Holder Threatens States Over Voting law

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +252
    Seems the Supreme Court did not rule the way obama told them to so now they are threatening states who go ahead and abide by the law . I dont think the emperor likes for any to buck him even the SC

    Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too far. He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.

    He, like President Obama, said he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision, saying discriminatory practices live on and need to be addressed.

    "These problems have not been consigned to history," Holder said

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...own-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XGLf0xYK
  2. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +935
    You don't have any clue what today's ruling means, do you?
  3. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,540
    Likes Received:
    918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,662
    black AG echoing a black president about how bad racism is and how it holds the black man down...can't make it up. divide and conquer.
  4. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +252

    Please enlighten us We are eagerly awaiting
  5. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,011
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    The Federal government still has authority to challenge discriminatory legislation under the Voting Rights Act.
  6. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +252
    holder admits this will tie there hands till congress changes it

    "Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," Obama said.

    But their statements acknowledged that until Congress intervenes, officials' hands are largely tied when it comes to screening particular states.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...own-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XGNdOMsl
  7. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +935
    Certain states and municipalities had to pre-clear voting regulations with the DOJ. Now they can't be forced to do so unless Congress passes new guidelines.

    This will allow these primarily southern states to enact laws that could restrict minority voting and force them to be legally challenged. These challenges might not be resolved by election time, allowing them to go forth.
  8. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,361
    It means that jurisdictions (states, counties, and a few townships) that had previously been identified as being subject to a preclearance requirement under the Voting Rights Act that required any change in election laws, policies, or procedures, no matter how minor, to be approved by the Justice Department prior to putting those changes into place no longer face that requirement. Potentially they could again in the future if the Congress passed a new formula (replacing Section 4) since the Court left the preclearance process itself (Section 5) intact, but they currently will not since there is no method to identify jurisdictions subject to preclearance without new legislation.

    It does not mean that all the restrictions are gone and you don't have to worry about the Civil Rights Division of DOJ looking at your election laws anymore. DOJ has independent authority to enforce the various other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 2's prohibition on practices, policies, procedures or laws with the intent or the effect of diluting, abridging, or denying the right to vote on the basis of race. Just now they have to do that solely through filing suits seeking to block enforcement of laws that they contend violate the VRA. That power remains in effect and is still a real check.
  9. The_Graygator
    Offline

    The_Graygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    34,799
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,084
    The Obama administration is back to suing sovereign states again, is it? Just like 2009 and Arizona. :roll:
  10. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    14,790
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +469
    Don't hold your breath on waiting for the liberal lawyers in Congress to actually read the decision. That's what corporate lobbyists are for.
  11. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +252
    What this will do is help stop illegals from voting and others from voting more than once
  12. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,361
    So you're in essence admitting that those laws had the effect of diluting or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race or color? Because otherwise Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA would have had nothing to do with them.

    :wink:
  13. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,145
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +349
    Albiet one that proved so ineffective in the past that Section 4 needed to be enacted to provide a mechanism to stop enforcement from being delayed beyond the election the state legislation was intended to impact, as litigation often does.
  14. surfn1080
    Online

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +142
    Yup i trust the DoJ.... Is holder done investigating himself?

    I think this ruling is great for our country!!! Im sick of the federal gov getting into every bits of our lives.
  15. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    67,597
    Likes Received:
    3,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,581
    what is the jackazz going to do-send in troops
  16. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,361
    It definitely is less effective than precertification, but you can get an injunction in some cases at least. Between DOJ and private parties they managed to block a number of things running into the 2012 election without going through the precert process.
  17. secgator
    Offline

    secgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,302
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +534
    In simple terms--The Dems see their advantage slipping away. LEGALLY. Goes against their way of doing things....via corruption, fraud, thievery, deceit, abuse, etc--you know, their status quo methods.
  18. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,273
    Yep. I wonder if Hildabeast will ask the UN to join the lawsuit again?
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,273
    No wonder Holder 'the murderer' is up in arms, no pun intended.
  20. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +252
    NO I am saying the law as it was allowed illegals to vote and some to vote more than once. No where does the constitution say people have a right to vote more than once regardless of your color

Share This Page