What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Georgia republicans Back Away From Some Voting Restrictions

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
15,037
Reaction score
13,325
Points
2,405
Thanks to a couple corporations, Coca Cola and Home Depot, Georgia republicans are backing down from two of their proposals that take away the ability to vote mostly from democrats.

None of the proposals they are passing into law will stop voter fraud. Mostly because there isn't any real voter fraud happening.

All the proposals will do is make it much harder for mostly democrats to vote. Which is the point. They don't want those pesky democrats to exercise their constitutional right to vote in an election.

If the republicans in Georgia kept allowing democrats to vote, republicans would keep losing elections.

The republicans in Georgia can't allow that to keep happening so they are passing legislation that is specifically designed to prevent mostly democrats from voting.

I'm sure whatever legislation ends up passing into law will immediately be taken to court and overturned.

Which means the republicans in Georgia are just wasting time and tax payer's money.

 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,036
Reaction score
11,493
Points
1,360
These things don't make it harder for Democrats to vote. It makes it harder for people to vote.

The idea that Republican's can't win if there is a large turn out is bogus also. Now it makes it harder for them to win with the kind of people they have been wanting to run lately.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
54,464
Reaction score
10,783
Points
2,060
Suppression of the vote will be going on in all states, esp. Florida, TX, Arizona, PA, MI, WI.
Anywhere state republicans are in charge of the senate.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,988
Reaction score
21,812
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Thanks to a couple corporations, Coca Cola and Home Depot, Georgia republicans are backing down from two of their proposals that take away the ability to vote mostly from democrats.

None of the proposals they are passing into law will stop voter fraud. Mostly because there isn't any real voter fraud happening.

All the proposals will do is make it much harder for mostly democrats to vote. Which is the point. They don't want those pesky democrats to exercise their constitutional right to vote in an election.

If the republicans in Georgia kept allowing democrats to vote, republicans would keep losing elections.

The republicans in Georgia can't allow that to keep happening so they are passing legislation that is specifically designed to prevent mostly democrats from voting.

I'm sure whatever legislation ends up passing into law will immediately be taken to court and overturned.

Which means the republicans in Georgia are just wasting time and tax payer's money.

“I'm sure whatever legislation ends up passing into law will immediately be taken to court and overturned.”

Unfortunately not.

After Shelby County the courts are going to allow these laws intended to suppress the right to vote to stand.

The only recourse is to vote Republicans out of office and repeal measures hostile to the right to vote through the political process – the judicial process is no longer available to the people to seek relief from conservatives’ efforts to violate citizens’ rights and protected liberties.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
2,055
Points
140
Yep, it's hardly confined to
The republicans in Georgia
While Koch Industries may be headquartered in Kansas, Georgia-Pacific remains its largest subsidiary. All that money flows through ALEC straight to "conservative" Dems as well.. all over.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,988
Reaction score
21,812
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
These things don't make it harder for Democrats to vote. It makes it harder for people to vote.

The idea that Republican's can't win if there is a large turn out is bogus also. Now it makes it harder for them to win with the kind of people they have been wanting to run lately.
Don’t be naïve.

The reason why Republicans are enacting these measures is because they know they will disadvantage likely Democratic voters: older minority voters and voters of color, indigenous peoples, citizens who live in urban communities, and front-line, blue color working Americans.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
2,055
Points
140
Point should be that we're fighting a class war. Partisanship distracts from that reality. Many Dems clearly on the wrong side. Many potential Republican allies being neglected.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,036
Reaction score
11,493
Points
1,360
These things don't make it harder for Democrats to vote. It makes it harder for people to vote.

The idea that Republican's can't win if there is a large turn out is bogus also. Now it makes it harder for them to win with the kind of people they have been wanting to run lately.
Don’t be naïve.

The reason why Republicans are enacting these measures is because they know they will disadvantage likely Democratic voters: older minority voters and voters of color, indigenous peoples, citizens who live in urban communities, and front-line, blue color working Americans.

What did I say that was wrong?
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
40,230
Reaction score
26,830
Points
3,645
In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.

March 2, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC
By Jane C. Timm

An attorney for Arizona's Republican Party offered a blunt reason for his presence defending the state's voting restrictions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday: The measures disadvantage Democrats.


“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win

it's indicative of what is happening across the country. hundreds of cases are intro'd to limit voting rights. them blacks came out in droves & that just can't happen in the future. that GOP lawyer made the mistake of saying it out loud & the SC handmaid stopped him cold, because she knew he f'd up & revealed the reason why he was there arguing why they gotta impose new restrictions.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,988
Reaction score
21,812
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
“The measures disadvantage Democrats.” ibid

…coming as a surprise to no one.

At least Republicans are being honest about being corrupt and dishonest.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,988
Reaction score
21,812
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.

March 2, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC
By Jane C. Timm

An attorney for Arizona's Republican Party offered a blunt reason for his presence defending the state's voting restrictions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday: The measures disadvantage Democrats.


“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win

it's indicative of what is happening across the country. hundreds of cases are intro'd to limit voting rights. them blacks came out in droves & that just can't happen in the future. that GOP lawyer made the mistake of saying it out loud & the SC handmaid stopped him cold, because she knew he f'd up & revealed the reason why he was there arguing why they gotta impose new restrictions.
And the Supreme Court is going to allow Arizona and other Republican-controlled states to enact measures that disadvantage Democrats, ignoring the fact that these bad faith laws likewise disadvantage minority voters and undermine the right to vote.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,036
Reaction score
11,493
Points
1,360
In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.

March 2, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC
By Jane C. Timm

An attorney for Arizona's Republican Party offered a blunt reason for his presence defending the state's voting restrictions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday: The measures disadvantage Democrats.


“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win

it's indicative of what is happening across the country. hundreds of cases are intro'd to limit voting rights. them blacks came out in droves & that just can't happen in the future. that GOP lawyer made the mistake of saying it out loud & the SC handmaid stopped him cold, because she knew he f'd up & revealed the reason why he was there arguing why they gotta impose new restrictions.
And the Supreme Court is going to allow Arizona and other Republican-controlled states to enact measures that disadvantage Democrats, ignoring the fact that these bad faith laws likewise disadvantage minority voters and undermine the right to vote.

They disadvantage ALL voters.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
2,055
Points
140
An attorney for Arizona's Republican Party offered a blunt reason for his presence defending the state's voting restrictions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday: The measures disadvantage Democrats.
That paragraph could fuel ten topics. Private partisan entities treated as monopoly possessions of a State as though anyone had been given some choice in the matter. All nonsense imposed from above. Standing? Wtf? Neither Party was ever granted any right to represent the interests of the People of Arizona period, let alone in federal court.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
2,055
Points
140
“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

The response was
Incredibly stupid. Self-defeating. Guess Michael's looking for new work today. Amy appears to know her job though. Asks good questions. Pivotal moment? Dunno about that. Time will tell, I suppose.

Just to clarify the stupidity of Michael's response, he effectively said that "By keeping out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books, for example (as the Arizona RNC was apparently requesting), we're shooting ourselves in the foot."
 
Last edited:

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
40,230
Reaction score
26,830
Points
3,645
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
  • June 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“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 decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)


so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
2,055
Points
140
Yep, Roberts is an asshole. Could be even worse though. Seems to have improved a bit lately.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
6,528
Reaction score
6,144
Points
1,940
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
  • June 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“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 decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)


so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE there is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.
 
Last edited:

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
40,230
Reaction score
26,830
Points
3,645
Yep, Roberts is an asshole. Could be even worse though. Seems to have improved a bit lately.

he has only made a couple correct decisions - upholding the ACA, & denying trump his silly 'election fraud ' case to be heard.

he effectively threw the voting rights act out the window & that was after he decided that corporations are people - thus allowing untraceable dark money in political campaigns.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,036
Reaction score
11,493
Points
1,360
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
  • June 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“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 decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)


so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
40,230
Reaction score
26,830
Points
3,645
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
  • June 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“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 decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)


so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

uh-huh.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top