Page 21 of 140 FirstFirst ... 111718192021222324253171121 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 3478

Thread: American Politics: THANKS OBAMA

  1. #501
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You do realize the NY Times is also a extremely liberal source?
    Says the one who uses Heritage Foundation.

    They are, and thankfully they are merely of two of nine Justices and do not make up a minority.
    So, you agree with Scalia that voting rights is a perpetuation of racial entitlement?

    And how does that make it any less Unconstitutional via the Equal Protection Clause? I still have not gotten a answer.
    I've read the 14th Amendment and it IS constitutional as the Voting Rights Act PROTECTS the Amendment actually. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is weak and to rule the VRA unconstitutional would be an act of judicial activism at it's worst. If Section 5 can be expanded to include ALL states, then that would be constitutional wouldn't it?

  2. #502
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Says the one who uses Heritage Foundation.
    I do not complain about sources, if you are going to complain about my sources, you should make sure that you use the most non bias of sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    So, you agree with Scalia that voting rights is a perpetuation of racial entitlement?
    Never said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    I've read the 14th Amendment and it IS constitutional as the Voting Rights Act PROTECTS the Amendment actually. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is weak and to rule the VRA unconstitutional would be an act of judicial activism at it's worst. If Section 5 can be expanded to include ALL states, then that would be constitutional wouldn't it?
    If Article 5 places one set of rules on one state, and another set of rules on another state it IS unconstitutional period, the Equal Protection Clause grants the states and the country at large cannot unevenly give out the law. If it were expanded to all states it would be considered constitutional, since it doesn't, it is unconstitutional.

  3. #503
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,487

    Default

    Daily Caller: Patrick Howley: Democratic New Mexico senator worked closely with convicted eco-terrorist
    Oilprice.com: Mansour Kashfi: Iran’s Oil and Gas Will Not Protect Its Rogue Islamic Regime Anymore

    Talk about a nasty burial. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards could run into activists from Earth First, and they’d want to assess their positions in case they see any threats to their own energy supplies. We can ask New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich about his work with environmental groups, and one of the activists involved has a most unsavory background, including an attempt to sabotage a nuclear power plant’s electrical transmission line and open advocacy for what he called “environmental espionage”. The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance was set up in 1997 to continue this chain of work, and it criticized national lawmakers for exploiting the airplane jihad attacks of September 11 to stifle conservation efforts. The tactics sound suspiciously Alinskyite: ridicule, street protests, polarization, constant pressure against government agencies, and so on. These environmentalists contributed upwards of $2 million in order to support Senator Heinrich during last year’s election cycle against his Republican opponent, and no comment was forthcoming about such activities. One imagines that they’ll have additional opportunities for terror and sabotage against our energy companies should various sects within Islam escalate their current forms of energy exploitation, especially because the IRG may have done a better job of fouling up its own industry. The National Iranian Oil Company, the main spigot for Iran’s oil exports, had a well-equipped management team capable of calculating the necessary parameters for petrochemical refinement, pipeline construction and maintenance, and marketing the oil to global customers by 1979, with a total of 11 refineries churning out nearly 2 million barrels per day in capacity. It operated under agreements to refine crude oil for countries as different as South Korea, India, and Senegal, and it also extended its reach into Eastern Europe, a markedly more positive story than what has happened under the ayatollahs. One Rostam Ghasemi, a former commander, was recently appointed Minister of Petroleum, and under him, Iran’s oil industry isolated itself from any technological improvements, leaving any oil fields still present and operational in need of total rejuvenation, assuming he can even get that far. He’d need annual investments of $100 billion, or the equivalent thereof, something Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi may have already dismissed after making their conclusions about their country’s suicide. They recently doubled the capacity for uranium enrichment at a facility near Qom – the city housing the supposed site for the Hidden Imam’s grand reappearance – and added 180 advanced centrifuges to another site in Natanz, bypassing blacklists from our companies as well as companies from Europe, if far more recently. Additional sanctions were approved this past October against 30 other Iranian firms and institutions, including the NIOC, but the main stumbling rock to make these sanctions more workable is Turkey, which gets about 90% of all current natural gas exports out of Iran. Smaller volumes end up in Bulgaria and Greece after “blending with” gas from Azerbaijan, which happens to be expressing increasing irritation with Iran’s brand of Shiism. The Kurds may be up for expanded attention, especially since Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan are turning their sights to the House of Thani to make up for any losses from Iran. Aptly enough, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication issued a ban on money transfers out of Iran, resulting in a 50% drop in crude exports last year, reaching 850,000 barrels per day by September 2012, and by the start of this year, no less than President Barack Obama had approved a new set of sanctions prohibiting trade between any company or individual worldwide and Iran’s theocrats in energy, shipping, and ports known to be attached to its nuclear program, joined by insurance companies from India by this month. Khamenei and his cronies have responded by selling their crude at discount prices to refineries in China and South Korea, making offers to offset any instability in Egypt and Jordan, and reflagging most of the NIOC’s tankers, attempting to stay ahead of investigators in Tuvalu and Tanzania. Their variation of Sharia finance might be a few footsteps away from imploding completely, and we’ll know what country will be most likely to become the main conduit.:

    New York Times: As Banks in Cyprus Falter, Other Tax Havens Step In
    Russian International News Agency: President Putin Orders Large-Scale Military Drills on Black Sea

    The economic exodus from Cyprus is churning along, and the names are enough to give me a few chuckles here and there: Switzerland, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Malta, and Singapore, among others. Offers of corporate relocation are floating as a result of this slow-motion market meltdown, and lawyers and accountants in Cyprus did their part in setting up an infrastructure to train any wealthier clients, namely Russia’s oligarchs, in tax avoidance. The main group attempting to reverse this outflow is the Cyprus Fiduciary Association, one of whose spokespersons said that the country’s banks are finished. Cyprus used to stick to farming potatoes, but Turkish military units seized control of the northern half about four decades ago, giving those financial lawyers a preference for being known as “offshore financial centers” that can maintain their clients’ wealth. The Gonthier Group, operating out of Switerzland, e-mailed Cypriot firms working with foreigners with suggestions of a “Swiss alternative”, which gets the attention of virtually nobody and isn’t classified as a trust or a bank account. The overseas deposits, particularly from Russia, were enough to enlarge the banking sector beyond the overall economy, and if anything, Luxembourg has an even bigger magnitude for its wealth hideaways. For the Russians’ part, the Kremlin launched a diatribe against the European Union because it used a different bank, this one known best as VTB, to rally the Russian voting public behind some of its “safer” investment initiatives. One of those projects involved assistance to the Central Bank of Syria in trade finance and investment without reliance on any other banks. If that wasn’t enough, a steel and transportation tycoon by the name of Vladimir Lisin recently had a ship owned by his current main company, Universal Cargo Logistics, travel to Syria, where, according to Western diplomats, it released some arms shipments in favor of Bashar Assad, excluding attack helicopters, according to the Russians handling this. Lisin used a shell corporation based in Cyprus to control this ship, and I guess Assad and the Alawites would have to concentrate whatever resources they have left around their own fortifications. Those military exercises this past Thursday will give the Turks, including the Gulen Movement, a new reason to perceive encirclement around them. More than 30 warships, 250 armored vehicles, and hundreds of pieces of military hardware were included in the exercise, and the timing looks more and more impeccable by the day. Either of those aforementioned tidbits could be true, and this crisis in Cyprus will be that much closer to looking more and more like an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin and any oligarchs, mafia bosses, and Eastern Orthodox priests still loyal to him at payback against German Chancellor Angela Merkel for watching Syria turn into a slaughterhouse and targeting their assets. I can’t imagine any enthusiasm from the former as certain elements in Greece demand a harder line against any outsiders whom they believe will start cracking down against them, aided and assisted by those thrice-cursed Jews.:

    Greek Reporter: Nicky Onti: Golden Dawn Boycotts Estee Lauder
    Greek Reporter: Margarita Papantoniou: Members of Golden Dawn Attack Mega

    The escalations continue apace in Greece, which, if nothing else, could create a pincer effect around the Islamists in Turkey, even if that doesn’t say much for the general populace still there. Golden Dawn called for a boycott of a company specializing in fragrance, makeup, and hair care after one of its recent leaders, now the leader of the World Jewish Congress, urged deeper attention against an anti-Semitic resurgence in Europe, which looks quite interesting in light of the current fiasco. Golden Dawn sought to invoke Greek Independence Day in order to criticize any ineptitude on the part of Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, and the comments have been constant. At least one commenter raised the prospects of counterattacks by the Coalition of the Radical Left, presumably in solidarity with the Turks. Israel and France could be better off acting on their own as these two factions within the Balkan Peninsula collide, overlapping with the national nightmare directly to the east, and there may be a few opportunities to act farther to the west.:

    France 24: Poll shows most French back veil ban in private sector
    France 24: Malian forces clash with Islamists in Timbuktu

    The Prophet of Islam infused mosque lectures with incessant warfare and wealth transfers all those centuries ago, and it looks the French voting public thought ahead of the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa’s guerrilla tactics, placing it ahead of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The margin in favor of banning expressions of religious affiliation in private schools and nurseries stands at 86%, while 83% favor extending it into private businesses, as well. It began with a case in which a woman was fired for keeping her veil across her face, and the French Court of Cassation ruled against the dismissal. Call it a cultural pushback against Islamic traditions, and I’m certain that however limited the jihadists’ resources currently are in the wake of the maelstrom above Cyprus and Syria, they will attack France and Mali with every last drop of blood they can spill. The MOJWA fighters infiltrated the ancient city after going into hiding for a while, so it looks like they chose now to restart their jihad. They used bicycles to cover their tracks leading to their targets and opened fire on two sides of Timbuktu’s center, intending to target a hotel serving as a base for Malian military units still stationed here. Recruitment shortages might be less of a problem for MOJWA as AQIM’s leadership flails from the latter’s disorganization, giving France, Mali, and their allies additional incentives to continue mobilizing as best they can. We won’t have to guess as to other prospective targets for Sharia supremacists.:

    Fox News Channel: Egyptian Mosque Turned into House of Torture for Christians after Muslim Brotherhood Protest
    Fox News Channel: American Who Fought with Al-Qaeda against Syria’s Assad Arrested in Virginia

    To quote a professor at the University of Denver who’s been studying the Muslim Brotherhood, “there is no longer anything to hold them back. The floodgates are open.”. The officials at this mosque filed a police complaint after discovering that militias loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood were using some of its rooms to imprison and torture activists opposing them, including Copts, having arrived from Friday prayers. One protester had a fracture near the bottom of his skull and another in his left arm, and he got radiation treatment after being taken to an ambulance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the authorizations to launch attacks all over the place came from inside the Guidance Office, especially if they were responding to certain movements by their Salafi rivals. Eric Harroun’s story could throw some new distaste in the way of America’s voting public. He shared stories of his exploits with Fox News Channel via Skype, describing his first encounter with the Al-Nusra Front, and a sister of his seemed supportive of the struggle against Bashar Assad. If it’s any help, “the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist” to this guy, but now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation nabbed him at Dulles International Airport after tracking him in Istanbul. He also said that he once used a rocket-propelled grenade to take down a tower, while some supporters of the Alawite leader picked up on his reputation and made a video claiming that he was a criminal from Florida, Miami, more specifically. We might have less ambiguity about our plans to counter some of the tools cited here on a much more global scale.:

    Washington Post: U.S. in the role of missile mediator
    Times of India: India readies hi-tech naval base to keep eye on China

    Three decades ago – during the start of a certain franchise, as I recall – President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to build a missile shield against any nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union, and his country is now building regional networks in the Middle East and East Asia. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and new South Korean President Park Geun-Hye are leading the overall effort against North Korea’s nuclear instability, while we’re working with Jordanian King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein, among others, against Iran. North Korea’s missiles can hit Japan even without much in the way of accuracy, so we’d need Patriot batteries, Aegis warships, and early-warning radars to keep up to speed. There’s a special recommendation for an intelligence-sharing agreement between South Korea and Japan, and judging from the progress on a new naval base, we might have include India, as well. Admiral Devendra Joshi procured an Akula 2-class submarine and christened it the INS Chakra, deploying it to Visakhapatnam under the auspices of the Eastern Naval Command. India wants to use the naval base to counter movements by the People’s Liberation Army’s Shang- and Jin-class submarines before they’re able to lock any other countries out of the South China Sea. The plan for this new base includes tunnels, jetties, depots, and workshops for any vessels assigned there, including Arihant-class ballistic missile submarines. Smaller submarine sizes could proliferate in Southeast Asia’s waterways, giving other countries their own leverage against the Chinese Communist Party. The warship designs are coming from Russia, so maybe, just maybe, there’s room to maneuver in case certain undercurrents go awry up near Moscow and Beijing.:

    Foreign Policy: Geoff Dyer: China’s Glass Ceiling
    Philippine Star: Sultan’s army gets reinforcements in Sabah

    Good grief. From Vietnam to South Korea, from Burma to Taiwan, if new Chinese President Xi Jinping and his closest advisors really wanted to continue sweeping East Asia, then they might be closer to stalling than they’d prefer to be. Europe and North America emerged at the start of the 20th century with either no challenge from immediate neighbors or separate collapses on the frontiers. These countries expect their own stake in this changing world, which would mean that China would have stand equally next to them. China has also targeted the American dollar through its renminbi, but as it turns out, the Federal Reserve operates without any influence from Beijing. One wonders how often the CCP would pop up in everyday news stories about the Federal Reserve if that really was the case, but the CCP’s leadership would have to let investors buy and sell large amounts of financial assets within China, let capital flow freely in and out, leave interest rates to the market, and let the renminbi float. Meanwhile, Confucius Institutes and China Central Television want to assist in asserting Chinese culture, but people haven’t forgotten the treatment against Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei, and numerous other dissidents. Global alliance management continues to be the United States’ biggest advantage, quite thankfully, so Philippine President Benigno Aquino III might have some reassurance. At this point, the Royal Army of Sulu looks to be the biggest remaining nuisance to my birth country, having received reinforcements that broke through the joint blockade with Malaysia. Lahad Datu saw some new battles to force those fighters out of hiding, but my caution remains over the consequences for those upcoming elections. One disastrous encounter involving Chinese military units would be all that would be necessary to detonate this tinderbox, and the Obama administration and Congress would have to remain on high alert.
    Last edited by ccangelopearl1362; 1st April 2013 at 6:44 AM.
    Babylon 5, Codename: Kids Next Door, 24, and now, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I am many things at once, and many people might have different opinions about little, old me. If freedom is my main idea, then harmony, individuality, and modernization are the three attributes I now sense and track. Those three attributes and that idea combined to make the United States of America a great global superpower and Pearlshipping and Wishfulshipping great Pokémon couples, and now, they've combined to make those four shows truly great television programs to me. I will enjoy enthusiastically supporting the Equestrian ponies' adventures for peace, for humankind, for the future.

  4. #504
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Never said that.
    Then that means I have yet to see a more persuasive argument from the Conservative Justices.

    If Article 5 places one set of rules on one state, and another set of rules on another state it IS unconstitutional period, the Equal Protection Clause grants the states and the country at large cannot unevenly give out the law. If it were expanded to all states it would be considered constitutional, since it doesn't, it is unconstitutional.
    Um, then explain to me... Why wasn't it unconstitutional back in 2006 when it was voted for renewal by 99-0 unanimously?

  5. #505
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Then that means I have yet to see a more persuasive argument from the Conservative Justices.
    No, it means you are assuming that I believe in the words of one justice, of which I never said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Um, then explain to me... Why wasn't it unconstitutional back in 2006 when it was voted for renewal by 99-0 unanimously?
    What makes you think what ever is passed by Congress by a massive majority makes it somehow constitutional? The PATRIOT act was passed by Congress by a 98-1 majority in 2001, were all parts of that act Constitutional?

  6. #506
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    No, it means you are assuming that I believe in the words of one justice, of which I never said.
    But that's just it, what's the point of ruling it unconstitutional?

    What makes you think what ever is passed by Congress by a massive majority makes it somehow constitutional? The PATRIOT act was passed by Congress by a 98-1 majority in 2001, were all parts of that act Constitutional?
    You didn't answer my question. The Senate who voted includes Alabama and Texas Senators. And I don't want to bring up Mississippi being 148 years late to ratify the abolishment of slavery.

  7. #507
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    But that's just it, what's the point of ruling it unconstitutional?
    Because: You cannot have one set of rules for one state, and another set of rules for another state, it's called the Equal Protection Clause. I have explained this like 5 times now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    You didn't answer my question. The Senate who voted includes Alabama and Texas Senators.
    Here I will make it simple, those Senators can vote for what ever they wish, especially if it has names attached to it that make great ad material if they vote the wrong way like the Voting Rights Act or the PATRIOT act. At the end of the day the vote nor the Senator has the final say as to what is Constitutional or not, trying to use that as evidence is a pure red harring on your part and deviates away from the Supreme Court case.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 1st April 2013 at 7:11 AM.

  8. #508
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Here I will make it simple, those Senators can vote for what ever they wish, especially if it has names attached to it that make great ad material if they vote the wrong way like the Voting Rights Act or the PATRIOT act. At the end of the day the vote nor the Senator has the final say as to what is Constitutional or not, trying to use that as evidence is a pure red harring on your part and deviates away from the Supreme Court case.
    But then, if the Republicans vote against the Voting Rights Act... then that would make all the effort to reach out to minorities all for naught. That's just flipping the bird to the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Everyone will know and there will be dire consequences for the GOP overall.

  9. #509
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    But then, if the Republicans vote against the Voting Rights Act... then that would make all the effort to reach out to minorities all for naught. That's just flipping the bird to the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Everyone will know and there will be dire consequences for the GOP overall.
    Which is why this is being taken up by the Supreme Court and not Congress. It's the Supreme Court's job to focus merely on what is and is not constitutional.

    And before you suggest any ruling by the Supreme Court would negatively effect the GOP I will remind you that after the Obamacare ruling last year, it is nearly impossible to pin this Supreme Court as being pro GOP.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 1st April 2013 at 7:21 AM.

  10. #510
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Which is why this is being taken up by the Supreme Court and not Congress. It's the Supreme Court's job to focus merely on what is and is not constitutional.

    And before you suggest any ruling by the Supreme Court would negatively effect the GOP I will remind you that after the Obamacare ruling last year, it is nearly impossible to pin this Supreme Court as being pro GOP.
    Bush v. Gore and Citizens United still leaves a bad taste even today. But then again, I'm talking to a Texas Republican.

  11. #511
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Bush v. Gore and Citizens United still leaves a bad taste even today. But then again, I'm talking to a Texas Republican.
    Yes and I could explain why both of those were the right decisions, but one was from a court over a decade ago, and another had several more recent decisions ahead of it such as Obamacare which solidified the court going against the GOP. And what was with the jab at the end? Why does my place of origin or political beliefs have to do with the fact that the Supreme Court on the biggest decision in decades went against the GOP and for the Democratic party?

  12. #512
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Yes and I could explain why both of those were the right decisions, but one was from a court over a decade ago, and another had several more recent decisions ahead of it such as Obamacare which solidified it's Independent actions.
    Scalia on the other hand is a different story.

  13. #513
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Scalia on the other hand is a different story.
    And he is one Judge out of nine Judges, if his view reflected the entire court then Obamacare would have been struck down wouldn't it?

  14. #514
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And he is one Judge out of nine Judges, if his view reflected the entire court then Obamacare would have been struck down wouldn't it?
    No but he is right wing for a Justice. And Kennedy is usually one of the swing votes by the way.

    But the point is, to have a Republican voice opposition against the Voting Rights Act in this day is considered political suicide especially with the demographic shifts today. You may want to think that through because more people are voting Democrat for more than one reason.

  15. #515
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    No but he is right wing for a Justice. And Kennedy is usually one of the swing votes by the way.
    And you have previously posted comments from left wing justices, your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    But the point is, to have a Republican voice opposition against the Voting Rights Act in this day is considered political suicide especially with the demographic shifts today. You may want to think that through because more people are voting Democrat for more than one reason.
    Which is why thankfully this is being taken up and decided by the Supreme Court and not through Congress in which political party plays a bigger role.

  16. #516
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak94 View Post
    According to a 2011 Gallup poll, Republicans tended to not approve of replacing the Electoral College with popular vote since the 2000 election, but the number of supporters for such an amendment in the GOP has increased since then. Now a slight majority would approve of such a change. Democrats have generally been widely in favor of such an amendment, although support was definitely higher after the 2000 election.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/Am...ular-Vote.aspx

    So while there is a majority support for popular vote among Americans, it would appear that a good deal more of this support comes from the left than from the right. Take from that what you will.
    That poll is from 2011. According to a gallup poll from January, a super-majority in both parties support ditching the electoral college

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/am...l-college.aspx
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  17. #517
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And you have previously posted comments from left wing justices, your point?
    I'm pointing out that he's out of touch with America today. He spoke against judicial activism but he is actually a hypocrite. I mean, he says Congress is too scared to vote against the Voting Rights Act due to its name. That just basically says he'll do what he can to strike it down FOR the GOP. And don't get me started on his comments on same-sex marriage.

    Which is why thankfully this is being taken up and decided by the Supreme Court and not through Congress in which political party plays a bigger role.
    In the end, judicial activism is the GOP's only hope to get it struck down. That will lead to GOP's freedom in disenfranchisement of African American, Hispanic, and young voters in the states listed especially in Texas with the growing demographics.

  18. #518
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    I'm pointing out that he's out of touch with America today. He spoke against judicial activism but he is actually a hypocrite. I mean, he says Congress is too scared to vote against the Voting Rights Act due to its name. That just basically says he'll do what he can to strike it down FOR the GOP. And don't get me started on his comments on same-sex marriage.
    It is not the Supreme Court's job to be in touch with America today, that is the job of Congress and the President. It is the Supreme Court's job to decide if something is constitutional or not, which Section 5 is not. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    In the end, judicial activism is the GOP's only hope to get it struck down. That will lead to GOP's freedom in disenfranchisement of African American, Hispanic, and young voters in the states listed especially in Texas with the growing demographics.
    Striking down Section 5 is not judicial activism, judicial activism is largely about striking down or supporting something where existing law or the constitution does not back you up, Roe v Wade for example could be argued as judicial activism. The Equal Protection Clause is quite clear, and Section 5 does not meet it, as such striking it down is not judicial activism in the least.

  19. #519
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the souther. U.S.
    Posts
    1,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    I'm pointing out that he's out of touch with America today. He spoke against judicial activism but he is actually a hypocrite. I mean, he says Congress is too scared to vote against the Voting Rights Act due to its name. That just basically says he'll do what he can to strike it down FOR the GOP. And don't get me started on his comments on same-sex marriage.



    In the end, judicial activism is the GOP's only hope to get it struck down. That will lead to GOP's freedom in disenfranchisement of African American, Hispanic, and young voters in the states listed especially in Texas with the growing demographics.
    Continuing on what Big Lutz said, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make the laws, just interpret them. When they start creating laws, they overstep their boundaries and upset the balance of power.

    It would not be judicial activism, but something actually constitutional. The actual thing about section 5 is that it limits the states politicians. In one way is redistricting. If you are going to put hold on states, it needs to include every one of them.

    Wizzard Turbish is right that a growing majority of people want to disregard the electoral collegiate. I am not sure If I personally agree with it though. The system currently, though it is not perfect, does provide a great balance between the states.

  20. #520
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post

    Um, then explain to me... Why wasn't it unconstitutional back in 2006 when it was voted for renewal by 99-0 unanimously?
    You do realize that popular=/=constitutional, right?
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  21. #521
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    It is not the Supreme Court's job to be in touch with America today, that is the job of Congress and the President. It is the Supreme Court's job to decide if something is constitutional or not, which Section 5 is not. Period.
    And you sure Scalia's bigoted statements are in touch with America today?

    Striking down Section 5 is not judicial activism, judicial activism is largely about striking down or supporting something where existing law or the constitution does not back you up, Roe v Wade for example could be argued as judicial activism. The Equal Protection Clause is quite clear, and Section 5 does not meet it, as such striking it down is not judicial activism in the least.
    There is something to gain from it for all the wrong reasons. After Bush v Gore, Republicans gained the Presidency from it. After Citizens United, Republicans gained from donations from corporations via SuperPACs but lost the general election anyway. However even if Section 5 was struck down... Obama Administration may have prepared for it in case that happens and there would be a public backlash against those who oppose Voting Rights. So considering the state of the GOP, they may want to have second thoughts on it with the outreach to minorities.

  22. #522
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    And you sure Scalia's bigoted statements are in touch with America today?
    Now I, and Wizard have told you that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to be in touch with the American public, how many more times do you need to be told? But I will say this, if you expect America to believe that we are still in the 1960s, as those two justices you quoted would like us to believe, and that we need racial laws and entitlements because of it. You are going to be sadly mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    There is something to gain from it for all the wrong reasons. After Bush v Gore, Republicans gained the Presidency from it. After Citizens United, Republicans gained from donations from corporations via SuperPACs but lost the general election anyway. However even if Section 5 was struck down... Obama Administration may have prepared for it in case that happens and there would be a public backlash against those who oppose Voting Rights. So considering the state of the GOP, they may want to have second thoughts on it with the outreach to minorities.
    Again, it is not the Supreme Court's job to decide what is good for the Republican or Democratic party, it is their job to determine the law. Period.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 2nd April 2013 at 1:09 AM.

  23. #523
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Now I, and Wizard have told you that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to be in touch with the American public, how many more times do you need to be told?
    I'm pointing to history and current events as evidence on why the VRA needs to be kept and why changes to it are needed. You are pretty much asking to get rid of the whole law together.

    Again, it is not the Supreme Court's job to decide what is good for the Republican or Democratic party, it is their job to determine the law. Period.
    Well, then Scalia and Roberts are showing impartiality on it. I'm being sarcastic.

  24. #524
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    I'm pointing to history and current events as evidence on why the VRA needs to be kept and why changes to it are needed. You are pretty much asking to get rid of the whole law together.
    Problem is that none of that amounts to anything when challenged on Constitutional grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Well, then Scalia and Roberts are showing impartiality on it. I'm being sarcastic.
    And the Democratic Justices are not showing impartiality, your point? At the end of the day neither of those 4 make up a majority on the court

  25. #525
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Problem is that none of that amounts to anything when challenged on Constitutional grounds.
    Well, then answer this. Why did it took me 5 minutes to cast my vote in my home state NJ when it took hours to cast vote in Democratic areas in Florida? Explain that.

    And the Democratic Justices are not showing impartiality, your point? At the end of the day neither of those 4 make up a majority on the court
    So you DO agree that voting rights are racial entitlements. There's more evidence to uphold the Voting Rights Act than to struck it down.

Page 21 of 140 FirstFirst ... 111718192021222324253171121 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •