rationalize these two seemingly ideologically disparate decisions? Is there ever a reason to end old laws? Does nothing change and always stay the same? Do you realize the President of the United States is a black man? Has nothing changed in 50 years?


V

Some sympathy there, however you need to make a case on the ideology of those in jurisdiction, versus their personal persuasions. For example, a high court judge in England found guilty Stuart Hall of child abuse, that judge was caught in a gay brothel in times past. Was he fit or unfit to make a judgement?

Just chiming in to say I'm happy about this decision. This is 2013 not 1950. Congress needs to either enact laws that apply to all 50 or none. It should have been that way from the get-go. Now they have a chance to fix it and I hope they do.