Archived

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

Mississippi Republican Primary Off to a Racist Start

68 posts in this topic

Posted

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/politics/thad-cochran-chris-mcdaniel-mississippi-senate-primary.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

FLOWOOD, Miss. — Voters here headed to the polls on Tuesday in a Republican Senate primary that has won national attention as Senator Thad Cochran has made the unusual move of reaching out to black Democrats in an attempt to hold back State Senator Chris McDaniel, his Tea Party-backed challenger.

With Tea Party activists vowing to police voting sites for what they called fraud, the offices of the Mississippi secretary of state and attorney general warned that only one poll watcher, appointed in writing by each campaign, would be allowed within 30 feet of the polls. Tempers were flaring well before voting began at 7 a.m.

____________________________

 

In related but now old news...

 

The Supreme Court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

 

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

 

"The current coverage system," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day. Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”

____________________________

 

So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists has already been proven wrong by the very same conservative party he aligns himself with. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is Cochran offering malt liquor and cigarettes for votes?

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is Cochran offering malt liquor and cigarettes for votes?

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

40's and Kools, my brothuh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So nice I gotta vote fo tha crackah twice

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

40's and Kools, my brothuh....

What kind of 40? I love some Olde E

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/politics/thad-cochran-chris-mcdaniel-mississippi-senate-primary.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

FLOWOOD, Miss. — Voters here headed to the polls on Tuesday in a Republican Senate primary that has won national attention as Senator Thad Cochran has made the unusual move of reaching out to black Democrats in an attempt to hold back State Senator Chris McDaniel, his Tea Party-backed challenger.

With Tea Party activists vowing to police voting sites for what they called fraud, the offices of the Mississippi secretary of state and attorney general warned that only one poll watcher, appointed in writing by each campaign, would be allowed within 30 feet of the polls. Tempers were flaring well before voting began at 7 a.m.

____________________________

 

In related but now old news...

 

The Supreme Court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

 

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

 

"The current coverage system," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day. Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”

____________________________

 

So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists has already been proven wrong by the very same conservative party he aligns himself with. .

 

1.  That's not what Justice Roberts said.  I suggest you read the actual text of the majority opinion.  Here it is

 

There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no

longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. By 2009, “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout

was lower in the States originally covered by §5 than it was nationwide.

 

 

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.  As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes current

burdens and must be justified by current needs.”

 

Your inaccurate accusation: "So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists"

 

Justice Roberts actual statement: "voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that"

 

2.  Nothing you posted refutes what he actually did say, nor does it refute the reason for making the decision.  In fact, just the opposite, as the government of Mississippi says they will not allow anyone to actually interfere with voting and will only allow one pollster from each organization within 30 feet of the polling place.  The voting rights act was designed to prevent the government from discrimination, not individuals.  As long as the government of Mississippi is ensuring just that, then your comments are in error.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1.  That's not what Justice Roberts said.  I suggest you read the actual text of the majority opinion.  Here it is

 

 

Your inaccurate accusation: "So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists"

 

Justice Roberts actual statement: "voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that"

 

2.  Nothing you posted refutes what he actually did say, nor does it refute the reason for making the decision.  In fact, just the opposite, as the government of Mississippi says they will not allow anyone to actually interfere with voting and will only allow one pollster from each organization within 30 feet of the polling place.  The voting rights act was designed to prevent the government from discrimination, not individuals.  As long as the government of Mississippi is ensuring just that, then your comments are in error.

 

 

Of course I only cut and pasted from the article linked, therefore you need to take up the misquoting with them, if there is any.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all

 

I simply posted two different news articles and made an opinion. Draw what you like from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Depends on where you get the article.

 

NY Times or Weekly Standard

 

Bet the same article will have two wildly different set of facts and conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1.  That's not what Justice Roberts said.  I suggest you read the actual text of the majority opinion.  Here it is

 

 

thanks for the link.  

see page 24 near the bottom for the first bold you said he didn't say (yes, he did).

 

the second quote appears to be partially misquoted - which makes me think it may be from a verbal statement he gave, because the actual quote from the document (page 20) (edit: read below to find out where the quote came from, it was someone misquoting the NYT at some point, but not in a way that, IMO, changes the quote meaning):

 

The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 512 (2000) (“Consistent with the design of the Constitution, the [Fifteenth] Amendment is cast in fundamental terms, terms transcending the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment.”). To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past. We made that clear in Northwest Austin, and we make it clear again today. 
 
Also, from page 4:
...It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.
 
I have bolded the identical pieces. However, the "current coverage system" is an adequate explanation for his first few sentences.  Checking http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all makes it clear that the original text was meant to read like this:
 
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
 
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
 
Note the difference in where the quotations are.
 
Either way, Roberts being attributed to those quotes - at least the majority of one, and the complete totality of the other - is accurate,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

thanks for the link.  

see page 24 near the bottom for the first bold you said he didn't say (yes, he did).

 

the second quote appears to be partially misquoted - which makes me think it may be from a verbal statement he gave, because the actual quote from the document (page 20) (edit: read below to find out where the quote came from, it was someone misquoting the NYT at some point, but not in a way that, IMO, changes the quote meaning):

 

The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 512 (2000) (“Consistent with the design of the Constitution, the [Fifteenth] Amendment is cast in fundamental terms, terms transcending the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment.”). To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past. We made that clear in Northwest Austin, and we make it clear again today. 
 
Also, from page 4:
...It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.
 
I have bolded the identical pieces. However, the "current coverage system" is an adequate explanation for his first few sentences.  Checking http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all makes it clear that the original text was meant to read like this:
 
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
 
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
 
Note the difference in where the quotations are.
 
Either way, Roberts being attributed to those quotes - at least the majority of one, and the complete totality of the other - is accurate,

 

 

I said that Roberts never said racism doesn't exist.  This is the specific comment I was discussing.

 

"So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists has already been proven wrong by the very same conservative party he aligns himself with".

 

He didn't say anything of the sort.  The other quotes, I agree that he did say them, or something similar.   But those quotes don't indicate that Roberts thinks discrimination in voting doesn't exist, only that the conditions in the specified areas have changed, and the legislation also needs to change.  That circumstances and conditions have changes is without question.  It can be debated that the legislation needs to change, and I get the impression that the SC thinks that congress needs to modify the legislation since the circumstances under which the original legislation was passed have changed.  Basically, they are imo saying Congress needs to get off its a$$.  But of course, that is unlikely to happen given the current situation. 

 

Sorry if I was not clear. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I said that Roberts never said racism doesn't exist.  This is the specific comment I was discussing.

 

"So much for Justice Roberts and his wildly inaccurate, uninformed and out of touch opinion that racism no longer exists has already been proven wrong by the very same conservative party he aligns himself with".

 

He didn't say anything of the sort.  The other quotes, he did say or something close to them.   But those quotes don't indicate that Roberts thinks discrimination in voting doesn't exist, only that the conditions in the specified areas have changed, and the legislation also needs to change.  That circumstances and conditions have changes is without question.  It can be debated that the legislation needs to change, and I get the impression that the SC thinks that congress needs to modify the legislation since the circumstances under which the original legislation was passed have changed.  Basically, they are imo saying Congress needs to get off its a$$.  But of course, that is unlikely to happen given the current situation. 

 

Sorry if I was not clear. 

 

ahh my fault then, I misread your post.  I agree he never said racism didn't exist explicitly.

 

I agree re: them commenting on congress.  but it won't happen, why would it?  half of congress loves the status quo, heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is Cochran offering malt liquor and cigarettes for votes?

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

He's not running for President, is he?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites