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.
Leftist fanatics trying to divert attention from their own party's extensive wrongdoing, would hope so.
The Supreme Court is diverting attention? Little-Acorn (how appropriate) was the Supreme Court's decision this very week an effort to divert attention? If not then the topic is quite relevant and current.
By the way, considering how all that wrong doing is coming apart at the seams you'd think that you would love a little diversion these days.
This decision to go after the Voting Rights Act was a huge mistake by the repubs. They actually could have made significant inroads into the black and hispanic communities in future elections. One of the keys to doing so would have been to put the old conservative legacy behind them.
The number of votes they will lose because of this will be greater than the number that will be effectively suppresed. Hugh political mistake that will cost them for years.
I look at the entire issue as a Huge Win for this country - I remember 1965 and the Civil Rights Era. We needed a mechanism to force people to recognize the Rights of Black Americans, even though it was on very shaky Constitutional grounds. That's was over 40 years ago.
Just an aside...
Between 1865 and 1877 there were two African American Senators and another seven who served in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1877 Republicans found their political fortunes more in line with abandoning those laws and black elected officials disappeared from the halls of Congress not to reappear until 1928 with the election of Rep Oscar De Priest.
Between 1865 and 1877 there were two African American Senators and another seven who served in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1877 Republicans found their political fortunes more in line with abandoning those laws and black elected officials disappeared from the halls of Congress not to reappear until 1928 with the election of Rep Oscar De Priest.
Just saying.
I'm not sure what you are saying, can you clarify? In post civil war America the Democrats were fighting against equal rights and denying opportunity to blacks.
Not me. Then, I'm not a Republican. I also don't think we should have kept the South in reconstruction for another 200 years. After all, why not bring back slavery if no one is watching?
The South wasn't kept in Reconstruction for 200 years, not by a country mile. Reconstruction in reality lasted no more than four year and then the South had free reign to do pretty much whatever it damned well pleased until at least 1964 and even then it was took a lot of kicking and screaming for the South to come to terms with Federal law and the Constitution. And for those who think that the South has mended its old ways, I suggest googling segregated proms, stories that are not from 1912, 1962, but from 2012.
One would think that after all the bragging about how the Civil Rights Act was the brain child of Republicans that there would be an uproar of indignation from Republicans as a result of the Supreme Court gutting one of the their Party's signature pieces of legislation.
One would think.
Your position is just as silly as arguing about Democrats that signed DOMA into law in 1996. Since DOMA was overwhelmingly supported by Congress and a Democrat President, how could they be happy about the SCOTUS ruling this week?
Every law on the books at some point in its existence may become obsolete. Section 4 and 5 of the VRA was written in 1965. The SCOTUS said it no longer applies. How can nine names states be a reasonable law when there is no evidence that the conditions that the VRA was written to fix are still in place? The law worked. But part of it is an unreasonable restriction on what nine states can do. It needed to go.
I agree with hoffdano. The VRA, all sections, WAS needed in 1964 because of massive differences in how states treated minorities. While racism still exists, those differences are long gone. Mississippi (section 5 state) is no more likely to try and enact a discriminatory law than Ohio (non-section 5) or California (partial section 5).
Treating states differently because of what happened 50 years ago is pure revenge.
This decision to go after the Voting Rights Act was a huge mistake by the repubs. They actually could have made significant inroads into the black and hispanic communities in future elections. One of the keys to doing so would have been to put the old conservative legacy behind them.
The number of votes they will lose because of this will be greater than the number that will be effectively suppresed. Hugh political mistake that will cost them for years.
How is desiring honest elections by making sure every voter is a citizen alienating blacks and Hispanics? Aren't they citizens also that want honest elections?
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.
