If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP senators have no idea if they'd vote for the Voting Rights Act again but god help them if you ask a breakfast order from them   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 37
    More: Interesting, Voting Rights Act, GOP, GOP senators, Republican, amicus brief, Civil Rights Act of 1964, suffrages, John McCain  
•       •       •

1772 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-06 09:35:08 AM
They had no problem openly commenting on the constitutionality of the ACA.

Suddenly they're tongue-tied. If you're on the wrong side of history, best leave it to those activist judges to take the heat.
 
2013-03-06 09:53:08 AM
A number of Republican senators Tuesday either didn't know or wouldn't say if they consider the Voting Rights Act to be constitutional, even though many of them voted to reauthorize it in 2006 and the Supreme Court is currently considering whether to invalidate a key section of it.

"Oh, SCOTUS, please do the dirty work for us.  In Jesus' name please do the dirty work for us. "

pussies
 
2013-03-06 10:00:39 AM
i219.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 10:10:19 AM
Breakfast? Just order the whole congress a few thousand tins of muffins.
 
2013-03-06 10:12:51 AM
If it wasn't for his commitment to non-violence, I assume Congressman John Lewis would be seeking out each of these morons to personally kick them in the nuts.
 
2013-03-06 10:14:11 AM
A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.
 
2013-03-06 10:16:00 AM
Oh, those farkers KNOW it's perfectly legal and constitutional, but they don't want to admit it, and they want their pet members of the Court to get rid of it so they can suppress more voters.
 
2013-03-06 10:16:43 AM
Sad.  This is the same party that uses their support the Civil Rights Act as proof they care about minorities.
 
2013-03-06 10:21:18 AM

Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.


section 5 focuses on those states that have a history of discrimination towards certain peoples' right to vote, and told them that "you can change your voting laws, but you have to run it by us to make sure you're not doing so in a way that discriminates against certain people"

I see no problem with that section. The south is still a bit on the racist side, but this may need to expand to a universal measure. Section 5 shouldn't be cut though, just expanded
 
2013-03-06 10:21:24 AM
Yes, they just don't kNOw how they would vote. How could anyone kNOw if they would vote yes or NO? It's NOt like they have a vested interest in letting state discriminate. NO one in the Republican party, as it currently exists, has ever tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters. NOt that anyone can prove.
 
2013-03-06 10:24:59 AM
Disingenuous assholes...
 
2013-03-06 10:25:21 AM
This is why the GOP is obsolete in contemporary society.  They really are going to have to purge the tea baggers, bible pounders, and other anti-intellectuals if they want to stand a chance with the younger generations.  Social Conservatism is dead, secularism and personal freedom won.  Get over it and fix the farking finances.
 
2013-03-06 10:31:03 AM

Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.


And yet, a lot of the people trying to purge it WERE alive when the offenses in question occurred.

Weird, iddnit?
 
2013-03-06 10:32:22 AM

Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.


You get that we're still using this law, right? That the courts had to step in a few years ago and stop South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas from discriminatory voting practices?
 
2013-03-06 10:34:07 AM

DeaH: Yes, they just don't kNOw how they would vote. How could anyone kNOw if they would vote yes or NO? It's NOt like they have a vested interest in letting state discriminate. NO one in the Republican party, as it currently exists, has ever tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters. NOt that anyone can prove.


Six years ago it was passed 98-0.  They are simply too cowardly to vote how they want to vote, so they hope SCOTUS will fulfill their dreams and kill it for them.

They'll continue with their "I don't know" BS until a decision is in, then they'll be all like "I'm pleased it was ruled constitutional" in public, but cry in private, or "I am disappointed by the ruling" in public, and jump for joy in private.

Grand Old PUSSIES
 
2013-03-06 10:36:00 AM
Is the breakfast order thing in the headline something I should understand?
 
2013-03-06 10:36:32 AM
This kind of talk really emboldens the racists. I've noticed the FB friends who I sort of suspected had racist tendencies are really let it all hang out now. Thanks GOP!
 
2013-03-06 10:38:35 AM
Thank GOD these fine, upstanding white legislators have the grace and upbringing to know that we live in a post-racial society!
 
2013-03-06 10:48:57 AM
I haven't seen that much chickenshiat since I visited Foster Farms.
 
2013-03-06 10:51:24 AM
www.lanejudson.com

President Bush signing the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 in the Oval Office on January 5th, 2006, in Washington. From left are Rep. Mark Green, R- Wisc., first lady Laura Bush, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R- Wisc., Bush, Rep. Richard Larsen, D-Wash., and Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif.

/Yeah, they also had no problem with reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in '05, back when they had both houses of Congress, but it suddenly became a controversial idea this time around . . .
 
2013-03-06 10:56:57 AM
Ironically enough, the country would be improved if every Republican in Congress was required to resign and become waffle waitresses. Not only would sh*t actually start getting done, but the hit to these idiots' collective pride is downright necessary to their recovery and some of those dudes REALLY need to spend some time in diner waitress drag.
 
2013-03-06 10:57:18 AM
I asked the same question to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who, like Graham, voted to renew the law in 2006. "The Voting Rights Act?" he asked. Yes, I said. Should it be upheld? "Oh, I don't know," Inhofe replied. "I'll let someone else answer that."

When this POS excuse for a carbon-based life form finally retires, the Senate, the country AND the planet will be a much brighter place.
 
2013-03-06 10:59:16 AM
Must be wonderful to live in abject fear of a great percentage of your constituency.  If they say that, obviously it's Constitutional or I wouldn't have voted for it, they incur the wrath of thousands of racist idiots.   And every variance from full retard is a treasonous offense for the freeper crowd, as is supporting anything that could possibly benefit B Rock, the Islamic Shock, HUSSIEN Superhitler al Chicago.
 
2013-03-06 11:01:04 AM

Counter_Intelligent: Sad.  This is the same party that uses their support the Civil Rights Act as proof they care about minorities.


Before voting against the bill, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who had switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in September 1964, eulogized the Senate as the "final resting place of the Constitution and the rule of law, for it is here that they will have been buried with shovels of emotion under piles of expediency, in the year of our Lord, 1965."

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/road/s38.cfm
 
2013-03-06 11:25:16 AM

Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.


Congratulations, you're getting a lot of bites with this, but here's why section 5 is important:

Texas had redistricting issues after the 2010 census.

Florida's attempt to stop early voting in the 2012 election was stopped thanks to section 5

South Carolina was stopped from disenfranchising voters in the 2012 election through its voter ID law thanks to section 5

Without section 5 you can only sue after the damage has been done, instead of stopping it in the first place.
 
2013-03-06 11:32:08 AM

nmrsnr: Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.

Congratulations, you're getting a lot of bites with this, but here's why section 5 is important:

Texas had redistricting issues after the 2010 census.

Florida's attempt to stop early voting in the 2012 election was stopped thanks to section 5

South Carolina was stopped from disenfranchising voters in the 2012 election through its voter ID law thanks to section 5

Without section 5 you can only sue after the damage has been done, instead of stopping it in the first place.


And notice how these electoral changes are only proposed and enacted six months before the general election.  If voter-ID had been proposed in 2009 it would have had a better chance of passing a smell test.  If they had started this shiat then, then the pre-approval mandated by the VRA wouldn't have mattered because there still would have been two years between passage of the new requirements and the election.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:08 AM
Spineless.  But I can't say I'm surprised at the unwillingness of Republican senators to come out in favor of something that their base likely hates, but if they came out against it, they would be pilloried by the media.  But they're the ones who courted the base they've got, so they get to deal with it.

It's also depressing that it's so possible that SCOTUS might overturn it.

Roberts and Kennedy are the potential swing votes... and hopefully Roberts will consider his historical legacy before stripping a key piece of legislation that could seriously alter the voting process in the country.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:33 AM

HighOnCraic: Counter_Intelligent: Sad.  This is the same party that uses their support the Civil Rights Act as proof they care about minorities.

Before voting against the bill, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who had switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in September 1964, eulogized the Senate as the "final resting place of the Constitution and the rule of law, for it is here that they will have been buried with shovels of emotion under piles of expediency, in the year of our Lord, 1965."

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/road/s38.cfm


I wonder if Strom Thurmond's grave site has a state-of-the-art drainage system installed.  If not, I'm sure that the lake of urine around it can be a problem on days of high tide.
 
2013-03-06 11:42:42 AM
The equation seems simple; would Obama support it? If member of the GOP then vote NO, if Democrat then vote YES.
 
2013-03-06 11:44:34 AM
When asked about rape, however, GOP Senators have a weatlh of knowledge to fall back on.
 
2013-03-06 11:49:56 AM
Just expand Section 5 to cover the whole country.  Taaa Daaa!
 
2013-03-06 11:52:15 AM

somedude210: Jim_Callahan: A "key section" meaning section 5, the section that's blatant favoritism based on enforcing the law unequally on certain districts whose populations, statistically, weren't even alive when the offenses in question occurred?

Yeah, you roll with that.  That's way more important than, say, section 2, the bit that actually makes most discriminatory election procedures illegal to begin with, which is not in contention at all.  Yup, the bit that's entirely redundant since complaints can no longer be de facto blocked from the courts, that's clearly the vital beating heart of the legislation there.

section 5 focuses on those states that have a history of discrimination towards certain peoples' right to vote, and told them that "you can change your voting laws, but you have to run it by us to make sure you're not doing so in a way that discriminates against certain people"

I see no problem with that section. The south is still a bit on the racist side, but this may need to expand to a universal measure. Section 5 shouldn't be cut though, just expanded


Yeah, that's what should be done; expanding it nationwide.  However, I can understand the argument that having it apply to some states but not others is unconstitutional.  An expanded Section 5 would probably be constitutional, but the Supreme Court can't do the expansion themselves; Congress would have to pass a new law to do that.  If they find having the rules apply to some states but not others is unconstitutional all they can do is eliminate it completely.
 
2013-03-06 11:54:05 AM
i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 12:09:18 PM

drumdaddyjb: Just expand Section 5 to cover the whole country.  Taaa Daaa!


pjmedia.com

Unfortunately I don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to do that.
 
2013-03-06 12:13:16 PM
"Assuming I accept your premise, and there's some question about that, that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn't," Sotomayor said of Shelby County, which is 90 percent white. "In the period we're talking about, it has many more discriminating -- 240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by Section 5 objections. ... You may be the wrong party bringing this."

"Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?"
 
2013-03-06 12:39:30 PM

Lionel Mandrake: DeaH: Yes, they just don't kNOw how they would vote. How could anyone kNOw if they would vote yes or NO? It's NOt like they have a vested interest in letting state discriminate. NO one in the Republican party, as it currently exists, has ever tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters. NOt that anyone can prove.

Six years ago it was passed 98-0.  They are simply too cowardly to vote how they want to vote, so they hope SCOTUS will fulfill their dreams and kill it for them.

They'll continue with their "I don't know" BS until a decision is in, then they'll be all like "I'm pleased it was ruled constitutional" in public, but cry in private, or "I am disappointed by the ruling" in public, and jump for joy in private.

Grand Old PUSSIES


But they would block new legislation that would apply the same scrutiny to all 50 states. That's really the key here. If the current law is overturned by SCOTUS, they will not replace it with anything because they will be happy to see it go.
 
2013-03-06 01:48:56 PM
When you can't clearly state that you think every vote should count regardless of racial/economic/etc traits because you fear you will loose support from your voters......

America will not be destroyed from an outside force, it will be destroyed from within.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report