Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part Of Voting Rights Act


Recommended Posts

BRAVO! The Supreme Court finally has struck down the infamous "Section 5" of the 60-year old Voting Rights Act, which has given the federal government unprecedented say over numerous states and counties in everything from Voter ID laws, to how some states draw their congressional maps, to where they place polling locations. In the Obama era, this section was used increasingly on behalf of Hispanics, including trying to block laws to prevent illegal aliens from voting.
Eric Holder, Obama's corrupt Attorney General, has used Section 5 endlessly to block Voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, and numerous other anti-fraud provisions in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and elsewhere. Holder is now legally neutered from playing race-baiting legal games to artificially boost Democrat voter turnout.
The decision was 5-4, split as one would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck's wishful thinking is so much like pretending he lives in Obamaouniverse.

 

Spin, spin spin spin spin.

 

Nary an honest appraisal. Okay, there was one time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, there are no controls over voter fraud, so early voting expedites said voter fraud.

 

From www.oregonlive, some comments to the question::

****************************

 

The Oregon voter registration and fraud check system would seem to be nonexistent and ineffective. Voting by mail even adds a level of detachment from any checks. Any wonder there is little evidence of voter fraud in this perfect system. Almost as fraud free as drive by voting.
Go to the back portion of the Voters Pamphlet when it arrives and carefully read the registration form. Anyone who checks the citizen block can vote in any Oregon election. No other ID required. Who follows up and verifies? If you are here illegally you are already in violation of our laws, why worry about another violation?
Anyone who checks the citizen block and either supplies a drivers licence number or last four digits of their SS# can vote in a Federal election. Who follows up and checks? What can be learned from the last four digits of your SS# and how often is it checked? Illegals in Oregon could be as many different people as they wanted with $50 and a zerox of a bill with a name and address. It is not uncommon that an illegal arrested for a second bookable offense and fingerprinted is found to have previously been booked and fingerprinted under a different drivers licence and name. A second drivers licence is also a handy way to get double dips of welfare.
Ride the MAX through fareless square as the election approaches. Registration gathers will walk through asking every one to register even speaking spanish to non english speaking passengers. Last I witnessed this. The gentleman kept saying he was not eligable and the registar kept saying to register anyway.
Ever wonder how a do nothing congressman like Wu ever got elected?
Democrats need voter fraud thats probably why the governor didn't like vote by mail. its the same reason why the Dems don't like photo ID. it would make it too hard for illegal aliens to vote. a computer set up is what we need here
No ballots should be opened until the polls close on election day. NO voters should be able to vote without first showing PROOF of citizenship, ie birth cert or passport. We cannot let this wonderful privilege be tarnished by illegals or cheating. Too many Americans have died to give this to us.
allow voting on our home commuters. that way we have less of voter fraud which the left so badly needs to win elections. speaking of disenfranchisement I sure wish the Democrats would stop doing that to the military. the part about not getting the ballots in time is a lame excuse. the military votes should be counted first if anything. using computers would make their voting less of a problem because our servicemen could vote from anywhere in the world. I don't understand why Democrats would rather count the votes of illegal aliens instead of the military. I know why actually. it means more votes for Democrats.
I realize that the Oregonian's first rule is to miss no opportunity to bash Republicans, but it might have been fair to point out that when a Republican legislature passed vote-by-mail for all elections in 1995 the bill was vetoed by then-Governor John Kitzhaber. The main reason he gave was that the ballots would be sent out too early, leading to a large increase in early voting.
Whats wrong with it? for one thing the constitution says the presidential election shall be held on the first tuesday following the first monday. Don't like it change the constitution. Another problem, once you've voted, you can't change it, and there is the chance of something new coming up until election day. You can't say, darn that changes my mind, I want to change my vote. Lastly, if you care about the country you can schedule a couple of hours to perform one of your civic duties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure that's a completely accurate portrayal.

it's surprisingly accurate sir. I'm sure you can do a search and see outraged speech after outraged speech. Those on the fringe left really are going nuts over this relatively tiny piece of legislation. I know you hate to believe it butthat's your base.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woody, it has to do with voter fraud. IOW's, I have no problem with early voting,

but we already have Dems demanding that anybody can vote - even illegals.

With no freakin ID.

 

So early voting simply compounds that problem, expedites the ability to commit voter fraud.

 

Why fight voter ID, legit registration, and then fight FOR early voting? And then fight AGAINST

ballots not being counted until after the election is over, but want more and more early voting?

 

Because early voting reports can be actively used by dem activists to flood early voting in large dem cities (the dem base), and influence voters

who haven't voted yet...and the rest of the election, that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... early voting is bad because you think it hurts your guy's chance of winning? It sounds like there's nothing inherently wrong with early hours voting. If anything it allows more people to vote that otherwise may not have. If you're afraid of weak minded people changing their mind or deciding not to vote because of what some early results poll said then you might as well be against 98% of all political ads. They basically just take half truths, or straight up lies, and try to convince the uninformed.

 

You also never really explained how it expedites voter fraud...

 

 

Also, why should redistricting to help your party be allowed? What are the positives of gerrymandering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's surprisingly accurate sir. I'm sure you can do a search and see outraged speech after outraged speech. Those on the fringe left really are going nuts over this relatively tiny piece of legislation. I know you hate to believe it butthat's your base.

 

WSS

 

Sure, lots of people are upset about the ruling. You, on the other hand, dismiss anything other than a shrug of the shoulders as "outrage" from the "fringe" and "hyperventilating." I'm just saying you're a lousy barometer that only points to the right. The thing that makes you maddest is presentation, not issues, and only when it comes from the left. The fact that you've got complete maniacs on this board and in real life "hyperventilating" with "outrage" on the hour from the right doesn't phase you at all.

 

But when Chris Matthews does it, "Oh, golly, would you look at him, that raving fringe lunatic!"

 

It's just a little too obvious to take seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't suggest that Sean Hannity was "your guy." Or lazily try to pretend that his arguments are your arguments simply because you're both Republicans Who Pretend To Not Be Republicans.

 

"Answer for you boy, Julian Bond!"

 

"Huh, what? What did he say? I don't even know."

 

"He's your guy, bud!"

 

 

....Eeesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/liberal-journalists-tweet-outrage-after-supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-ruling/

 

by the way, sure you would. You likenednd me to Hannity on more than one occasion.

anyway here's just a few that are relatively minor compared to what you would see watching MSNBC for just a few hours.

 

and did I actually say answer for your boy Julian Bond? I don't think so but I was referring to a segment on Chris Matthews where there was some decided hyperventilating going on.

I thought the driving a dagger through the heart of the civil rights movement was a little over the top.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to discuss the ruling, fire away. But the liberal reactions to the ruling, and your reactions to their liberal reactions of the ruling? Eh, not so interested in that.

 

Sounds like a communist to me.

 

Self centered and self loaving while only concerned with a agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck translation:

 

"I don't care about this ruling because I can't gloat and draw pro democrat liberal observations from it and that makes me angry"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...