The right to vote just got terrible news from the Supreme Court

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

WTF are you talking about? What is racist (besides everything for democrats)?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The left wing Voting sham act is now under threat.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The article whines it will make it harder to vote.

It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

All I know is.......

If YOU are upset about it....it MUST be great for Murika !!!!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

 

[Sun Devil 92]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

Has he really ?

I thought it was kinda of a veiled endorement.

 

[keepitreal]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

link please

 

[Viktor]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

You fail to grasp that having ineligible people voting is just as much a threat to democracy as barring genuine citizens from it. Without controls on voting, unscrupulous people will pack the ballot boxes with their illegal supporters votes and steal the election.

 

[August West]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

There are wealthy people of all races that think they shouldn`t have to pay taxes. Greed doesn`t recognize skin color.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

There are wealthy people of all races that think they shouldn`t have to pay taxes. Greed doesn`t recognize skin color.

There are successful people of all races who pay taxes.......and skin color has nothing to do with it.

The problem with losers is they make a false equivalency to success and greed.

 

[Meathead]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

That's great news. This free-loading era is coming to an end.

 

[fncceo]

 

[Aletheia4u]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

Cast in the wrong location! Well what if their ballot was accidently modified to a different district right before the election?
They should just bring their I.D. in order for them to vote.
Voter being I.D. isn't racist. They are right now trying to I.D. everyone with RFD chips and tattoos to keep track of our vaccination, which it proves that there are ways of getting around the system.

 

[occupied]

In the right's stated efforts to protect voting integrity you never see any effort to make sure legitimate voters are not disenfranchised. Now why is that?

 

[pknopp]

The article whines it will make it harder to vote.

It should say it will make it harder to vote illegally.

Getting the wrong precinct isn't voting illegally. Especially this year considering how many regular places people voted before were shut down.

So in your view a "free" country that is suppose to respect and support the right to vote should throw out someone's ability to vote that ends up at the wrong place because the regular place they voted at for years is no longer there and after standing in line for three hours they find out they are supposed to vote somewhere else?

Sounds more like what some third world country would do. We should go out of our way to see that people can exercise their Constitutional acknowledged rights.

The ballots all end up at the same place. It's no hardship to see that they get to the right precinct to be checked at the end of the day.

 

[22lcidw]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

There are wealthy people of all races that think they shouldn`t have to pay taxes. Greed doesn`t recognize skin color.

There are successful people of all races who pay taxes.......and skin color has nothing to do with it.

The problem with losers is they make a false equivalency to success and greed.

You are right. It is the corruption, game playing, scamming and stealing that must be reduced. Year after year, decade after decade people say this. and now we have a near permanent underclass with grudges.

 

[pknopp]

BET Founder (Thats BLACK Entertainment TV) endorses TRUMP for President

There are wealthy people of all races that think they shouldn`t have to pay taxes. Greed doesn`t recognize skin color.

There are successful people of all races who pay taxes.......and skin color has nothing to do with it.

The problem with losers is they make a false equivalency to success and greed.

You are right. It is the corruption, game playing, scamming and stealing that must be reduced. Year after year, decade after decade people say this. and now we have a near permanent underclass with grudges.

Many of those grudges being legit.

 

[westwall]

"The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the stakes in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.

The cases involve two Arizona laws restricting the right to vote. One law requires ballots cast in the wrong location to be tossed out, while the other prevents individuals from delivering another person’s absentee ballot to the elections office. But as these cases arise under the Voting Rights Act — a seminal law preventing racist voting laws, that the Supreme Court has already weakened considerably — they provide a conservative-majority Supreme Court the opportunity to dismantle what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act

And Republicans are poised to gain a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

www.vox.com

And dismantling what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is vital to Republicans’ anti-democratic efforts to maintain their minority rule.

Good. It has been a shit law.

 

[Harry Dresden]

WTF are you talking about? What is racist (besides everything for democrats)?

its jones dont ask.....you wont get a reply anyway.....