Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

Thread: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters Rea

  1. #31
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Which occurs more often - mass shootings with "assault" weapons or voter fraud? Which was declared a national issue by Obama?
    I would not oppose voter I.d requirements as long as the state or federal government provided easier access to getting I.ds or free access to birth certificates. There are some people who have been voting for 60 years and have needed to show identification in order to vote.

  2. #32
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,791

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Banks are private businesses. I don't particularly care what they chose to do. I care about laws which are designed to make it more difficult for opposition to exercise their rights.

    On the opposite side of the coin, though, you have people who support ID's for voting, but oppose ID's for getting guns. We know that crimes with guns are rampant. That's not merely paranoia, it's proven fact. If the people who oppose ID's for getting guns support ID's for voting, I'm naturally skeptical of the altruism in their claims of potential voter fraud. They don't seem to give a **** about criminals getting guns, why would they suddenly care about them voting? I guarantee the individual gun can do more damage than an individual with a vote can.
    Tucker, in light of things like the IRS issue, the NSA scandal, etc etc, can you blame people for not wanting to be in a DC data bank just waiting for such information to be abused?
    Id be ok with a state registration that remains under lock and key except for when under the proviso of a warrant for search so police can know what they are going up against. Otherwise no one has the right to such info---even with freedom of information act. Look at what that newspaper did, they got a FOIA request and promptly leaked all the gun users publicly.

    Im for IDs for both Tucker. But I dont think the government should access that info after they recieve it, except for the express purposes its meant for...and thats the tricky part.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    What makes this decision all the more tragic is that there are people who were alive at the time of the original voting rights act that are still alive and are now seeing one of their proudest achievements get gutted by the Supreme Court. People like congressman John Lewis.

  4. #34
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



    SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.



    Anyone who thinks that this will help the GOP, long term, is out of touch with reality, and possibly doesn't know that massive demographic change (Which is in progress right now.) is coming at today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP like a tidal wave.

    In about thirty years the GOP, if it exists at all, will have been reduced to a small, regional party with no national power.

    If you don't agree, just wait and see.

    No one can stop time and/or change.

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yes. In order to restrict an individual constitutional right then you must prove that you are using the least restrictive method possible to uphold a state interest.
    Do you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership before one even gets to point of debating the "least restrictive method possible"? Or can one merely claim - without proof - that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership?

  6. #36
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Tucker, in light of things like the IRS issue, the NSA scandal, etc etc, can you blame people for not wanting to be in a DC data bank just waiting for such information to be abused?
    Id be ok with a state registration that remains under lock and key except for when under the proviso of a warrant for search so police can know what they are going up against. Otherwise no one has the right to such info---even with freedom of information act. Look at what that newspaper did, they got a FOIA request and promptly leaked all the gun users publicly.

    Im for IDs for both Tucker. But I dont think the government should access that info after they recieve it, except for the express purposes its meant for...and thats the tricky part.
    I completely agree with you.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    I would not oppose voter I.d requirements as long as the state or federal government provided easier access to getting I.ds or free access to birth certificates. There are some people who have been voting for 60 years and have needed to show identification in order to vote.
    Meh, I would go further. I would only support it if the state guaranteed that every person registered to vote got the required ID. There's still too much room in "easier" access.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    In other words, getting back to the way the country was supposed to operate?
    Yes. While we're at it we need to be leveling charges at those who abused their power. The first step would be to oust Eric Holder's punk ass and get an AG in there who understands the job and it willing to do it.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by tech30528 View Post
    Yes. While we're at it we need to be leveling charges at those who abused their power. The first step would be to oust Eric Holder's punk ass and get an AG in there who understands the job and it willing to do it.
    Do you have someone in mind that should be attorney general?

  10. #40
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



    SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.
    Good call. I like this part of it:

    "...a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists..."

    "...The ruling leaves in place many of the protections of the 1965 law, such as banning literacy tests. But it said the federal government can no longer treat some jurisdictions differently because of discrimination that may have ended decades ago..."


    Supreme Court: Past voting discrimination can no longer be held against states - Washington Times

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •