SCOTUS Continues Assault on Civil Rights (Congress, legal, controversial, black president)
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.
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled narrowly in a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, exempting a small Texas governing authority from a key provision of the civil rights law.
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law (http://www.startribune.com/nation/48771587.html?elr=KArksCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr - broken link)
I lived in Texas for 10 years. They are not exactly "fair and balanced" when they redraw their districts as it is. Now, they no longer even have to try.
Apparently, it's not just LGBT Civil Rights that are under assault. They're clearing the path to go after African American and Hispanic Civil Rights again too.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Last edited by equality4all; 06-22-2009 at 08:59 AM..
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled narrowly in a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, exempting a small Texas governing authority from a key provision of the civil rights law.
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law (http://www.startribune.com/nation/48771587.html?elr=KArksCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr - broken link)
I lived in Texas for 10 years. They are not exactly "fair and balanced" when they redraw their districts as it is. Now, they no longer even have to try.
Apparently, it's not just LGBT Civil Rights that are under assault. They're clearing the path to go after African American and Hispanic Civil Rights again too.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Well considering Texas is a "majority minority" state,meaning whites are the minority,what is the problem.There is 3 more states where whites are the minority,Hawaii,New Mexico,and California.Georgia,Arizona,and Mississippi,are on the brink of becoming majority minority.So to me in each of these states we got to make sure whites have favorable districits redrawn to make sure we have equal representation just as they have done in the past for for other minorities.I also think in these states we no longer need affirmitive action programs for non whites considering they no longer are the minority.You are correct we need to wake up
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled narrowly in a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, exempting a small Texas governing authority from a key provision of the civil rights law.
Supreme Court sides with Texas district in narrow ruling on voting rights law (http://www.startribune.com/nation/48771587.html?elr=KArksCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr - broken link)
I lived in Texas for 10 years. They are not exactly "fair and balanced" when they redraw their districts as it is. Now, they no longer even have to try.
Apparently, it's not just LGBT Civil Rights that are under assault. They're clearing the path to go after African American and Hispanic Civil Rights again too.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
The Voting Rights Act has came under increasing scrutiny since the election of the first black president. America has turned the page as far as race, voting, and elections are concerned. Where have you been?
With only one Justice voting to strike down Congress’s 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act’s controversial Section 5, the Supreme Court on Monday interpreted the law in a way that saves it. The Court said that all local units of government must be given the option to bail out of the requirement that they get Washington approval for any changes in their election laws or methods.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for an eight-member majority in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder (08-322), said that Section 5 has achieved “historic accomplishments,” but “now raises serious constitutional concerns.”
“The importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it,” the Chief Justice wrote. “Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions. We agree that the [utility] district is eligible under the Act to seek bailout. We therefore reverse [the District Court]l, and do not reach the constitutionality of Sec. 5.
”
It was a very narrow ruling, one that DID NOT rule on the constitutionality of the act.
There are many aspects about the Civil Rights Act that are unconstitutional. First and foremost, the States determine their own election laws, not the feds. This is a serious violation of the 10th Amendment. Secondly, Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act violates the 14th Amendment since the law only applies to those living in 16 States, and does not apply to those living in the other 34 States. All laws must be applied equally to everyone.
There are many aspects about the Civil Rights Act that are unconstitutional. First and foremost, the States determine their own election laws, not the feds. This is a serious violation of the 10th Amendment. Secondly, Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act violates the 14th Amendment since the law only applies to those living in 16 States, and does not apply to those living in the other 34 States. All laws must be applied equally to everyone.
It would be nice if laws enacted to protect minority groups from discrimination weren't nescessary and we would all just get along and always do the right thing. However, we all know that that doesn't happen in America. The Federal Government itself still openly practicesdiscrimination:
It would be nice if laws enacted to protect minority groups from discrimination weren't nescessary and we would all just get along and always do the right thing. However, we all know that that doesn't happen in America. The Federal Government itself still openly practicesdiscrimination:
So, where does it stop? If marriage is re-defined, where does it stop? Do you openly advocate for gay marriage but oppose plural marriages?
The gay marriage agenda is a selfish agenda. The LGBT community only thinks about themselves, not the ramifications of the the agenda they push. Think about it. Where do you draw the line? I don't think you have an answer.
So, where does it stop? If marriage is re-defined, where does it stop? Do you openly advocate for gay marriage but oppose plural marriages?
The gay marriage agenda is a selfish agenda. The LGBT community only thinks about themselves, not the ramifications of the the agenda they push. Think about it. Where do you draw the line? I don't think you have an answer.
Yes, struggling for acceptance, equality, and freedom is certainly a "selfish" agenda.
So, where does it stop? If marriage is re-defined, where does it stop? Do you openly advocate for gay marriage but oppose plural marriages?
Strawman argument. Nobody is advocating plural marriages, marriages to siblings, parents, animals or children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
The gay marriage agenda is a selfish agenda. The LGBT community only thinks about themselves, not the ramifications of the the agenda they push. Think about it. Where do you draw the line? I don't think you have an answer.
If you consider standing up, demanding and fighting for Full and Equal rights that the heterosexual community refuses to freely provide to us selfish, then I agree that the LGBT Movement is selfish.
What 'ramifications' has this 'selfish' tragedy wrought on your life? Which rights or freedoms have you lost by LGBT's gaining some of those same rights by the legalization of same sex marriage in 6 states?
What, exactly, do you believe the "ramifications" of the "agenda" are? For that matter, what exactly do you believe our alleged "agenda" to consist of?
Strawman argument. Nobody is advocating plural marriages, marriages to siblings, parents, animals or children.
If you consider standing up, demanding and fighting for Full and Equal rights that the heterosexual community refuses to freely provide to us, then I agree that the LGBT Movement is "selfish".
What 'ramifications' has this 'selfish' tragedy wrought on your life? Which rights or freedoms have you lost by LGBT's gaining some of those same rights by the legalization of same sex marriage in 6 states?
What, exactly, do you believe the "ramifications" of the "agenda" are? For that matter, what exactly do you believe our alleged "agenda" to consist of?
See, that's where you folks get it wrong. Do you not understand the concept of "opening up a whole new can of worms?" Precedent obviously means nothing to you. You are exactly right, no one is advocating for plural marriages at the moment. But then again, nobody was advocating for gay marriage in 1950. But now people are advocating for it. What's to stop the plural marriage movement from pushing its agenda in 20 years if marriage is re-defined as you want it to be? Why is this argument lost on the LGBT community? You guys simply don't get it. You have tunnel vision, and that's the very reason I say it's a selfish agenda. It's all about ME, ME, ME, ramifications be-damned.
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.
CiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr - broken link)
