http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003


"Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it."

Perhaps the voting rights act allows them to be "uppity." Would you agree, Justice?

I understand there was a cacophony of gasps from the chamber when he said this.

Good take on his comment here http://www.politicususa.com/bigotry-reaches-level.html

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good take on his comment here
> http://www.politicususa.com/bigotry-reaches-level.
> html


Good take if you are a circle jerk liberal who wants to read stuff that they agree with to make him or her feel all gooey inside.

Voting is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. It should never be considered an "entitlement" in regards to a certain class of people.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
> It should never be considered an "entitlement" in
> regards to a certain class of people.

To the average Fox News viewer, corporations spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections is a god-given right, but voting rights, well that's probably just some minority looking for a free hand out.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
> It should never be considered an "entitlement" in
> regards to a certain class of people.


If only you cherished all rights guaranteed in the Constitution equally.....

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
> It should never be considered an "entitlement" in
> regards to a certain class of people.


Oh so now you care about protected rights, sorry I was under the impression that those were nothing more than a suggestion.

But like always liberals try and spin this into racists BS because the facts arent on their side. The simple fact is all this does is protect the ability for illegals to vote by keeping even the simplest burdens of proof for identity illegal. Liberals know this and know that illegals vote for them and thats why they race bait and do all the usual bullshit they do to protect something that may have been necessary 50 years ago but isnt today.

No, you have a reading problem.

It tells certain states with awful records on vote suppression that if they change their voting laws or rules, they need to get those changes approved by the Justice Dept. This approval is designed to keep state legislatures from adopting legislation designed to disenfranchise certain voters.

No I dont have a reading problem. Its stopped such horrible actions by states like the DOJ stepping in last year and preventing South Carolina from requiring an ID to vote, hmmmmm why would that be. Oh thats right illegals dont have IDs and that would make it harder to go around and vote for Obama several times.

In fact thats all its been doing for the last 5 years for sure is fighting voting ID laws and its hasnt done anything meaningful in probably 30 years if ever.

Its nothing more than fighting to protect voting fraud. Anyone against a voter ID law should be arrested for treason, there is only 1 reason why someone would oppose such a law and its because they are planning to defraud the system

Over at ThinkProgress, the race brigade is out in full force. Why? Because yesterday, during oral arguments apropos the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, Justice Scalia outlined to solicitor general Donald Verrilli the case against the court’s deferring to Congress:

"The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it."

Regardless of whether Scalia is correct or not, this is a thoroughly reasonable argument, and one that we should not allow our our sound-bite culture to distort. (Scalia’s legal description of Section 5 as a “racial entitlement” that was at one point wholly necessary is accurate, too.) His observation was a good one: As the need for the supposedly temporary Section 5 has diminished, legislative enthusiasm for it has increased. And so charged is America’s racial history that merely questioning the propriety of certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act — or the application of those provisions in a changed world — is enough to get one into hot water. As such, there is a case to be made that the court must do what Congress will not. Whether or not this justifies the court’s getting involved is a separate, legal question. But Scalia’s case is strong.

There is a certain strain of progressivism that cannot regard any question as worthy of examination on its merits. In this philosophy, the outcome is all that matters. To those who have been infected with this sordid little creed, process can go hang providing that power is exercised as they wish and that each and every one of their sentiments is indulged in perpetuity. Meanwhile, those who hang on to notions of law and reason are assumed to be concealing bad motives — or, worse, as being secretly evil. Better just to speak platitudes than deal with anything thorny, eh?

ThinkProgress typifies this form of progressivism: Scalia’s “suspicion of the Act,” the authors write, cannot possibly be the product of his legal opinion, but must instead be “rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes.” And so, without any sense of irony or self-awareness, because Scalia noted that opposition to possibly defunct racial laws leads one inexorably to being accused of racism, ThinkProgress . . . accused him of racism. Someone should discuss what happens to legislatures when they become mired in this sort of nonsense; perhaps a Supreme Court justice might take up the topic . . .

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
> It should never be considered an "entitlement" in
> regards to a certain class of people.


Mark, you are wrong again. LOL - Fool

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

The hysterical problem liberal have with Scalia is that he says true things unlarded with the BS political correctness, and emotive irrationality that is mandatory now in public discourse.

Now its even more objectional to call reverse racism by its proper name, than it is to object to the utterly incoherent nature of such policies so long as one does so from some vantage of newly discovered victimhood.

This is why the left is so unhinged about Scalia--because he keeps saying true things, openly, when EVERYONE has AGREED that these things simply should not be said.

We have a black President, had a black female Secretary of State, have/had black Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, etc.

I think the playing field has been leveled.

Kill the reverse racism and the race based handouts and special entitlement programs. Do away with 8(a) contracting.

Let's put this shit to bed once and for all - we are all equal.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No I dont have a reading problem. Its stopped
> such horrible actions by states like the DOJ
> stepping in last year and preventing South
> Carolina from requiring an ID to vote, hmmmmm why
> would that be. Oh thats right illegals dont have
> IDs and that would make it harder to go around and
> vote for Obama several times.
>
> In fact thats all its been doing for the last 5
> years for sure is fighting voting ID laws and its
> hasnt done anything meaningful in probably 30
> years if ever.
>
> Its nothing more than fighting to protect voting
> fraud. Anyone against a voter ID law should be
> arrested for treason, there is only 1 reason why
> someone would oppose such a law and its because
> they are planning to defraud the system

The Voting Rights Act was important 40 years ago. It's no longer important today. Enough of the whole "affirmative action" nonsense.

BelowMe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a black President, had a black female
> Secretary of State, have/had black Senators,
> Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs,
> etc.
>
> I think the playing field has been leveled.
>
> Kill the reverse racism and the race based
> handouts and special entitlement programs. Do
> away with 8(a) contracting.
>
> Let's put this shit to bed once and for all - we
> are all equal.


The 8A thing is the biggest scam around and has been for a long time.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No I dont have a reading problem. Its stopped
> such horrible actions by states like the DOJ
> stepping in last year and preventing South
> Carolina from requiring an ID to vote,

Voting fraud is a false flag that conservatives have been flying ever since motor voter laws were enacted. Prior to motor voter, the way to supress voting was to make it harder to register. Motor voter made it harder for the states to cut off access to the ballot box at registration. Since it was harder to supress voting at the registration stage, conservatives switched to doing it at the voting stage through voter id laws.

When you think of it, the drivers license probably isn't the best way to verify who can and who cannot vote. You can lawfully have a drivers license in Virginia even if you cannot lawfully vote, and you can lawfully vote in Virginia even if you do not qualify for a drivers license.

Many of us have NO PROBLEM with voter ID laws, provided they are handled in a way that does not restrict lawful voters from voting. And the solution is simple. States that want to enact voter ID laws MUST issue free of charge an acceptable ID to all voters when they register and must also replace them for free when lost or damaged. Voters can then use that ID in lieu of a drivers license when they go to vote.

Small Prime but Big Subs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BelowMe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We have a black President, had a black female
> > Secretary of State, have/had black Senators,
> > Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs,
> > etc.
> >
> > I think the playing field has been leveled.
> >
> > Kill the reverse racism and the race based
> > handouts and special entitlement programs. Do
> > away with 8(a) contracting.
> >
> > Let's put this shit to bed once and for all -
> we
> > are all equal.
>
>
> The 8A thing is the biggest scam around and has
> been for a long time.


You mis-paraphrased the Declaration of Independence, we are not "all equal." We are all "created equal," it is what we do with our lives, or what others do to us naturally creates inequality.

This is why when enacting the Voting Rights Act, the Federal government strove to make voting equal and fair to all. History has proven state legislators have enacted laws that make a voting an unequal system, and the act outlines basic rights and provides a check system for specious laws on voting.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Voting Rights Act was important 40 years ago.
> It's no longer important today. Enough of the
> whole "affirmative action" nonsense.

Unfortunately, in that particular county, the ratio of white to black voters is significantly higher than everywhere else in the state - the perfect setup for discrimination via many means and pretty much the environment that the Voting Rights Act was meant to improve.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Small Prime but Big Subs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BelowMe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > We have a black President, had a black female
> > > Secretary of State, have/had black Senators,
> > > Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Police
> Chiefs,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > I think the playing field has been leveled.
> > >
> > > Kill the reverse racism and the race based
> > > handouts and special entitlement programs.
> Do
> > > away with 8(a) contracting.
> > >
> > > Let's put this shit to bed once and for all -
> > we
> > > are all equal.
> >
> >
> > The 8A thing is the biggest scam around and has
> > been for a long time.
>
>
> You mis-paraphrased the Declaration of
> Independence, we are not "all equal." We are all
> "created equal," it is what we do with our lives,
> or what others do to us naturally creates
> inequality.
>
> This is why when enacting the Voting Rights Act,
> the Federal government strove to make voting equal
> and fair to all. History has proven state
> legislators have enacted laws that make a voting
> an unequal system, and the act outlines basic
> rights and provides a check system for specious
> laws on voting.


And yet, it is unfairly and unequally applied to only a few states. Don't ya think that's kinda weird Mark? You know, how you think its about equality and fairness when the whole fricking law is unfair and inequitable. Fool

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting fraud is a false flag that conservatives
> have been flying ever since motor voter laws were
> enacted. Prior to motor voter, the way to supress
> voting was to make it harder to register. Motor
> voter made it harder for the states to cut off
> access to the ballot box at registration. Since
> it was harder to supress voting at the
> registration stage, conservatives switched to
> doing it at the voting stage through voter id
> laws.

Pretending voting fraud doesnt happen when they cant even require a photo ID to make you prove who you are is naive at best. Your right conservatives do think its an issue because Liberals are constantly caught on tape at such out standing places such as Acron telling people how to commit the fraud in the next election.

Requiring you to prove you are who you say you are isnt suppression its common sense. The fact that you need an ID to get into R rated movies but not to vote is absolutely insane.

> When you think of it, the drivers license probably
> isn't the best way to verify who can and who
> cannot vote. You can lawfully have a drivers
> license in Virginia even if you cannot lawfully
> vote, and you can lawfully vote in Virginia even
> if you do not qualify for a drivers license.

Thats a fair enough criticism but if you cant vote an ID wont get your name on the voting rolls. States also issue ID cards that say nothing more than you are you who you say you are. If you cant be bothered to go get either one of those at any point during the 4 years between elections voting clearly isnt important to you.

> Many of us have NO PROBLEM with voter ID laws,
> provided they are handled in a way that does not
> restrict lawful voters from voting. And the
> solution is simple. States that want to enact
> voter ID laws MUST issue free of charge an
> acceptable ID to all voters when they register and
> must also replace them for free when lost or
> damaged. Voters can then use that ID in lieu of a
> drivers license when they go to vote.

You mean like the exact same law the South Carolina passed that was then called by the DOJ under the law Scalia is bashing?

Im fine with that exact for the replace for free part. A one time replacement sure. But not unlimited replacement that easily becomes a front for fake ID operations. Not to mention at some point personal responsibility comes into play.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean like the exact same law the South
> Carolina passed that was then called by the DOJ
> under the law Scalia is bashing?

I was thinking of Georgia's law, but perhaps they are similar. The attraction of the Georgia law is that it does expressly state that the voter ID law (one of several acceptable IDs) is free. The one difference between my view and these laws is that I'd put the burden on the state to issue the ID at registration rather than on the voter.

> Im fine with that exact for the replace for free
> part. A one time replacement sure. But not
> unlimited replacement that easily becomes a front
> for fake ID operations. Not to mention at some
> point personal responsibility comes into play.

I suspect we could reach a reasonable compromise on how frequently a person would be entitled to a free ID, and of course for the more irresponsible there should be an option for paid replacement IDs.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Pretending voting fraud doesnt happen when they
> cant even require a photo ID to make you prove who
> you are is naive at best. Your right
> conservatives do think its an issue because
> Liberals are constantly caught on tape at such out
> standing places such as Acron telling people how
> to commit the fraud in the next election.
>
> Requiring you to prove you are who you say you are
> isnt suppression its common sense. The fact that
> you need an ID to get into R rated movies but not
> to vote is absolutely insane.

Let's put it in terms everyone can understand. I cannot:
1. Legally operate a motor vehicle
2. Buy a gun
3. Purchase alcohol
4. Purchase tobacco
5. Open a bank account
6. Cash a check
7. Use a credit card (in some stores)
8. Get on a plane
9. Get on a train
10. Open a safety deposit box
11. Open a library card
12. Enter a nightclub
13. Enter a secure area
14. Get a driver's license
15. Collect lottery winnings

and a whole lot of other things, without having a photo ID.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I was thinking of Georgia's law, but perhaps they
> are similar. The attraction of the Georgia law is
> that it does expressly state that the voter ID law
> (one of several acceptable IDs) is free. The one
> difference between my view and these laws is that
> I'd put the burden on the state to issue the ID at
> registration rather than on the voter.

The responsibility should still be on the voter though. Its not the governments responsibility to go out and force you to vote. Its not even something you have to do. I dont see and issue with expecting someone to spend 4 maybe 6 hours (if the DMV is packed) to get an ID to vote. I stand by the fact that if someone doesnt think its important enough to get the ID they dont value that right very much.

I dont know Georgias law word for word but they were pretty similar. The SC challenge got dropped after the election was done as well basically saying they can do it in 2013. It was nothing more than Holder and the DOJ playing politics with their power as opposed to actually doing something good like the laws initial intention 40 years ago. Thats all the law has really been used for for quite sometime, its far outdated. Nothing they were trying to do isnt already the law in other states.


> I suspect we could reach a reasonable compromise
> on how frequently a person would be entitled to a
> free ID, and of course for the more irresponsible
> there should be an option for paid replacement
> IDs.

Very easily, as should anyone that actually steps back and looks at it logically instead of just playing partisan politics with it

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's put it in terms everyone can understand. I
> cannot:
> 1. Legally operate a motor vehicle
> 2. Buy a gun
> 3. Purchase alcohol
> 4. Purchase tobacco
> 5. Open a bank account
> 6. Cash a check
> 7. Use a credit card (in some stores)
> 8. Get on a plane
> 9. Get on a train
> 10. Open a safety deposit box
> 11. Open a library card
> 12. Enter a nightclub
> 13. Enter a secure area
> 14. Get a driver's license
> 15. Collect lottery winnings
>
> and a whole lot of other things, without having a
> photo ID.


Thats the insanity of it. Its not that those arent valid reasons to have an ID, but the list of things you need an ID for goes on forever including some very mundane things like buy an age restricted video game. How its not required to elect the most powerful man in the world is beyond me

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats the insanity of it. Its not that those
> arent valid reasons to have an ID, but the list of
> things you need an ID for goes on forever
> including some very mundane things like buy an age
> restricted video game. How its not required to
> elect the most powerful man in the world is beyond
> me

It's stupid to claim that it limits access. If it's that much of an access limitation, everybody gets a free ID. If he/she loses it, he/she has to pay a nominal fee ($5-$10) for a new one. If you keep losing it, the fee keeps going up.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats the insanity of it. Its not that those
> arent valid reasons to have an ID, but the list of
> things you need an ID for goes on forever
> including some very mundane things like buy an age
> restricted video game. How its not required to
> elect the most powerful man in the world is beyond
> me

It's stupid to claim that it limits access. If it's that much of an access limitation, everybody gets a free ID. If he/she loses it, he/she has to pay a nominal fee ($5-$10) for a new one. If you keep losing it, the fee keeps going up.

I hate the spam filter on this website sometimes.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUNdamental Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voting is a right guaranteed in the
> Constitution.
> > It should never be considered an "entitlement"
> in
> > regards to a certain class of people.
>
> To the average Fox News viewer, corporations
> spending unlimited amounts of money to influence
> elections is a god-given right, but voting rights,
> well that's probably just some minority looking
> for a free hand out.


To the average MSNBC viewer, corporations, unions and special interest groups paying for access and favors from Obama in exchange for a commitment to promote his agenda is a god-given right.

(Their understanding, however, of the constitution is somewhat less clear)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?ref=politics&_r=1&;

Hi Donna!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FUNdamental Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Voting is a right guaranteed in the
> > Constitution.
> > > It should never be considered an
> "entitlement"
> > in
> > > regards to a certain class of people.


> > To the average Fox News viewer, corporations
> > spending unlimited amounts of money to
> influence
> > elections is a god-given right, but voting
> rights,
> > well that's probably just some minority looking
> > for a free hand out.


> To the average MSNBC viewer, corporations, unions
> and special interest groups paying for access and
> favors from Obama in exchange for a commitment to
> promote his agenda is a god-given right.

> (Their understanding, however, of the constitution
> is somewhat less clear)

> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obam
> as-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?
> ref=politics&_r=1&

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voting fraud is a false flag that conservatives
> have been flying ever since motor voter laws were
> enacted.

Obama Supporter Votes Up To 6 Times In November 2012 Election
It seems that President Obama has an especially ardent supporter in the veteran Ohio poll worker. Malowese Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice for Obama last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well. "Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election. "I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way. Richardson is one of 19 people suspected of illegal voting by the Hamilton County Board of Elections in the last election.

Americans have come to expect all lifes expenses to be paid for by the government without working. All that is required to make this happen is to drag yourself to the voting booth once every four years and vote for democrats.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Voting fraud is a false flag that conservatives
> have been flying

Maybe that's because most voter fraud is committed by liberals.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont see and issue
> with expecting someone to spend 4 maybe 6 hours
> (if the DMV is packed) to get an ID to vote.

And it is no great imposition on the state to take someone's picture and either give or mail them an ID at the time that they register to vote. The registrar mails me voter cards each time I change my registered address and each time they switch my voting precinct. Is it that great an imposition for them to instead send a piece of laminated plastic with a picture on it that would pass for voting purposes?

What it comes down to is this: If your only purpose is to minimize the possibilities of voter fraud, you put the burden on the state to provide the ID. If your purpose is to reduce the number of people voting, you put the burden on the voters to get the ID.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And it is no great imposition on the state to take
> someone's picture and either give or mail them an
> ID at the time that they register to vote. The
> registrar mails me voter cards each time I change
> my registered address and each time they switch my
> voting precinct. Is it that great an imposition
> for them to instead send a piece of laminated
> plastic with a picture on it that would pass for
> voting purposes?

Actually yes it would cost substantial amounts of money to have picture booths set up and the DMV everywhere considering all you have to do to register to vote is fill out a piece of paper. Aside from cost the DMV doesnt have enough people for that and it defeats the entire purpose having it all over the place open for fraud. None of that is really the point anyway

Someone that cant do anything for themselves doesnt need to be voting. The government isnt your mom, its not their job to do everything for you.

Sorry but if you cant go get an ID you cant vote. You have 4 years to do it. No one is that busy, if you dont get it done its because youre very lazy or dont care. Its getting very old watching our bar of expectations being lowered and lowered all the time enough is enough.

> What it comes down to is this: If your only
> purpose is to minimize the possibilities of voter
> fraud, you put the burden on the state to provide
> the ID. If your purpose is to reduce the number
> of people voting, you put the burden on the voters
> to get the ID.

By your logic then the state should be going door to door getting everyones vote. After all the burden is on the state to get votes forcing them to go to a voting place is clearly voter suppression.

1. Certain radical Libs claim that voter ID laws are being implemented in order to supress voting by certain groups.
2. You claim they are not. You say they are solely to protect the legitimacy of elections.
3. I offer you a way that you can have a voter ID law.
4. You reject it because it won't supress voting by some groups.

And just a parting thought:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And the typical liberal response comes out. You dont deal with what was actually said and just resort to name calling.

You didnt offer a way to have ID laws, you offered a pathetic nanny state for people incapable of doing anything on their own.

You want a solution that requires a nanny state and is so fragmented your voting fraud can continue. People too stupid to get an ID dont need to be voting period.

Getting a free ID is a poll tax now?

Bill can you explain why you are such a racist? I ask people it really bother me that you think so little of minorities and the poor that you think they cant get an ID without being treated like a 5 year old and having their hand held the entire time. Its pretty sad that someone still has those racist views in this day an age

day of reckoning Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans have come to expect all lifes expenses
> to be paid for by the government without working.
> All that is required to make this happen is to
> drag yourself to the voting booth once every four
> years and vote for democrats.



I clearly believe we need better schooling in logic, sentence structure, and punctuation.