SCOTUS says keep punishing the Rs for cheating

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Truthmatters]

so you deny this happened?

 

[Truthmatters]

look at the right refusing to incorporate FACTS into their world view.

This happened and no amount of lying on your side makes it untrue

 

[Truthmatters]

this is why your party is dying.

you refuse to see the world as it is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shame on the RNC for not allowing the non-living to vote

 

[Truthmatters]

that is NOT what that case says you lying fuck

 

[Truthmatters]

that case is packed with decades of examples in which the courts had to PUNISH the republican party for cheating Americans out of their votes.


Just last year your right wing packed SCOTUS said keep punishing them.


You cant face facts so you fucking lie.

gee Im so surprised.

Your a fucking traitor to this country

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shame! The non-living need to have their votes counted!

Voter ID Disenfranchises the non-living!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I love it when Libs post unread articles

 

[Truthmatters]

that is a SCOTUS decision asshole

 

[Yurt]

is the 13th thread you've created on this?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

you have no credibility. you completely ignore democratic voter fraud. you're a worthless hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

that is a SCOTUS decision asshole

Vote early.. vote often.... oh.. and BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

see gentle reader they will deny 30 years of court records that go all the way to the SCOTUS.



fucking traitors backing fixed elections

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

Perhaps you could merge this bullshit thread with the other hundred or so bullshit threads you have started on the same bullshit subject.

 

[Truthmatters]

so you deny facts straight from our courts?



what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Truthmatters]

why did your SCOTUS refuse to save your party?

 

[Truthmatters]

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.




http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114



1/2013



so last years SCOTUS decision just doesn't exist in your world huh?

 

[R.D.]

Protecting the dead voter and non resident vote is a worthy cause

Amiright?