Holder Threatens States Over Voting law

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

  1. JerseyGator01
    Online

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,471
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +798
    Is Austin Powers the political adviser for the DNC? They're pre-occupied with 1965. They should write a song.
  2. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,347
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,697
    Says the guy stuck in 1973--Roe vs. Wade.
  3. secgator
    Offline

    secgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,808
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,050
    Says the guy stuck in Blame Bush/FOX/Hildabeast obsession. You have no room to talk whatsoever in targeting ANYONE about being 'stuck in the past'.
  4. squigator
    Offline

    squigator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +264
    That would be profiling wouldn't it.
  5. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The law was effectively used in 2012 to block discriminatory voting laws passed in the targeted states. If the SC wanted to fairly modify a law passed as recently as 2006 by a 98-0 vote in the Senate and by something like 330-30 in the House, they should have left the law alone but set a time line for updating the requirements. As it is, nothing will be updated and the law becomes moot. Since the court didn't strike it down, the majority is either dumb or dishonest, and most likely the latter.
  6. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    tell me without laughing on who this is going to stop from voting?

    One cannot live in this country without an ID. You need one to cash a check, have a job, buy smokes, get food stamps ect.

    So how in the hell is racist that one must prove who they are when voting? It's too hard to get a state issued ID every six years but easier to get to the polling booths every year?

    Fred you and your liberal goons are absolutely grasping at straws when you say voter ID law is racist.

    If they're not American they shouldn't be voting, if they've voted once they shouldn't be voting again.

    no keep on beating your racism drum, you and your democrat goons seem to do just fine at it even though you guys are the ones who continue to bring up racism at every single chance that they can.

    If it's a right to vote and one shouldn't need an ID then why, since it's my right to own a gun do I have to not only show an ID but pass a background check?

    Don't tell me that one is dangerous, voting can be just as dangerous, look at what happens when too many idiots are allowed to vote
    • Like Like x 1
  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    To be fair, a few years back the Court also had a challenge to the VRA before it and didn't strike down the Section 4 formula but warned that it was "based on data that is now more than 35 years old" and that there was "considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions." They noted that it raised "serious constitutional questions."

    That was Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and it was decided four years ago. They essentially did give everyone fair warning that there was a real problem with Section 4 and no one did anything about it.
  8. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    That implies that there is "one" who could or would do something about it, much as this ruling does. The behavior of Congress isn't the responsibility of the Court, but they have effectively ruled a part of the law moot which had recently been approved overwhelmingly by the Congress, and must have included virtually all Senators from the states in question (98-0).
  9. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    Interesting that the mouthpiece couldn't give an answer
  10. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,347
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,697
    In some states, you do not need them. It may not be your reality, but it exists.

    Again, if anyone were serious about this, they would make the changes NOW. But they're not, so the change attempts always occur around June of election years. Chaos and confusion is the goal, not identifying voters.
  11. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    the ruling prevents fed govt from screening the states on an ongoing basis. Fed govt still has the authority per law to intervene if there are complaints coming from citizens of a state regarding discriminatory laws, etc by a state in regards to voting registration, voting on election day, etc of elections of candidates for national office.
  12. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,981
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,994
    It also makes it easier to undo snaking, meandering precincts in states like Florida.
  13. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    How so? Florida as a whole wasn't a covered jurisdiction under Section 4 even before this ruling (although 5 FL counties were: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe).

    I would also suggest to you that snaking, meandering precincts were one of the likely targets of Section 5 enforcement not something protected by it, largely because it's fairly easy to make the case that gerrymandered districts dilute minority voting rights.
  14. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    yes in some states you don't need them, but it should be something that is done just so we know who is voting.

    I agree with you on the part about doing it so late. I wish that both sides would get over themselves and put something together since it is really what's best for everyone.
  15. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,347
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,697
    Agreed, but the side that pushes it isn't interested in what they claim. They just want non-pub voters denied on Election Day.
  16. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,971
    Likes Received:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,722
    On a related note, I would love to see someone try to come up with some sort of competency/engagement test that would satisfy strict scrutiny. Nobody is actually well served by 911/mcnugget lady voting. If nothing else, would be interesting to read the briefs and see the leftist position try not to come out and say that they think most minorities are presumptively too ignorant to pass.
  17. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    You could argue against it on a non-racial basis and still get strict scrutiny because of the "fundamental right" recognition of the right to vote. I think you would also run into the issue of the due process clause of the 14th potentially meaning that only a Court could rule someone incompetent to vote (largely the result that mental competency voting standards have reached, although none in the Supreme Court). Lastly, I think that would be a fantastic case to push Thomas's attempt to reinvigorate the Privileges or Immunities clause further in.

    I don't think you could do it, because I don't know how you would show that it was the least restrictive way of accomplishing a compelling governmental interest (the relevant test under Kramer v. Union Free School District, which struck a New York law trying to limit the right to vote in school district elections to those who were actually interested, i.e., those who owned or rented taxable property within the district, the spouses of those, and the parents or guardians of children attending public schools in the district).

    I guess you would also have to mention Section 2 of the 14th Amendment as a potential issue, but the Court has never done much with that section.
  18. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,981
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,994
    Yeah right, the minorities are always the victims, yet they want to make all the laws that rule over the majority... That's a$$ backwards and will cause real problems for everyone in our great country... enslaved to that kind of 'minority rule, BS.

Share This Page