Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

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

  1. #41
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    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?
    The use of guns by criminals has been established and the law prevents felony convicts from keeping the right to keep/bear arms even after their release from prison. It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.

    I suppose that you were hoping me to claim that proof is needed, then pop back that no proof exists that "widespread" voter fraud exists. Obama did not need proof that mass shootings were "widespread" to call for gun restrictions, in fact, they average 2 per year. One can certainly say, and proove, that voter fraud is more frequent than mass shootings. Asking to see the same valid, state issued, photo ID that is required to cash a check, board an aircraft or to legally buy a gun, ammo, alcohol or tobacco is not an unreasonable restriction to cast a vote. If the presentation of an ID is unreasonable "discrimination" to exercise the right to vote then it is also unreasonable "discrimiantion" to keep/carry a gun.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #42
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    I wish Congress would get that message too....
    So does Obama, but I suspect you want different results than he does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's a good ruling if it helps increase state sovereignty.

    I just hope that this isn't yet another example of racists trying to usurp state sovereignty arguments to suit their purposes. I'd love it if now that this law is gone, absolutely no racist bull**** follows. If that happens, I'll be very happy. If racist bull**** ensues, though, it'll be yet another instance of racists undermining the state's rights platform with their ignorant bull****.
    Law of averages suggest there will be at least SOME absolutley racist bull**** that follows because there's racists in the world, and they're going to try stuff. Granted, even with this on the books, those people were trying stuff anyways.

    And common sense suggests that we are far more likely to hear about any "racist bull****" then we are about actual worth while, useful, beneficial voting changes by states because the former creates far more controversy and generates far more page views/ratings/etc.

    My hope isn't that racist people don't try to make racist bull**** ensue, because that's an unrealistic hope. My hope is that most of the racist bull**** that is attempted fails, and that the vast majority of what comes out of this law can not objectively be classified as "racist bull****".

  4. #44
    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
    The use of guns by criminals has been established and the law prevents felony convicts from keeping the right to keep/bear arms even after their release from prison. It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.

    I suppose that you were hoping me to claim that proof is needed, then pop back that no proof exists that "widespread" voter fraud exists. Obama did not need proof that mass shootings were "widespread" to call for gun restrictions, in fact, they average 2 per year. One can certainly say, and proove, that voter fraud is more frequent than mass shootings. Asking to see the same valid, state issued, photo ID that is required to cash a check, board an aircraft or to legally buy a gun, ammo, alcohol or tobacco is not an unreasonable restriction to cast a vote. If the presentation of an ID is unreasonable "discrimination" to exercise the right to vote then it is also unreasonable "discrimiantion" to keep/carry a gun.
    You didn't answer my questions: 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?

  5. #45
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    You didn't answer my questions: 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?
    Yes, no and it has been "proven" - simply look at the recidivism rates for armed felony criminals.

    It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #46
    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, no
    Since you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun control before one restricts it, then I suspect you would agree that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting the ability to vote before one restrict it. From there, it follows that you would agree the state must first prove that there is a state interest in requiring voter IDs before the state requires them. Merely saying, "voter fraud is a problem and voter IDs will help" is not sufficient just as you agree that merely saying "there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership" is not sufficient either.

    and it has been "proven" - simply look at the recidivism rates for armed felony criminals.
    Great.

  7. #47
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    It's a good decision, but I am hating this "5-4" court! Over and over again we get these 5-4 decisions which weaken the power of the ruling. Yes, it is the law now, but one that can be easily overturned in the future through new challenges of similar laws after new appointments based on political party.

    Can't these Justices forget "liberal" or "conservative" allegiances and think of the country as a whole? Vote on the MERITS of each issue and stop voting personal view-points?
    After Bork getting Borked, I don't think the possibility of a non-politicized SCOTUS is really an option.

  8. #48
    Sage davidtaylorjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    So does Obama, but I suspect you want different results than he does.
    He is worse than Congress.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  9. #49
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Since you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun control before one restricts it, then I suspect you would agree that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting the ability to vote before one restrict it. From there, it follows that you would agree the state must first prove that there is a state interest in requiring voter IDs before the state requires them. Merely saying, "voter fraud is a problem and voter IDs will help" is not sufficient just as you agree that merely saying "there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership" is not sufficient either.


    Great.
    You know, "restricting gun control" is an odd phrase.

  10. #50
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Porchev View Post
    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
    Except there is substantial evidence that it still exists, and there is a mechanism in the law for a jurisdiction getting off the "bad" list. Which has been exercised many times.

    The discrimination didn't end decades ago. Congress documented this very well in 2006.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •