C:...Make America Great Again

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So past history is good if it is not more than 60 years old. Anything over 60 years ago is no good. If its less than 60 years ago, it is written in temporary stone and must not be touched.

A lot happened in those 60 years that needed fixing. So long as any change is Constitutional, and the people approve, no Judge should have the power to disapprove. However, when Judges rule by philosophical or personal agenda, as Progressive Judges do, then neither Congress nor The People have their Constitutional right to make necessary adjustments to political process.

You don't like that same old argument. But it is the only argument which will protect you and the rest of us from despotisms, even the ones that promise nice sounding things.

Leaving the power in the hands of a few judges who do not respect the overall Constitutional process to decide what protects the voting process, is the surest way of achieving a corrupted voting process.

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch


from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

whos protecting who?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

How?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let a good oppression go to waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about yourself, while they feel good you are "helping" .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let it a good oppression waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about helping poor black folk .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think liberals truly feel this is discriminatory against blacks, they just like to throw that label around every time we are on the winning side of an argument. Which is quite often.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race

Originally Posted by wdmso

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why


....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...

All they need to know, is that they are hurling charges of racism at the right. Details, shmeetails...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans



I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race



so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why


....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/op...ng-rights.html

In the last few weeks, voting rights groups, in some instances working with the Department of Justice, have posted a series of victories that seemed unlikely when their cases against these laws were first brought. The rights of hundreds of thousands of voters are at stake.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, perhaps the most conservative federal appeals court, ruled 9-6 last month that Texas’ strict voter identification law had a racially discriminatory effect on African-American and Latino voters. Not only did the Fifth Circuit send the case back to the trial court to establish a procedure to make it easier for those who lacked one of the narrow forms of identification to be able to vote, but also to decide if Texas had acted with racially discriminatory intent. Such a finding could lead the courts to put Texas back under direct federal supervision.

Last Friday, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled that a North Carolina voting law, possibly the largest rollback of voting rights since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The court threw out not only the state’s strict voter ID law, but also other voting restrictions that could make it especially hard for minorities to vote.

In the Seventh Circuit, a panel of conservative judges gave a trial court permission to soften Wisconsin’s strict voter identification law. In response, the trial court recently issued an order giving people who lacked one of the few IDs accepted for voting in Wisconsin the chance to vote by filling out an affidavit of identity. Then last week another federal court threw out more of Wisconsin’s strict voting laws. On Monday, a federal court told North Dakota to soften its ID law, which adversely affected Native Americans.

Meanwhile, over in the Sixth Circuit, two federal judges have held that Ohio’s rollbacks of early voting violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by making it harder for African-Americans and others to vote. Another case on appeal challenges Ohio’s planned voter purge. In Michigan, a district court judge rejected the state’s elimination of straight-ticket voting. Finally, in Kansas, federal and state courts have beaten back numerous attempts by Secretary of State Kris Kobach to make voter registration harder in the name of preventing noncitizen voting (a minor problem in Kansas, to say the least).

These battles are not over, and further appeals could still lead to reversals. But there are two reasons to be optimistic that we are nearing the end of an era of increasingly restrictive voting rules imposed just about exclusively by Republican legislators and election officials over the objections of Democrats and voting rights groups.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

.

WDMSO, I have no doubt that you can post dozens of links, to stories that claim voter id laws are racist.

But the question is, why? Why do those laws disproportionately target blacks?

What is it, about getting a voter id card, that makes it harder for poor blacks to get, than for poor whites, or poor Latinos?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, I have no doubt that you can post dozens of links, to stories that claim voter id laws are racist.

But the question is, why? Why do those laws disproportionately target blacks?

What is it, about getting a voter id card, that makes it harder for poor blacks to get, than for poor whites, or poor Latinos?

He will check his tool bag and get back to you on that ...............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I guess you would have to say it is bc Repub. have no use for minorities. Why else would the Repub. do it if there is no fraud?

What did the judge who threw out the NC law say - something like it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision. The only reason to do it would be to depress black turnout at the polls.

Yup, they should try conservatism

"I guess you would have to say it is bc Repub. have no use for minorities"

Yes, you would say that. And it's laughable. I wonder, then, why George Bush heroically rammed his AIDS relief plan through Congress, and is credited with saving over one million lives of AIDS patients in Africa? Or why he promoted Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell?

"Why else would the Repub. do it if there is no fraud?"

One reason is because there is, in fact, some fraud. Not a lot, naturally. But not "no fraud", either.

"it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision"

But WHY??? I honestly want to know, because I have no idea, why this is more of a burden for blacks than it is for other races? Why? If blacks can go through the same process to get an id, but freely choose not to, is THAT racist? Just because voter id laws reduce black voting turnout more than they restrict white voter turnout, that doesn't mean it's racist. It could mean that whites are more likely to care enough about voting, to go through the hassle of getting the id. If the process is more burdensome to blacks, that's racist. If it's not more burdensome for blacks, that means they are freely choosing not to get the id, which would not be racist.

"they should try conservatism "

Tell the blacks in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and St Louis, that liberalism has been a positive influence. My God, how could it be worse?

Paul, here is the thing...Bill Clinton did a lot of the economic things that conservatives endorse...he kicked millions of blacks off welfare. Do you know what happened? They went to work. And he is a liberal hero. But if I suggest the same thing, his wife says I am a racist. If you can explain that hypocrisy, I would love to hear it.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/op...ng-rights.html

Let me clarify, I'm asking YOU, not PBS or the NY Times, how requiring an ID to vote is going to dis-proportionately affect Blacks over Whites

I know I'm just a blind-ass "Cracker"....so now's YOUR chance to enlighten me.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Let me clarify, I'm asking YOU, not PBS or the NY Times, how requiring an ID to vote is going to dis-proportionately affect Blacks over Whites

I know I'm just a blind-ass "Cracker"....so now's YOU'RE chance to enlighten me.

Here is the honest, thoughtful response...since you will never get it from a liberal on this issue.

The id requirement, obviously, is no more burdensome for one race than another. So it's not, in and of itself, even a teeny bit racist.

However, the more hoops you have to jump through to vote, the less likely that disenfranchised citizens will be, to vote.

A higher % of blacks are disenfranchised than whites.

Therefore, voter id requirements will likely have the effect of decreasing black votes more than they decrease white votes. I don't doubt that's the effect. But the underlying cause has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and behavior. It's a free choice for blacks to make.

Are some GOP legislators counting on that, and that's why they support id laws, and hide their true intent by saying they are trying to eliminate voter fraud? I am sure that thought crossed the minds of some of the Republicans who support these laws. But the fact is, and it's probably irrefutable (since none of you bothered to refute it) that it's not racist.

There was a famous case a few years ago of firefighters in New Haven taking a test for promotion. It was a test certified to be racially neutral, whatever the hell that means. A bunch of white guys got the highest scores, and earned the promotion. The city then nullified the test, saying that because not enough blacks got high scores, it therefore had to be racist. It went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that there was no racism, that the white guys won fair and square. Just because all the top scorers were white, doesn't mean it's racist.

Is the NBA racist? Or the US Track and Field team, I didn't see a lot of white guys in the 100 meter sprint in the Olymoics. Is that, therefore, racist?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch

Your welcome.

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

Putting on a black robe and being referred to as "Your Honor" does not give someone magic powers, doesn't transform one from a flawed human to some God-like figure. As a group, Judges are no less flawed, nor more virtuous than elected officials. Some Judges may be, most are not. Some tend to be pompous asses full of themselves. Some are political hacks and toadies to the party that appoints them. I'm sure you know this. I'm sure you know that some Judges have been downright evil. Many have had rulings overturned, even generations later.

Which makes me wonder why you unquestioningly accept what they say and even admit that "I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling but it seems they saw How.."

Is this another installment of your lemming-like submit to the power by wdmso?

whos protecting who?

It seems that you are protecting the power.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It seems that you are protecting the power.

unquestioningly accept what they say ... thats funny

I'll questions a judge when I have the knowledge of law and the facts of the case when it is on par with His Knowledge and experience

the same go's for a builder a plumber or an electrician un like you I wont questions for the pleasure of questioning .. But facts dont seem to be part of your tool bag, its appears always to be about the feelings and fighting the system against a hidden enemy that only you can see

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

unquestioningly accept what they say ... thats funny

I'm not aware that you asked questions or had any regarding the list of decisions you've cited. You did say you didn't know why, but the Judges said so . . .

So what questions do you have re the decisions. Or is it enough, simply and completely, that the judges said so. Did you unquestioningly accept what they said?

I'll questions a judge when I have the knowledge of law and the facts of the case when it is on par with His Knowledge and experience

Are you unable to know what is racist? Is racism too difficult for average Americans to understand, and only Judges are intelligent enough to know it? And how do you distinguish which judges are intelligent enough to know it? What about the dissenting opinions? Did you read those?

the same go's for a builder a plumber or an electrician

There are lots of builders and plumbers. How do you know which one to choose? Do you actually believe that working on standardized utilities with standardized methods, which have no intellectual, philosophical, moral, or civic content, is analogous to judging law?

And do you know how the Constitution works as well as you know how to turn on a light switch, or flush a toilet? If you don't, why not? It used to be taught in schools. Maybe not anymore. It is not difficult to read. Do you read the instructions when you get a new appliance?

un like you I wont questions for the pleasure of questioning ..

Perhaps you mean for the sake of questioning. And I don't ask them for the sake of doing so. I do it in order to learn something about that which I question. Sometimes knowing something that I was not aware of is critical. As for the pleasure of questioning, that is a part of the pleasure of learning. If learning about something that is not relevant or critical to me is painful or boring, I won't waste my time asking questions about it.

But facts dont seem to be part of your tool bag, its appears always to be about the feelings and fighting the system against a hidden enemy that only you can see

I used facts in my previous responses to you. And they were facts that just lay around the surface of our society. It is not necessary to store them in a tool bag, nor is there a tool bag big enough to contain them.

What feelings did I express to which you refer?

And Progressivism, socialism, totalitarianism are not hidden enemies. And I am not the only one who can see them.