Justice Ginsburg's Curious Dual-Stance on Voters' Rights

[Silhouette]

This past week Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent on the Decision about the Texas voting rights. She seems very preturbed that a voter there might be disenfranchised from his/her power of voting.

From her dissent: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf

The potential magnitude of racially discriminatory voterdisenfranchisement counseled hesitation before disturbing the District Court’s findings and final judgment. Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texasvoters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.
Id., at 50–51,

54. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic.
Ibid.

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

 

[Contumacious]

This past week Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent on the Decision about the Texas voting rights. She seems very preturbed that a voter there might be disenfranchised from his/her power of voting.

From her dissent: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf

The potential magnitude of racially discriminatory voterdisenfranchisement counseled hesitation before disturbing the District Court’s findings and final judgment. Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texasvoters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.
Id., at 50–51,

54. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic.
Ibid.

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

It was NEVER intended that Americans would acquire rights by voting.

In a CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC the rights to life, property , Liberty and to pursue happiness are secured by the document.

In an ARISTOCRACY OF PULL, ie, a democracy, people acquire rights through gangsterism, majority rule, etc.

 

[Syriusly]

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

Well you find any position that doesn't attack homosexuals an odd position.

And considering Justice Ginsberg intellect- and knowledge of the law compared to yours- I don't think you will ever understand or care to understand what her reasoning is.

Hint: Ginsberg doesn't believe voters have the right to enact unconstitutional laws.

 

[sameech]

She has been consistently all about expanding civil liberties. Her dissent in the voting rights act case.probably where she crossed the Rubicon moreso than this one.

 

[Contumacious]

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

Well you find any position that doesn't attack homosexuals an odd position.

And considering Justice Ginsberg intellect- and knowledge of the law compared to yours- I don't think you will ever understand or care to understand what her reasoning is.

Hint: Ginsberg doesn't believe voters have the right to enact unconstitutional laws.

HUH?

Didn't she support Obama Hellcare and other government supremacy scams?

.

 

[Skylar]

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

That's not a 'dual standard'. As the citizens of a state don't have the authority to vote away rights. They do have the authority to vote in elections. Texas' law would disenfranchise tens of thousands.......to prevent a form of voter fraud so ludicrously rare that Texas could cite only 2 examples in the last decade.

Disenfranchising 200,000 to prevent 2 cases of voter fraud is some pretty brain dead math. If the goal was election integrity, that is.

 

[sameech]

The SCOTUS did not decide Prop 8 on its merits. They tossed it over whether or not the folks had standing under California law.

Edit: Sorry I think it was whether they had standing under federal rules, not state rules

 

[Syriusly]

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

Well you find any position that doesn't attack homosexuals an odd position.

And considering Justice Ginsberg intellect- and knowledge of the law compared to yours- I don't think you will ever understand or care to understand what her reasoning is.

Hint: Ginsberg doesn't believe voters have the right to enact unconstitutional laws.

HUH?

Didn't she support Obama Hellcare and other government supremacy scams?

.

Never heard of that. I think you are tripping.

 

[sameech]

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

That's not a 'dual standard'. As the citizens of a state don't have the authority to vote away rights. They do have the authority to vote in elections. Texas' law would disenfranchise tens of thousands.......to prevent a form of voter fraud so ludicrously rare that Texas could cite only 2 examples in the last decade.

Disenfranchising 200,000 to prevent 2 cases of voter fraud is some pretty brain dead math. If the goal was election integrity, that is.

I will say the same thing as I would in the other situation--show me proof that someone was disenfranchised and maybe I will consider your position.

 

[Skylar]

The SCOTUS did not decide Prop 8 on its merits. They tossed it over whether or not the folks had standing under California law.

Edit: Sorry I think it was whether they had standing under federal rules, not state rules

Yup. The SCOTUS recognized a State AG to appeal the prop 8 ruling that it was unconstitutional. But not any random citizen of the State.

 

[Syriusly]

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

That's not a 'dual standard'. As the citizens of a state don't have the authority to vote away rights. They do have the authority to vote in elections. Texas' law would disenfranchise tens of thousands.......to prevent a form of voter fraud so ludicrously rare that Texas could cite only 2 examples in the last decade.

Disenfranchising 200,000 to prevent 2 cases of voter fraud is some pretty brain dead math. If the goal was election integrity, that is.

Voting in person in Texas legally requires showing ID
However- 'early voting' by mail doesn't.

Is it just a coincidence that absentee balloting is overwhelmingly older and white?

 

[Contumacious]

I find that an odd position. One very difficult for her to defend intellectually. Blacks and Hispanics don't want gay marriage infiltrating our social culture. Auntie Ginsburg will *shoosh* them if she thinks one of her pet causes is at stake.

Well you find any position that doesn't attack homosexuals an odd position.

And considering Justice Ginsberg intellect- and knowledge of the law compared to yours- I don't think you will ever understand or care to understand what her reasoning is.

Hint: Ginsberg doesn't believe voters have the right to enact unconstitutional laws.

HUH?

Didn't she support Obama Hellcare and other government supremacy scams?

.

Never heard of that. I think you are tripping.

HUH?

Syriusly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil loves to dissemble, but has proven to be a failure in her continual fallacies of false comparison.

That particular voting law will be revisited after the elections.

The next decision, if it upholds this one, will throw away voting by mail

 

[Skylar]

Voting in person in Texas legally requires showing ID
However- 'early voting' by mail doesn't.

Which is a bit ironic, given that absentee balloting is where the overwhelming majority of voter fraud actually occurs.

 

[Syriusly]

Voting in person in Texas legally requires showing ID
However- 'early voting' by mail doesn't.

Which is a bit ironic, given that absentee balloting is where the overwhelming majority of voter fraud actually occurs.

It is very ironic- because absentee balloting has become increasingly popular- and increasingly dominated by Republican voters.

I don't think that absentee voting is a bad thing.

I do think that having a double standard for voting is.

 

[Syriusly]

I just want to point out that at this moment 100% of voters have voted that they disagree with Sihouette.

Using the patented 'Silhouette method of analyzing polls' this means the majority of the country are in favor of gay marriage.

 

[sameech]

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

That's not a 'dual standard'. As the citizens of a state don't have the authority to vote away rights. They do have the authority to vote in elections. Texas' law would disenfranchise tens of thousands.......to prevent a form of voter fraud so ludicrously rare that Texas could cite only 2 examples in the last decade.

Disenfranchising 200,000 to prevent 2 cases of voter fraud is some pretty brain dead math. If the goal was election integrity, that is.

Voting in person in Texas legally requires showing ID
However- 'early voting' by mail doesn't.

Is it just a coincidence that absentee balloting is overwhelmingly older and white?

Only old white people can afford stamps to mail their ballots. Give blacks free postage or you are creating a poll tax to discourage them.

 

[Silhouette]

It was NEVER intended that Americans would acquire rights by voting.

In a CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC the rights to life, property , Liberty and to pursue happiness are secured by the document.

In an ARISTOCRACY OF PULL, ie, a democracy, people acquire rights through gangsterism, majority rule, etc.

Rights as to behaviors? Behaviors repugnant to the majority? Why do we have penal and civil codes then? Are they not limiting people's liberties? And which rights are dominant, children's rights to safety or adults rights to unfettered access to them?

I pick children. And so do large numbers of blacks and hispanics.

 

[Contumacious]

It was NEVER intended that Americans would acquire rights by voting.

In a CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC the rights to life, property , Liberty and to pursue happiness are secured by the document.

In an ARISTOCRACY OF PULL, ie, a democracy, people acquire rights through gangsterism, majority rule, etc.

Rights as to behaviors? Behaviors repugnant to the majority? Why do we have penal and civil codes then? Are they not limiting people's liberties? And which rights are dominant, children's rights to safety or adults rights to unfettered access to them?

I pick children. And so do large numbers of blacks and hispanics.

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC you have the right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to exchange your votefor the right to have the government force me to make you happy.

.

 

[Roadrunner]

Voting in person in Texas legally requires showing ID
However- 'early voting' by mail doesn't.

Which is a bit ironic, given that absentee balloting is where the overwhelming majority of voter fraud actually occurs.

It is very ironic- because absentee balloting has become increasingly popular- and increasingly dominated by Republican voters.

I don't think that absentee voting is a bad thing.

I do think that having a double standard for voting is.

I think absentee voters should have a NOTARIZED document explaining why they cannot vote on the designated date for elections.

I am against early voting too.

If you don't care enough to get there in person, you should not vote.

That said, I will vote early, because I have to be at the courthouse anyway, and that will free up hunting time.