Holder asking Texas for pre approval before voting begins....I guess he doesn't know

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. dadx4
    Online

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,071
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +699
    or care what the Supreme Court has ruled.

    I must protect "my people from showing a valid ID."

    The attorney general called the Voting Rights Act "the cornerstone of modern civil rights law" and said that "we cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve."
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  2. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,421
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,579
    Maybe he'll even get a US district court judge that feels like making an obviously reversible abuse of their discretion by ruling in his favor, and the whole thing can be shut down by the circuit.

    There's just... just always more 'down' with Holder and Obama -- and, yes, Obama is married to the discretionary acts of his cabinet appointees. They serve at his pleasure. This is what pleases him.
  3. DeanMeadGator
    Offline

    DeanMeadGator '63 Gator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +134
    Holder wants to please Obama's political base prior to the mid-term elections and/or wants to find an excuse for failing to investigate the IRS and/or investigating the misuse of subpoenas to gather information on reporters and/or find an excuse for failing to investigate Bengazi and/or inflame racial divide and/or has forgotten that it's no longer the 1950s or 1960s.
  4. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,354
    It's an interesting approach. The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the VRA, which was the formula to identify jurisdictions that are automatically subject to preclearance. Section 5 (pre-clearance itself) remains good law, as does Section 3 "bail-in."

    The answer the administration is going to take to Section 4 being gone (at least unless and until a new formula gets passed, which seems unlikely) is apparently that the DOJ is going to seek wider application of the Section 3(c) so-called "bail in" preclearance, which also remains good law, that allows a court to apply a preclearance requirement to a jurisdiction where the DOJ can show a history of intentional discrimination.

    There are a number of bailed-in jurisdictions that have remained subject to preclearance since the Supreme Court decided the VRA case, and the statutory provisions underlying "bail-in" preclearance remain intact. Evidently the DOJ thinks they can make the showing required to get Texas added to the list of bailed-in jurisdictions.

    In short, there's nothing obviously reversible about it. The DOJ is standing on solid statutory footing on the bail-in process (the "outdated formula" argument that won in the Section 4 case is inapplicable here), and this is perfectly legal if they can satisfy a court that Texas has violated the VRA in the past and has a history of intentional voter discrimination.
  5. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +614
    The 0bamao Adm has been at war with Arizona, Florida, now ratcheted it up w/ Texas.

    He is the Most Divisive POTUS I can recall in my lifetime, more so than even Nixon.

    Always remember that the enemy of what is best and good for people and nations are the D words:

    Divide
    Deceive
    Distort
    Deny
    Destroy
  6. ga8orman1
    Offline

    ga8orman1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    You left off Democrat
  7. CaptUSMCNole
    Offline

    CaptUSMCNole Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NCR
    Ratings Received:
    +30
    Good explaination. I wouldn't be surprised if this is held up in court for a long time before eventually ending up back in front of the USSC.

    The Texas AG is running for Governor and is probably extremely happy Holder is trying to do this.
  8. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,773
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,368
    Keep in mind that a federal court did rule that Texas' redistricting was clearly discriminatory.
  9. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,554
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +249
    So whats new with these liberal left wing fed courts. The only thing is the last I heard The S C has more power than a federal court
  10. CaptUSMCNole
    Offline

    CaptUSMCNole Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NCR
    Ratings Received:
    +30
    While that might be the case, I think the "Bail In" requires the state to be a repeat offender. I guess there is going to be a long arugument about how many makes a "repeat" in court.
  11. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,773
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,368
    Griffith is a Mormon, BYU grad who was appointed by Bush.
  12. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,554
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +249
    So they dont have to follow the decision of the S C? holder and obama want to cherry pick which laws they want to enforce and which ones not to.
  13. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,354
    They are following the Supreme Court precedent, read my summary of what DOJ is doing above.

    SCOTUS struck Section 4, which was the formula that determined what jurisdictions automatically qualified for preclearance. The preclearance process itself, and the Section 3(c) bail-in that requires a court to order preclearance (what DOJ is pursuing here) weren't affected by the decision and remain good law (or put differently, when the Court strikes down one specific section of a law, it doesn't mean that you have to stop enforcing all of the other sections as well).
  14. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    I hope this kind of action by Holder's DOJ stays in the headlines all the way to November 2014. That'll be just fine with me.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Gatorhall
    Offline

    Gatorhall Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +237
    Doesn't this current administration scare you libbies in the least bit? They sure the hell scare me!
  16. AustinGator1
    Offline

    AustinGator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +200
    Not certain how Holder is going to tie the two together but this has more to do with the new Texas voter id law than it does with redistricting.
  17. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +735
    Does anyone have any idea about the evidence Holder intends to rely on to back up his claim that Texas has intentionally discriminated against voters, sufficiently to justify preclearance?

    BTW: anyone else find it just a bit ironic, that he was talking in PHILADELPHIA about others violating voters' rights?
  18. gator34654
    Offline

    gator34654 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +640
    Bottom line BO's admin wants to turn Texas into a dem state period. This is corruption at its height. This country is slowly being taken over under the people's noses and most low informed voters haven't a clue. When we become a socialist state most will be ok so long as they get handouts.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Gatorhall
    Offline

    Gatorhall Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +237
    Nice post 34654,moochers will be happy till the gravy train dries up and then we will be like Greece sadly.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,273
    Repped.

Share This Page