Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Justice Department - Not so fast you crazy GOP states


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,609 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:05 AM

Justice Department to challenge states’ voting rights laws

Holder hinted at the Justice Department’s voting rights strategy a week ago at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Orlando when he sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

“Let me be clear,” Holder said in a speech. “This was a deeply disappointing and flawed decision. It dealt a serious setback to the cause of voting rights . . . And this is why protecting the fundamental right to vote — for all Americans — will continue to be a top priority for the Department of Justice so long as I have the privilege of serving as attorney general.”

 

 

http://www.washingto...3a_story_1.html

 

 



#2 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:07 AM

Supreme Court be damned eh...

 

I'm sure they'll find a judge somewhere.  Picking and choosing the laws he's going to uphold...Holder is one of if not THE worst attorney general in the history of the US.



#3 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,550 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:09 AM

Supreme Court be damned eh...

 

I'm sure they'll find a judge somewhere.  Picking and choosing the laws he's going to uphold...Holder is one of if not THE worst attorney general in the history of the US.

 

i agree, people in government openly trying to subvert a supreme court decision is just outlandish.

 

well, i mean, except for that one...



#4 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:14 AM

Are trying to make a point?



#5 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,609 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:17 AM

Supreme Court be damned eh...

 

Roe_v._Wade_Headline_1973.jpg

 

I agree
 



#6 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:22 AM

I agree
 

 

First 3 months...LOL...I love that headline. 

 

Nevermind that liberals are raising hell that states are putting restrictions on >20 weeks and holy hell is raised. 

 

You were saying?



#7 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:24 AM

First 3 months...LOL...I love that headline.

Nevermind that liberals are raising hell that states are putting restrictions on >20 weeks and holy hell is raised.

You were saying?


Yeah that's all their doing.

#8 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,609 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:27 AM

"Hey thats not fair...unless we are doing it" g5



#9 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,550 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:30 AM

the court didn't even strike down the voting rights act itself.  the decision forces congress to draw up new requirements which is something that will never, ever happen because of partisan gridlock.

 

it even says in the article that holder's DoJ isn't even attempting to address provisions that were affected by the ruling.



#10 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:30 AM

The way I read it...nothing more than codifying what that headline states.

 

Try again....and there's nothing wrong with legislatures/Congress writing laws.  Holder doesn't write laws...he's supposed to uphold the laws passed, but the laws that USSC decisions uphold. 



#11 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:31 AM

the court didn't even strike down the voting rights act itself.  the decision forces congress to draw up new requirements which is something that will never, ever happen because of partisan gridlock.

 

Which is correct, because that "landscape" changes with societal changes. 
 



#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,960 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 09:34 PM

theory: yes lets re examine how we ensure elections are free and fair, it's been 40 years!

 

reality: hey this morning we get to pass VoterID laws designed to suppress THE SAME PEOPLE FROM VOTING lol



#13 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:54 PM

Supreme Court be damned eh...

I'm sure they'll find a judge somewhere. Picking and choosing the laws he's going to uphold...Holder is one of if not THE worst attorney general in the history of the US.

NSA will find em' one.

Sent from my ADR910L using CarolinaHuddle mobile app



#14 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,893 posts
  • LocationRound about here

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:47 AM

Holder gets like this every now and then. After a diaper change he usually calms down for a while.



#15 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,447 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

Fwiw, the court was right.  The original decisions/legislation was made 50 years ago.  Things have changed significantly and congress needs to update accordingly.  Of course, they are unlikely to update, but its not the courts fault congress isn't doing its job.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.