Supreme Court won't reinstate North Carolina voter ID law

[anonymous]

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court denied a request Wednesday from North Carolina to allow provisions of its controversial voting rights law to go back into effect.

In a 4-4 split, justices left undisturbed a lower court opinion that struck down the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-voter-id/


Good. The NC GOP minions lose yet again.

Why is it Republicans want no restrictions on gun ownership, which is a Constitutional Right, but have no problem trying to impose restrictions on voting, which is also a Constitutional Right? I guess, like the Bible, they get to pick and choose which parts of our governing document to defend.

 

[anonymous]

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court denied a request Wednesday from North Carolina to allow provisions of its controversial voting rights law to go back into effect.

In a 4-4 split, justices left undisturbed a lower court opinion that struck down the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-voter-id/


Good. The NC GOP minions lose yet again.

Why is it Republicans want no restrictions on gun ownership, which is a Constitutional Right, but have no problem trying to impose restrictions on voting, which is also a Constitutional Right? I guess, like the Bible, they get to pick and choose which parts of our governing document to defend.

You're not smart enough to be guessing. Only those who are eligible to vote and are registered to vote should be voting. Try cashing a check without ID. Try getting in a plane without ID.

Yeah, you've been exposed as a hypocrit and a fool so run along now.

 

[anonymous]

You're not smart enough to be guessing. Only those who are eligible to vote and are registered to vote should be voting. Try cashing a check without ID. Try getting in a plane without ID.

Yeah, you've been exposed as a hypocrit and a fool so run along now.

They only hypocrite and fool on this thread is you.

What part of the Supreme Court decision do you not understand?

You are quick to 'support' what ever parts of the Constitution that or the Bible you agree with, but when things don't go your way, it's whine and cheese time.

The NC GOP lost and there will be no voter suppression this fall.

 

[anonymous]

No wonder GOP is angry. How are republicans expected to win any contests if people besides whites can vote! My goodness. Can you imagine minorities, students and people who don't or can't drive to far away ID hubs having the right to vote. It's sacrilege to the republican party that the vote is distributed to all fairly. Amazing....

 

[anonymous]

No wonder GOP is angry. How are republicans expected to win any contests if people besides whites can vote! My goodness. Can you imagine minorities, students and people who don't or can't drive to far away ID hubs having the right to vote. It's sacrilege to the republican party that the vote is distributed to all fairly. Amazing....

A complete and total misrepresentation of the Republican position.

The truth is that you don't care about the integrity of the voting process. But then your Demokkkrat party has a long history of supporting election integrity such as turning out the dead to vote and the living but ineligible to vote.

 

[anonymous]

They only hypocrite and fool on this thread is you.

What part of the Supreme Court decision do you not understand?

You are quick to 'support' what ever parts of the Constituition that or the Bible you agree with, but when things don't go your way, it's whine and cheese time.

The NC GOP lost and there will be no voter suppression this fall.

I understand that the Supreme Court came unmoored from the Comstitution and became tyrannical quite awhile ago. I understand that the Court is one of 3 equal branches of our government. It IS NOT THE SUPERIOR BRANCH. The court is more than welcome to weigh in with its OPINION, but the State of NC should thank the court and then follow the legislation that they democratically passed and run THEIR elections accordingly. Sadly that won't happen but that just brings us another day closer to a worse crisis in this nation.

There is no way that the court aside from clear constitutional language, which does not exist, should be overturning the actions of the elected representatives of the people.

You like tyranny when it agrees with your preferences as does the slack-jawed, Vag.

What you know about the Bible and the Constitution would rattle around in a thimble so don't accuse me of not accepting all of both of them as they are plainly and originally meant to be understood and accepted.

You're out of your depth with me, idiot boy, so run along and save yourself more embarrassment.

 

[Vagitarian]

You're not smart enough to be guessing. Only those who are eligible to vote and are registered to vote should be voting. Try cashing a check without ID. Try getting in a plane without ID.

Yeah, you've been exposed as a hypocrit and a fool so run along now.

The only time anyone uses checks anymore in when they mail them - no ID required.
We used to be able

I understand that the Supreme Court came unmoored from the Comstitution and became tyrannical quite awhile ago. I understand that the Court is one of 3 equal branches of our government. It IS NOT THE SUPERIOR BRANCH. The court is more than welcome to weigh in with its OPINION, but the State of NC should thank the court and then follow the legislation that they democratically passed and run THEIR elections accordingly. Sadly that won't happen but that just brings us another day closer to a worse crisis in this nation.

There is no way that the court aside from clear constitutional language, which does not exist, should be overturning the actions of the elected representatives of the people.

You like tyranny when it agrees with your preferences as does the slack-jawed, Vag.

What you know about the Bible and the Constitution would rattle around in a thimble so don't accuse me of not accepting all of both of them as they are plainly and originally meant to be understood and accepted.

You're out of your depth with me, idiot boy, so run along and save yourself more embarrassment.

Slack jawed? Love it and glad to see you've renewed the comfortable, rent free lease in your head and still allow me to get under your skin.

Yes, none of the 3 branches are superior, they are equal and they interact. This has been going on for years. So let me ask you this, if the Supreme Court is so benign, why does the Senate care whether or not they conduct hearings for Merrick Garland? After all, SCOTUS just gives opinions.

 

[anonymous]

I understand that the Supreme Court came unmoored from the Comstitution and became tyrannical quite awhile ago. I understand that the Court is one of 3 equal branches of our government. It IS NOT THE SUPERIOR BRANCH. The court is more than welcome to weigh in with its OPINION, but the State of NC should thank the court and then follow the legislation that they democratically passed and run THEIR elections accordingly. Sadly that won't happen but that just brings us another day closer to a worse crisis in this nation.

There is no way that the court aside from clear constitutional language, which does not exist, should be overturning the actions of the elected representatives of the people.

You like tyranny when it agrees with your preferences as does the slack-jawed, Vag.

What you know about the Bible and the Constitution would rattle around in a thimble so don't accuse me of not accepting all of both of them as they are plainly and originally meant to be understood and accepted.

You're out of your depth with me, so run along and save yourself more embarrassment.

Translation - You are pissed off that the Supreme Court ruled against another case and handedseen a defeat for republicans and those on the twisted far right, such as you.

You claim to be such a supporter of the Constitution when you feel it protects your little value system but when happens a Supreme Court ruling goes against your narrow minded beliefs and you lose, the result is a disjointed and rambling response such as the garbage you posted above.

Face the facts, Idiot Boy, the GOP lost big time on this one and there will be no voter suppression, as was the goal of the racist republicans in NC.

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court denied a request Wednesday from North Carolina to allow provisions of its controversial voting rights law to go back into effect.

In a 4-4 split, justices left undisturbed a lower court opinion that struck down the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-voter-id/


Good. The NC GOP minions lose yet again.

Why is it Republicans want no restrictions on gun ownership, which is a Constitutional Right, but have no problem trying to impose restrictions on voting, which is also a Constitutional Right? I guess, like the Bible, they get to pick and choose which parts of our governing document to defend.

So, how soon will you be demanding the pot shops and growers close down in Colorado, California, et al? After all, the same Supremacy Clause that you are celebrating in the NC voting case that applies to pot.

Let me ask you this: Why do you not want people to prove who they say they are to assure they are entitled to vote? What's to stop a student from obtaining a drivers license for their college state, while keeping their drivers license form there actual home state? I've never had to surrender a drivers license when getting one from out of state.

 

[anonymous]

So, how soon will you be demanding the pot shops and growers close down in Colorado, California, et al? After all, the same Supremacy Clause that you are celebrating in the NC voting case that applies to pot.

Let me ask you this: Why do you not want people to prove who they say they are to assure they are entitled to vote? What's to stop a student from obtaining a drivers license for their college state, while keeping their drivers license form there actual home state? I've never had to surrender a drivers license when getting one from out of state.

To your first point, it is an apples to oranges debate in trying to equate the NC voter case to marijuana stores and growing operations. You are trying to be clever in your attempt to compare the issues, but in this case, it does not apply.

Secondly, you should read up on the NC case and realize that the court found the law to be a direct case of racial discrimination that targeted a specific minority group, in this situation, African Americans.

As far as your point about student ID's - A clever but irrelevant point in this debate. They have no bearing on the voting process and like your marijuana point, it does not apply in this case.

Let me ask you this: There was no evidence of voter fraud and the electoral process in NC so why try to fix something that wasn't broken? This was a clear case of the NC GOP trying to suppress the vote by passing a law that was proven to target a specific group.

I am not against wanting people to prove who they are in order to vote - if only this and other similar cases where that simple. Perhaps if lawmakers made the ID process more accessible to all people and allow them to be able to attain the ID in a timely manner, this whole case would never have come about.

 

[anonymous]

Translation - You are pissed off that the Supreme Court ruled against another case and handedseen a defeat for republicans and those on the twisted far right, such as you.

You claim to be such a supporter of the Constitution when you feel it protects your little value system but when happens a Supreme Court ruling goes against your narrow minded beliefs and you lose, the result is a disjointed and rambling response such as the garbage you posted above.

Face the facts, Idiot Boy, the GOP lost big time on this one and there will be no voter suppression, as was the goal of the racist republicans in NC.

Oh I faced the facts a long time ago. You are an idiot and a liar, those are the facts!

 

[anonymous]

The only time anyone uses checks anymore in when they mail them - no ID required.
We used to be able


Slack jawed? Love it and glad to see you've renewed the comfortable, rent free lease in your head and still allow me to get under your skin.

Yes, none of the 3 branches are superior, they are equal and they interact. This has been going on for years. So let me ask you this, if the Supreme Court is so benign, why does the Senate care whether or not they conduct hearings for Merrick Garland? After all, SCOTUS just gives opinions.

Idiot boy, me constantly humiliating you is hardly you getting under my skin. I love making you look stupid and it's incredibly easy.

 

[anonymous]

Translation - You are pissed off that the Supreme Court ruled against another case and handedseen a defeat for republicans and those on the twisted far right, such as you.

You claim to be such a supporter of the Constitution when you feel it protects your little value system but when happens a Supreme Court ruling goes against your narrow minded beliefs and you lose, the result is a disjointed and rambling response such as the garbage you posted above.

Face the facts, Idiot Boy, the GOP lost big time on this one and there will be no voter suppression, as was the goal of the racist republicans in NC.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]You're nothing but a little lying, sniveling hypocrite and this is where you get exposed.

So you're really gonna argue that requiring proof of ID is racist? LOL!

So requiring ID to cash a check is racist? So the airlines and the TSA are racists?

By extension your beloved party, the Demokkkrats are racist! Oh sorry, that's right, they are racists. Have always been and still are. But they require ID to get into their national convention so this is just the cherry on top of their racist sundae. [/COLOR]

 

[anonymous]

To your first point, it is an apples to oranges debate in trying to equate the NC voter case to marijuana stores and growing operations. You are trying to be clever in your attempt to compare the issues, but in this case, it does not apply.

Secondly, you should read up on the NC case and realize that the court found the law to be a direct case of racial discrimination that targeted a specific minority group, in this situation, African Americans.

As far as your point about student ID's - A clever but irrelevant point in this debate. They have no bearing on the voting process and like your marijuana point, it does not apply in this case.

Let me ask you this: There was no evidence of voter fraud and the electoral process in NC so why try to fix something that wasn't broken? This was a clear case of the NC GOP trying to suppress the vote by passing a law that was proven to target a specific group.

I am not against wanting people to prove who they are in order to vote - if only this and other similar cases where that simple. Perhaps if lawmakers made the ID process more accessible to all people and allow them to be able to attain the ID in a timely manner, this whole case would never have come about.

You are a train wreck! You couldn't even stay consistent and hypocrisy free for one post.

First you whine about the NC action fixing a problem which doesn't exist. Then you turn around and applaud an over reaching federal judiciary for fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Even if you were right, which you are not the time to intervene is after there is evidence of a problem. That is the way our legal system is designed to work. If you are injured, you seek redress. You don't get to short circuit things based upon claims of potential damage. Nobody has or was going to be racially discriminated against. This is simply a politicized, out of control judiciary acting up.

Savor your short term victory but the same citizenry of this nation are getting tired of such court action and if things don't get back to more of a constitutional mode of operation a day of reckoning will come.

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

To your first point, it is an apples to oranges debate in trying to equate the NC voter case to marijuana stores and growing operations. You are trying to be clever in your attempt to compare the issues, but in this case, it does not apply.

Secondly, you should read up on the NC case and realize that the court found the law to be a direct case of racial discrimination that targeted a specific minority group, in this situation, African Americans.

As far as your point about student ID's - A clever but irrelevant point in this debate. They have no bearing on the voting process and like your marijuana point, it does not apply in this case.

Let me ask you this: There was no evidence of voter fraud and the electoral process in NC so why try to fix something that wasn't broken? This was a clear case of the NC GOP trying to suppress the vote by passing a law that was proven to target a specific group.

I am not against wanting people to prove who they are in order to vote - if only this and other similar cases where that simple. Perhaps if lawmakers made the ID process more accessible to all people and allow them to be able to attain the ID in a timely manner, this whole case would never have come about.

Your MO is clear: When faced with your assertions being very simply refuted, you repeat your refrain "clever, but irrelevant."

You obviously don't understand the Supremacy Clause, or you fail to posses any critical thinking skills. The Federal Law says no one can manufacture or posses pot, which trumps any state law that might be passed. Nothing new about this, except we have had eight years of an administration that shows little regard for the Constitution. So, whether you're speaking of a SCOTUS ruling or a federal statute, the Feds trump the states.

Regarding students, you would serve yourself well to read what I said before blathering on about student IDs. I said nothing about student IDs.

It's not hard for people to register, if they really want to. The Demokkkrat beef is that they want to be able to enlist otherwise disinterested persons to vote on a whim, with a little inducement and a ride. Perhaps you lefties should engage these people sooner in the process so you can help them register. But, you don't want to do that because the only interest you really have in those people is their vote. Engaging them early might put you in position of really having to help them out of their plight.

After all, the Demokrats have the poor and uneducated people right where they want them...stupid and dependent on Uncle Sam visa vi the demokkkrats, other wise known as the plant ation owners of uncle sam's spread.

 

[Vagitarian]

BT

Your MO is clear: When faced with your assertions being very simply refuted, you repeat your refrain "clever, but irrelevant."

You obviously don't understand the Supremacy Clause, or you fail to posses any critical thinking skills. The Federal Law says no one can manufacture or posses pot, which trumps any state law that might be passed. Nothing new about this, except we have had eight years of an administration that shows little regard for the Constitution. So, whether you're speaking of a SCOTUS ruling or a federal statute, the Feds trump the states.

Regarding students, you would serve yourself well to read what I said before blathering on about student IDs. I said nothing about student IDs.

It's not hard for people to register, if they really want to. The Demokkkrat beef is that they want to be able to enlist otherwise disinterested persons to vote on a whim, with a little inducement and a ride. Perhaps you lefties should engage these people sooner in the process so you can help them register. But, you don't want to do that because the only interest you really have in those people is their vote. Engaging them early might put you in position of really having to help them out of their plight.

After all, the Demokrats have the poor and uneducated people right where they want them...stupid and dependent on Uncle Sam visa vi the demokkkrats, other wise known as the plant ation owners of uncle sam's spread.

W, regarding pot and federal law trumping state law - CA passed the 1st possession law decriminalizing possession of up to 1 oz of pot. There was a Republican president at the time (Ford) and we've had some since (notably Reagan and Bush). If fed law trumps state law, where were these guys?

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

BT

W, regarding pot and federal law trumping state law - CA passed the 1st possession law decriminalizing possession of up to 1 oz of pot. There was a Republican president at the time (Ford) and we've had some since (notably Reagan and Bush). If fed law trumps state law, where were these guys?

In the strictest sense they were negligent (though 1oz possession is a far cry from the wholesale production and distribution permitted by the current administration), but you miss the point. Be clear, I make no judgement against the small quantity, but it is still in violation of Federal Law. I'm not arguing for or against, just showing the anonymous ditz that I originally responded to that Fed law trumps State law. In any case it becomes a matter of Administration priorities vs how bold the states want to be in defying the Fed laws.

 

[anonymous]

Your MO is clear: When faced with your assertions being very simply refuted, you repeat your refrain "clever, but irrelevant."

You obviously don't understand the Supremacy Clause, or you fail to posses any critical thinking skills. The Federal Law says no one can manufacture or posses pot, which trumps any state law that might be passed. Nothing new about this, except we have had eight years of an administration that shows little regard for the Constitution. So, whether you're speaking of a SCOTUS ruling or a federal statute, the Feds trump the states.

Regarding students, you would serve yourself well to read what I said before blathering on about student IDs. I said nothing about student IDs.

It's not hard for people to register, if they really want to. The Demokkkrat beef is that they want to be able to enlist otherwise disinterested persons to vote on a whim, with a little inducement and a ride. Perhaps you lefties should engage these people sooner in the process so you can help them register. But, you don't want to do that because the only interest you really have in those people is their vote. Engaging them early might put you in position of really having to help them out of their plight.

After all, the Demokrats have the poor and uneducated people right where they want them...stupid and dependent on Uncle Sam visa vi the demokkkrats, other wise known as the plant ation owners of uncle sam's spread.

Your above response is basically a repeat of your previous post, just with more rambling repubiklan talking points.

You say very little of substance while using a lot of words.

The Captain may be speaking, but his voice is weak.

 

[Doc Who]

You're not smart enough to be guessing. Only those who are eligible to vote and are registered to vote should be voting. Try cashing a check without ID. Try getting in a plane without ID.

Yeah, you've been exposed as a hypocrit and a fool so run along now.

The voter ID laws across America targets "African-Americans or the elderly. Cashing a check or boarding an air plane does not target a particular race or age.


Why not pass a law that requires you to put a leash on your Unicorn?

 

[anonymous]

The voter ID laws across America targets "African-Americans or the elderly. Cashing a check or boarding an air plane does not target a particular race or age.


Why not pass a law that requires you to put a leash on your Unicorn?

Voter ID laws are no more targeted at anybody than check cashing or plane travel. They are all requirements that apply across the board and are color and age blind. You've got nothing but your unicorn.

You embarrass yourself.