GOP to the nation, "Racism is over"

[HomerJS]

According to Bert Rein representing Shelby County Alabama in front of the Supreme Court attempting to get section 5 of the Voting Rights Act struck down

There is an old disease, and that disease is cured

That problem is solved.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...jones/main+(MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed)

Does this guy or the SC need a reminder of the following

PA trying to enact voter id for the solely purpose of electing Mitt Romney

Ohio trying to enact different rules for Republican vs Democratic districts

Florida voters, primarily in minority districts waiting up to 9 hours

Early voting cancelled across the country by Republicans trying to cut back on the minority vote. I'll stop.

Shelby County could have gotten out of the VRA oversight if they maintained a clean record for a period of time but in 2008 they gerrymandered out black representation in an entire district.

 

[Oldgamer]

According to Bert Rein representing Shelby County Alabama in front of the Supreme Court attempting to get section 5 of the Voting Rights Act struck down





http://www.motherjones.com/politics...jones/main+(MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed)

Does this guy or the SC need a reminder of the following

PA trying to enact voter id for the solely purpose of electing Mitt Romney

Ohio trying to enact different rules for Republican vs Democratic districts

Florida voters, primarily in minority districts waiting up to 9 hours

Early voting cancelled across the country by Republicans trying to cut back on the minority vote. I'll stop.

Shelby County could have gotten out of the VRA oversight if they maintained a clean record for a period of time but in 2008 they gerrymandered out black representation in an entire district.

It' s unbelievable that we have sitting Supreme Court Justices thinking racism is over, and voter protections can be lifted. This is a sure sign these folks are bought and corrupt as hell. Did you catch what Scalia said, he isn't issuing a rational legal opinion, he is saying he just doesn't like the voters rights act. And he thinks these laws are racial entitlements.

No scalia they are voter rights, not entitlements.

 

[HomerJS]

It' s unbelievable that we have sitting Supreme Court Justices thinking racism is over, and voter protections can be lifted. This is a sure sign these folks are bought and corrupt as hell. Did you catch what Scalia said, he isn't issuing a rational legal opinion, he is saying he just doesn't like the voters rights act. And he thinks these laws are racial entitlements.

No scalia they are voter rights, not entitlements.

Notice Scalia complained it was too hard for legislators to vote against the VRA attempting to explain away the 98-0 vote in 2006, even by the senators in Ala.

Isn't this legislating from the bench?????

 

[nehalem256]

PA trying to enact voter id for the solely purpose of electing Mitt Romney

So only minorities have problems with getting voter id?

Ohio trying to enact different rules for Republican vs Democratic districts

So is Democrat a dog whistle for black?

Florida voters, primarily in minority districts waiting up to 9 hours

Florida voters, primarily in Democrat districts waiting up to 9 hours, because Democrats are to incompetent to run elections in their counties

Early voting cancelled across the country by Republicans trying to cut back on the minority vote. I'll stop.

So minorities can't vote on election day like white people?

So there is a difference between white Democrats and minority Democrats voting from a Republican perspective?

 

[Jaskalas]

Special rules are in place to restrict local voting practices unless they are approved by the federal government. I hear that includes changes to polling places. I'm curious as to what purpose they claim to be fighting Section 5.

About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.

The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula.

In 1982, Congress extended Section 5 for 25 years

In 2006, Congress extended the requirements Section 5 for an additional 25 years.

 

[HomerJS]

So only minorities have problems with getting voter id?



So is Democrat a dog whistle for black?



Florida voters, primarily in Democrat districts waiting up to 9 hours, because Democrats are to incompetent to run elections in their counties



So minorities can't vote on election day like white people?

So there is a difference between white Democrats and minority Democrats voting from a Republican perspective?

All those quotes are facts. You have a problem with facts??

BTW - It was Ric Scott who eliminated early voting days in Fla.

 

[nehalem256]

It' s unbelievable that we have sitting Supreme Court Justices thinking racism is over, and voter protections can be lifted. This is a sure sign these folks are bought and corrupt as hell. Did you catch what Scalia said, he isn't issuing a rational legal opinion, he is saying he just doesn't like the voters rights act. And he thinks these laws are racial entitlements.

No scalia they are voter rights, not entitlements.

A law which exists to protect the voting interests of minorities and not whites is clearly a violation of equal protection wouldn't you say?

If racism is a thing of the past then there is clearly no justification for its existence.

 

[nehalem256]

All those quotes are facts. You have a problem with facts??

3/4 are clearly (and in some cases explicitly) about preventing Democrats from voting.

1/4 is about Democrats being too incompetent to run elections in their counties and then trying to pass the blame to Republicans.

And I will repeat. Is there some reason Republicans are interested in having minority Democrats not vote and white Democrats vote?

Or are they only interested in winning elections. And this can be accomplished by Democrats of any race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, species not voting.

 

[HomerJS]

A law which exists to protect the voting interests of minorities and not whites is clearly a violation of equal protection wouldn't you say?

If racism is a thing of the past then there is clearly no justification for its existence.

excuse me....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a115XUCoq_g

and who said racism is over??

 

[HomerJS]

3/4 are clearly (and in some cases explicitly) about preventing Democrats from voting.

1/4 is about Democrats being too incompetent to run elections in their counties and then trying to pass the blame to Republicans.

And I will repeat. Is there some reason Republicans are interested in having minority Democrats not vote and white Democrats vote?

Or are they only interested in winning elections. And this can be accomplished by Democrats of any race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, species not voting.

Winning elections by ideas or rigging elections???

It is implicit since minorities vote Dem 90% and they know it. Like Ric Scott eliminating "souls to the polls" day because he knows black overwelmingly use it. He can technically say it effects all when it is not practically true.

I guess PA trying to change their winner take all to a representative system is just a coincidence since it waters down the "urban vote".

 

[umbrella39]

It' s unbelievable that we have sitting Supreme Court Justices thinking racism is over, and voter protections can be lifted. This is a sure sign these folks are bought and corrupt as hell. Did you catch what Scalia said, he isn't issuing a rational legal opinion, he is saying he just doesn't like the voters rights act. And he thinks these laws are racial entitlements.

No scalia they are voter rights, not entitlements.

I totally agree. He should be ashamed of the words he chose to use today. Well at least the South can finally lift the bullshit veil off they have had to wear for almost 50 years. Phew, they can breathe again. I hate that our checks and balances are really not checks and balances any longer...

 

[nehalem256]

Winning elections by ideas or rigging elections???

It is implicit since minorities vote Dem 90% and they know it. Like Ric Scott eliminating "souls to the polls" day because he knows black overwelmingly use it. He can technically say it effects all when it is not practically true.

I guess PA trying to change their winner take all to a representative system is just a coincidence since it waters down the "urban vote".

Do you think that Republicans are interested in Democrats not voting, or in minorities not voting?

 

[Ausm]

<---Looking forward to the further demise of the GOP. I think this is a BRILLIANT move to woo over people of color to the GOP's side. LMFAO. Keep it coming!

 

[Incorruptible]

Another fail post by the OP! Asking people for ID to vote is not racist. If a white guy is asked for ID then is he a victim of racism?

 

[PokerGuy]

Does this guy or the SC need a reminder of the following

PA trying to enact voter id for the solely purpose of electing Mitt Romney

Ohio trying to enact different rules for Republican vs Democratic districts

Florida voters, primarily in minority districts waiting up to 9 hours

Interesting. First, your premise on those actions is BS, but even if someone agreed with you on your premise, those are examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the VRA, since those areas are not covered by the special VRA requirements that the case is about. So you're confirming that those provisions of the VRA should either be applied to all places or be thrown out. Good going, you're agreeing with the plaintiff in the case

 

[PokerGuy]

<---Looking forward to the further demise of the GOP.

Yes! One party rule works so well, we'll all be better off with a single party dictatorship. Brilliant!

Do you ever just wake up and think "today, I'll break my streak of inane stupidity and say something intelligent!". Judging by your posts, the answer is "no, not yet".

 

[Incorruptible]

As long as we have race baiters like obama, jesse jackson, al sharpton, naacp and the OP with these idiotic threads then racism will not be over

 

[xj0hnx]

It is implicit since minorities vote Dem 90% and they know it.

Irrelevant, what is relevant is how many democrats are minorities. You progressives have a sickness, playing the one card in your deck, turning everything into racism. It's old hat, and has lost it's effectiveness, it just doesn't scare anymore.

 

[HomerJS]

Another fail post by the OP! Asking people for ID to vote is not racist. If a white guy is asked for ID then is he a victim of racism?

It's not as long as all groups have equal access to said id. Republicans enacting these laws already know the disproportionate effect.

This is the same argument used to justify poll taxes.

Why to you refuse to acknowledge Mike Turzi admitting they passed voter id laws just to allow Mitt Romney to win in PA?

 

[nehalem256]

It's not as long as all groups have equal access to said id. Republicans enacting these laws already know the disproportionate effect.

This is the same argument used to justify poll taxes.

Why to you refuse to acknowledge Mike Turzi admitting they passed voter id laws just to allow Mitt Romney to win in PA?

Disproportionate effect does not equal racism.

Democrat does not equal minority.

 

[HomerJS]

Interesting. First, your premise on those actions is BS, but even if someone agreed with you on your premise, those are examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the VRA, since those areas are not covered by the special VRA requirements that the case is about. So you're confirming that those provisions of the VRA should either be applied to all places or be thrown out. Good going, you're agreeing with the plaintiff in the case

You do know there is a youtube clip of Mike Turze admitting PA enacted voter id laws not to reform the process but to allow Mitt Romney to win.

Premise of section 5 of VRA is states cannot enact changes that will have a disproprtionate effect on various groups regardless of motive.

Justice Sotomeyor aptly put it, states were coming up with schemes to disenfranchise groups of voters faster then the feds could track.

 

[Ausm]

Yes! One party rule works so well, we'll all be better off with a single party dictatorship. Brilliant!

Do you ever just wake up and think "today, I'll break my streak of inane stupidity and say something intelligent!". Judging by your posts, the answer is "no, not yet".

Why are pissed at me? It's your Party which is fucking it's self out of existence. Shouldn't you really be redirecting your anger? I am just pointing it out.

 

[PokerGuy]

You do know there is a youtube clip of Mike Turze admitting PA enacted voter id laws not to reform the process but to allow Mitt Romney to win.

And why would I care what Mike Turze's opinion is?

Premise of section 5 of VRA is states cannot enact changes that will have a disproprtionate effect on various groups regardless of motive.

Did you forget that section 5 preclearance only applies to a small number of states and jurisdictions? It had no impact on OH and PA, so even if your examples were valid, it just illustrates that having section 5 apply to only some areas picked in 1960's doesn't make any sense. Different rules for different areas based on some criteria from the 60's that doesn't hold water anymore.

Justice Sotomeyor aptly put it, states were coming up with schemes to disenfranchise groups of voters faster then the feds could track.

She's a complete idiot, but regardless, that still doesn't explain why applying different rules to some areas based on criteria from 60 years ago makes any sense, especially since we've seen that the worst problems that section 5 seeks to rectify actually exist in places not covered by section 5.

 

[thraashman]

A law which exists to protect the voting interests of minorities and not whites is clearly a violation of equal protection wouldn't you say?

If racism is a thing of the past then there is clearly no justification for its existence.

We also don't have laws regulating when it's ok for private citizens to use their giant robots to fight Godzilla. Because those things don't exist. Laws get enacted to address a situation. There is no groups trying to remove the voting rights of whites, so there are no laws trying to protect those rights.

The GOP is doing everything it can to target the voting rights of minorities because it knows minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Are they doing it for racist reasons, maybe or maybe not. But intentionally attempting to disenfranchise a specific group to illegally win an election is wrong regardless of if the intent is racist or not.

 

[xj0hnx]

We also don't have laws regulating when it's ok for private citizens to use their giant robots to fight Godzilla. Because those things don't exist. Laws get enacted to address a situation. There is no groups trying to remove the voting rights of whites, so there are no laws trying to protect those rights.

The GOP is doing everything it can to target the voting rights of minorities because it knows minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Are they doing it for racist reasons, maybe or maybe not. But intentionally attempting to disenfranchise a specific group to illegally win an election is wrong regardless of if the intent is racist or not.

One can't scream for equality out of one side of your mouth, and then enact laws violating it out of the other and expect that people are going to not call one a hypocrite.

But intentionally attempting to disenfranchise a specific group to illegally win an election is wrong regardless of if the intent is racist or not.

Is that "specific group" democrats? Or minorities?