Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
History of discrimination? AZ, Alaska, and South Dakota have to get pre-clearance but Tennessee and North Carolina do not? All the court did was remove the pre-clearance for a handful of states most of which are no longer the culprits anymore if they ever were. The Court was right. States like AZ should not be "punished" for what was done to native Americans decades before the vast majority of today's Arizonans were even living in the state. That Congress is incapable of doing that is not the court's problem. Justice was served today.
The hotbeds of racism, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan also have to get pre-clearance.
I have a feeling that you will get a lot of people not actually reading what was ruled on.
It seems to be a reasonable ruling. They said that the government can intervene in a states voting practices but not based upon 40 year old standards and information.
Now I am sure that deciding what is now proper will be a real mess but the ruling simply standing alone is pretty reasonable.
UNBELIEVABLE!
I agree with you again. It IS a reasonable ruling. While I DO think that there ARE still "issues" with some of those states, those states are clearly not what they used to be and a lot of progress has been made. It IS time to review the situation and re-evaluation.
Victory! This is good news because it potentially means the republicans don't have to place race politics with hispanic voters.
\o/
Funny, seeing how it has been the Democratic Party that continues to keep minorities down, keeping them as victims and on the government dime. Your party has done little good for minorities. Take a look how many of them continue to be poor as dirt. Look at the crime statistics. What good is your victim garbage doing for them?
UNBELIEVABLE!
I agree with you again. It IS a reasonable ruling. While I DO think that there ARE still "issues" with some of those states, those states are clearly not what they used to be and a lot of progress has been made. It IS time to review the situation and re-evaluation.
Ken
Now you have to ask yourself why people as "smart" as Obama and others claim such outrage..... Is this not further proof of the main liberal establishment mentality. They understand this, yet are upset about it. Why? Ask yourself that, and you may not like the answers you come up with. These people arent all dumb, they know why it was a reasonable ruling, but they dont like it. The why is what should trouble most people.
Now you have to ask yourself why people as "smart" as Obama and others claim such outrage..... Is this not further proof of the main liberal establishment mentality. They understand this, yet are upset about it. Why? Ask yourself that, and you may not like the answers you come up with. These people arent all dumb, they know why it was a reasonable ruling, but they dont like it. The why is what should trouble most people.
The reason they don't like it is because they are concerned that the lingering problems with some of the states won't be addressed - and I understand that concern, it IS a legitimate concern. I'm of the opinion however that in spite of those legitimate concerns it IS time to re-evaluate the situation and that it's both appropriate and fair to do so - because there HAS been massive improvement in the situation since the law was enacted. I would hope that those states where there ARE still some issues will still be held accountable for those issues when the re-evaluation is completed. Is there RISK in re-evaluating the situation? Of course there is, but - as I said - it's both fair and appropriate to give the situation another look - because it is NOT 1960 anymore and things in the south are NOT the same as they used to be.
The immediate reaction to today's Supreme Court ruling is that anything in the 'pipeline' for pre-clearance by the DOJ and anything before a Court has gone "poof". It's all moot now, unless the DOJ can prove discrimination --- the exact opposite from the way that Section 4 worked. Section 4 assumed 'discrimination' unless the State, County, City, Water District, City Council, School Board was able to produce "proof" (accepted by Eric Holder) that it was not discrimination. Guilty until proven innocent. It's important to remember that the DOJ sued Arizona because they dared to try and verify that voters are US Citizens.
Voter I.D. (already sanctioned by the US Supreme Court) is moving forward, re-districting lines are now determined by the States and not by Eric Holder or Judges (unless discrimination is proven) and States will be allowed to remove the dead voters and those who no longer live in the State from their rolls.
Texas and Mississippi have both announced that Voter I.D. begins soon ...... June 27, 2013 for Texas.
Maybe the SCOTUS simply sees Eric "it's okay to stand outside of a polling place with billy clubs" Holder for what he really is. It's real nice and polite to think of them as apolitical when it comes to stuff like this and that they're impartial in their "justice" but history and the facts prove otherwise and now Obama and friends have to face the full ramifications of their severe partisanship.
Ridiculous. Smoke and mirrors. Idiots are chasing their tales complaining about people being denied their right to vote based on race or income and worrying about illegals voting, the dead voting and whether or not someone can provide proof they can vote.
Meanwhile theres institutionalized voter fraud and electronic ballot manipulation where election outcomes are already decided. EVERYBODY is having their right to vote being denied when who they vote for is decided for them.
Abbott noted that Indiana approved a voter ID law a few years ago and had that law upheld by the Supreme Court. But when Texas passed a nearly identical law in 2011, the Obama administration used the Voting Rights Act to block it.
“That just showed that they were using the Voting Rights Act law to treat Texas different from Indiana, and that was part of the backdrop behind today’s decision,” Abbott said. The court ruled today that that law was being used “unfairly, illegally, inappropriately, therefore it was unconstitutional,” Abbott said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
