Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

[Red Dawn]

You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

 

[whylaff]

The Supreme Court has used the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (which gives the DOJ certain authorizations) and the 14th and 15th Amendments to scrutinize election changes even at the local level. The 10th Amendment and the issue of state?s right are irrelevant in this discussion because of the incorporation of the Bill Of Rights at the state level (localities are an apparatus of the state) with the 14th Amendment. It is not as if a locality has never thought of creative tactics to dilute minority influence in the electoral process before.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: loki8481
Voting Rights Act of 1965?

And that is authorized by the constitution where?

14th Amendment.

 

[Lemon law]

Now that Fern is proved wrong, we see a smooth shift to DOJ dithering as a new attack line.

Quite frankly, my jury is still out also, but I would have to know far more than I do now about North Carolina election law to form a proper opinion.

As it is, I can now accept the fact that the questions are punted to the courts, who will now presumably follow the LAW.

Rather than turn the issue into a the giant partisan football it now is. And anyone who has an iota of brains can safely reject the Limbaugh conclusion that Democrats thinks blacks are stupid. Think with your brains rather than your emotions, should be the lesson here. Those that are easily manipulated usually end up being raped.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

Is it possible that they didn't think they are being discriminated against until someone else decided that was the case.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

Is it possible that they didn't think they are being discriminated against until someone else decided that was the case.

And the Practitioner is the Decider?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now that Fern is proved wrong, we see a smooth shift to DOJ dithering as a new attack line.

Bah, it's quite the opposite.

Unbelievable. You can't get anything right in this thread.

Fern

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Republican party do anything good for Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Republican party doing anything good for anyone.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. They're both corrupt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

You are correct if you are talking about Jackson or Sharpton... oh wait they aren't white. I forgot - only white people can be racists in the warped world of today's libs...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

?

Seems to me those complaining ARE Black, namely the city of Kinston.

In this case they have support of conservatives on the princial of states' rights over fed gov type thing.

Since this is a "Black Town" I'm not sure why the liberals aren't supporting them.

The city is overwhelmingly Democratic, I don't see how any change in the elction method is gonna change that. That's not the issue, or shouldn't be.

Most small towns or counties are overwhelmingly Dem or Repub. Thus, the real election is the primary (if they have a partisan election) . The gen elect is just redundant and a useless waste of time and money. Because the real election is the primary, you find people seeking office will just switch their affiliation to that of the party in power. E.g., the county next to me is predominately Dem, so all the Repubs switch to Dem and run. Likewise in my county, but it's the Dems switching to Repub. The whole thing's freakin stupid and everybody knows it.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Democratic party do anything good for Black Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Democratic party doing anything good for anyone.

making voters actually know who the candidates are and what they're about instead of letting them vote blindly for whoever has a D next to their name seems like a good thing to me, regardless of which party is pushing it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

You are correct if you are talking about Jackson or Sharpton... oh wait they aren't white. I forgot - only white people can be racists in the warped world of today's libs...

Lol, as a practitioner you are no different than Sharpton, Jackson, Linbaugh,etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Democratic party do anything good for Black Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Democratic party doing anything good for anyone.

making voters actually know who the candidates are and what they're about instead of letting them vote blindly for whoever has a D next to their name seems like a good thing to me, regardless of which party is pushing it.

Who cares who they are or what they are about. If they are a Republican the chances are enormous they're a goose stepping moron who will the vote death party line.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know it would mean something if those complaining were Blacks instead of over fed white Republicans. I'm just saying.

Yep because racism can't be exposed by white people... :roll:

You have a good point, a practitioner should recognize it. But it still has more credibility if those who are allegedly being discriminated would speak out.

You are correct if you are talking about Jackson or Sharpton... oh wait they aren't white. I forgot - only white people can be racists in the warped world of today's libs...

Lol, as a practitioner you are no different than Sharpton, Jackson, Linbaugh,etc.

Me? You really think I'm racist? lol, yet another example of how clueless you are.

Oh and BTW, are you going to take a stance on the actual "ruling" or are you only going to toss out political jabs?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: loki8481
Voting Rights Act of 1965?

And that is authorized by the constitution where?

14th Amendment.

Finally someone got it.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like we have all the details here.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Republican party do anything good for Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Republican party doing anything good for anyone.

:thumbsup:

LOL

 

[classy]

This is clearly a lame attempt to make something out of nothing. The DOJ is right. If we have learned anything is that having people whether its good or bad start tampering with voting laws, no matter how small or insignificant is asking for trouble. The history of Jim Crow spells that out for us in complete detail. I also believe that during President Bush's time, I thought there was a similar situation that involved redistricting (hope I said that right), where the DOJ stepped in. It took us as a nation decades to solidify and protect our voting laws, and they should not be tampered with, no matter how lightly.

 

[bfdd]

So wait... Black voters in a predominately black town voted to keep party affiliation off of the local general election. Then they get told that they're discriminating against themselves basically because of a change they voted on and wanted.... I'm really really confused.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: classy
This is clearly a lame attempt to make something out of nothing. The DOJ is right. If we have learned anything is that having people whether its good or bad start tampering with voting laws, no matter how small or insignificant is asking for trouble. The history of Jim Crow spells that out for us in complete detail. I also believe that during President Bush's time, I thought there was a similar situation that involved redistricting (hope I said that right), where the DOJ stepped in. It took us as a nation decades to solidify and protect our voting laws, and they should not be tampered with, no matter how lightly.

Laws governing elections vary wildly from state to state already. Should every state law concerning elections be treated as you described? I bet dollars to donuts I can find some that are not in the best interest of the club you belong to, still wanna protect those? What about all the laws that make it extremely difficult for anyone other than the largest 2 national parties to get on the ballot or do you agree with trying to purposely exclude anyone without a D or a R next to their name?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fern asks, "did you not read your own link?"

And I ask Fern the same question. Because you did not read the link or badly interpreted it.

As proof, Fern says, "You own link indicates, contrary to your 'observation' bolded above, that the city of Kinston did follow the proper procedure. That being - asking the DoJ for the change after voting for it. The story here is that the DoJ is denying their (properly filed) request, not that the city didn't follow the rules."

And no Fern you are wrong, Kinston simply assumed the DOJ would approve and then the city of Kinston discovered they made a wrong assumption. And therefore they have to follow the previous election rules as they went off half cocked imple
menting new rules not approved. The power to say yea or nay was always with the DOJ.

We can argue on this thread regarding the correctness of that DOJ decision, but that argument is somewhat moot, because its now court(s) and not you or I who will have that final word.

Republicans believe that laws are made to be broken.

 

[bfdd]

Shira, that's a moronic statement to make. Also, someone please explain to me how these voters of this town are having their rights repressed by doing this. They aren't. The majority of this town is black, they voted in favor of this, they are being told they can't for their own good? Since when has the government ever known what is good for us? They haven't. Stop giving them so much credit.

 

[Fern]

Having partisan elections requiring a primary and (useless) general election is wasteful and stupid, that's why most NC towns/cities don't do it.

Why they won't let this switch to the norm strikes me as ridiculous.

Politics at the local level don't even involve Repub vs Dem issues like Iraq, Afganistan, Stimulus packages, Bailouts, gay marriage, abortion or any of the numerous issues fought over.

To make it even dumber, Kinston has a town manager. Under the "town Manager" system elected local politicians have little more to do then attend ribbon cutting ceromonies anyway. The 'work' is down by the manager, and they aren't even elected - just hired.

Fern

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bfdd
Shira, that's a moronic statement to make. Also, someone please explain to me how these voters of this town are having their rights repressed by doing this. They aren't. The majority of this town is black, they voted in favor of this, they are being told they can't for their own good? Since when has the government ever known what is good for us? They haven't. Stop giving them so much credit.

Let me make a comparison to let you see where I'm coming from:

Suppose a state law - passed years earlier - bars homosexuals from adopting children in a community ("CityA"). Over the years, the homosexual composition of CityA has increased and CityA is now much more accepting of gays. One day, a gay couple applies to adopt a child, and the adoption is approved. A majority in CityA has no problem with the adoption, but a group of conservatives goes to court to revoke the adoption, on the grounds that it violates the state law.

Question: Given the facts of this case, how should a court rule?

My own answer is that the law is pretty clear: The adoption violated state law, and the court should rule that the adoption is invalid. I say this even though I personally am appalled that there are such laws on the books.

Now, consider the voting law which is the subject of this thread: Federal law is explicit on the process that must be followed when a voting law that affects minorities is passed: The DOJ must be consulted for approval.

Question: Given the facts of this ACTUAL case, is it okay that the town did not seek approval for the change from the DOJ?

I hope your answer is that the law MUST be followed, and approval from DOJ must be received, regardless of who in the town proposes the voting rules.

Yet it seems to me that the conservative posters in this thread think that DOJ oversight is wrong. I can only conclude that conservatives think the rule of law applies only when it's liberals that would otherwise benefit.