Holder takes on Texas Voter Laws

[filmtex]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... rotection/

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the Justice Department will ask a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.

Didn't the SCOTUS just rule that we don't have to do that anymore, or am I misremembering?

Yes, but Holder and his crew appear to me to be just a bunch of lawless thugs. They do this stuff just to tie things up in court. I hope Abbott gives him what he deserves and takes care of business. Might impact his gubernatorial run...

[JALLEN]

I'm waving the Bravo Sierra flag on this one, men.

If there is an eligible voter anywhere in Texas who can't get on the voting rolls, please give me the contact info, and I'll get them registered and a ballot. Nobody is preventing eligible voters from properly and lawfully casting a ballot.

This offer does not extend to deceased voter wannabees. which I understand are some of the significant supporters of Democrat political aspirations.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... rotection/

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the Justice Department will ask a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.

In violation of recent SCOTUS decisions too. The fascist cretin.

[powerboatr]

So wait...Holder can't demand that Texas do what he wants, so he's got to ask a state court to Tell Texas they have to?...sounds legit...

COME AND TAKE IT

means more to me everyday


he can try to order us around but cant fix fast and furious
or the irs.....

[Cedar Park Dad]

It sounds like they are trying to go through section 3 to get the court to "bail in" Texas, by showing previous instances. Its an interesting strategy that might work. Hopefully not, but my hopes are not high.

[EEllis]

My understanding is that the Fed law gave the feds the veto power over any changes that several states with a history of civil rights discrimination make to their voting rules. This was based off of information gathered back in 1964. At the time it seemed warranted and SCOTUS doesn't seem to have an issue with the theory but said you can't keep this type of power based on info that old. Now if Holder of the feds can show that any of the provisions will impact any group unfairly then the law should be changed but they will have to show it now not just say that they "know" it will. I don't have a big issue with that. I don't think the laws are discriminatory and I don't think they can prove crap but if they can then we as Americans should be concerned and want the laws corrected. My only issue is Holder wasting time and money on cases based on politics not the law. If I felt this was about someones honest legal judgement then so be it, but if there is questionable legal merit then that is a real shame.

[mojo84]

I believe allowing non citizens and the dead to vote violates my civil rights as those votes dilute and offset my vote. Holder should be more worried about protecting me than those that vote illegally.

The states conduct the elections and showing identification to do so is so basic it's ridiculous that Holder or anyone else would object to it.

[JALLEN]

It's merely a means to get the issue back into court. The DOJ will file suit, undoubtedly some Federal Judge in San Antonio or Austin will give them an injunction, and the case will make its way through the courts again, while the voting procedures Texans have approved will be on hold. Years from now, the Supreme Court will rule that it was all a big joke, DOJ was misinterpreting an unconstitutional statute and everyone will all troop back to San Antonio to a new district judge who will issue a new injunction on some other point and off we go again.

There is always a district court judge that will go along with the government. If not, you increase the size of the court and appoint one who grasps the nuances somewhat better.

My offer stills stands. If anyone knows of an eligible voter who is being denied the right to vote somehow under Texas voting laws, bring them to my attention and I will get them on the rolls and a ballot. No dead guys need apply, though.

[The Annoyed Man]

It's merely a means to get the issue back into court. The DOJ will file suit, undoubtedly some Federal Judge in San Antonio or Austin will give them an injunction, and the case will make its way through the courts again, while the voting procedures Texans have approved will be on hold. Years from now, the Supreme Court will rule that it was all a big joke, DOJ was misinterpreting an unconstitutional statute and everyone will all troop back to San Antonio to a new district judge who will issue a new injunction on some other point and off we go again.

There is always a district court judge that will go along with the government. If not, you increase the size of the court and appoint one who grasps the nuances somewhat better.

My offer stills stands. If anyone knows of an eligible voter who is being denied the right to vote somehow under Texas voting laws, bring them to my attention and I will get them on the rolls and a ballot. No dead guys need apply, though.

Just one more reason.......

If citizens ever get fed up enough to do something violent toward the federal government, it won't be because they are just natural firebrands; it will be because they've been pushed there by the federal government. It will be what I call a Popeye moment: "I've taken all that I cans, and I can'ts take no more!"

The sad but incontrovertible fact is that we are hosed:

1. The next administration will be either democrat or republican. Anyone who believes different is smoking too much weed.
2. If it is a democrat, it will most likely be Hillary Clinton, but other possible candidates include Joe Biden, and Janet Napolitano. So nothing changes if a democrat is elected. We just get more of the same, except it will be worse.
3. In the last two elections, the democrat won by default because McCain and Romney—two very non-stellar candidates—could not overcome the decks stacked against them to muster the votes to win. This is because:
   1. the majority of American voters are not thinkers, and they are easily bought with bread and ciruses,
   2. McCain/Romney did not have track records that set them apart as a clear alternative to the democrats,
   3. neither shot hoops as well as Obama. (Yes, this is a clear indictment of the mental process of the majority of voters.) And,
   4. the nation's media have irredeemably abandoned journalistic neutrality and are overwhelmingly and reflexively in favor of whichever democrat is running, so they deliberately see to it that the republican candidate does not get fair treatment, and that the democrat does not get the treatment he/she deserves.
4. Republicans, having completely lost sight of the party's roots and totally feeling the groove of their new progressivism, will not nominate a true conservative to present a clear alternative to the communism-lite the dems are selling. And they sure as hades will not nominate a libertarian leaning candidate who will make the rest of the party look foolish. Consequently, they will go for "electable" instead of principles. Republicans can't win on "electable," because the media "deciders of culture" will never let them be portrayed as intelligently hip the way they will for a democrat.
5. On the freakish chance that a republican can get elected, it will be because he or she can draw off enough of the majority democrat and democrat leaning independent voters. The last two elections are proof that will not happen. But, on the freakish chance that it might happen, it would be because that republican candidate was liberal enough to appeal to those voters.
6. There simply aren't enough 3rd party voters to do anything but damage a republican's chance of election, and the only 3rd party candidates worth a cup of warm spit are the libertarians......but libertarian philosophy is anathema to any political viewpoint that values control above justice and the Constitution. Since we are a country that is constitutionally illiterate, no libertarian can ever be elected because they have the troubling habit of insisting on bring the Constitution into policy discussions, which the voters are unable to understand because of their constitutional illiteracy. (.....which has been a deliberate tactic from the top down of the public education system....)
7. Democrats are better at playing nasty hardball than republicans, because they don't care if the republican politicians who they will end up having to work with in Congress like them or not. Dems don't have to be "not mean" because the media will never call them on their meanness. OTH, republicans want the dems to like them, because they want a collegial atmosphere in Congress, and they will bend over backwards and kiss their own backsides just to avoid being called mean by the 527 media arm of the democrat party (meaning pretty much all media except Fox News....).
8. Because of all of the above, I am 65% certain that the next administration will be democrat, and 35% certain that a republican who is functionally no different from a democrat might win.

What does this mean for Texas voter laws? It means that whomever replaces Obama in the future will likely continue ordering the Justice Department to continue suing Texas in the courts. Why? Because out of all the 50 states, we are the biggest threat to the socialist status quo. I think this is something that a lot of Texans, even conservative Texans don't give a lot of thought to, but we are rapidly becoming the conservative conscience of the nation, in the same way that California or New York are the liberal conscience of the nation. We are the place people flee to, when they have "taken all they cans, and they can'ts take no more." The controllists simply can't have that, so we are squarely in their gunsights. So the likelihood approaches 100% that any future administration will continue to pursue these kinds of actions against Texas until she bowes down and accepts the socialist yoke.

We are deeply and truly disrupted as a nation. As with any addiction, it is not going to get better until we hit bottom. When nations hit bottom, it is ugly. REALLY ugly.

[RoyGBiv]

^^^ Well stated Sir.

[Redneck_Buddha]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... rotection/

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the Justice Department will ask a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.

In violation of recent SCOTUS decisions too. The fascist cretin.

I dunno man. Someone already took me to school over this on the previous page.

[mojo84]

They are masters at working the system and knowing how to get things tied up in court and that it will take a long time to for the courts to resolve things and they will have plenty of time to do their damage in the interim.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... rotection/

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the Justice Department will ask a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.

In violation of recent SCOTUS decisions too. The fascist cretin.

I dunno man. Someone already took me to school over this on the previous page.

The recent SCOTUS decision doesn't vacate the previous law, but it says that the previous law cannot continue to be applied using 40+ year old data. Therefore, there exists no data, ZERO data, for a San Antonio based treasonous democrat judge on which to base a decision forcing Texas to get federal permission to change its voting laws.

This sewage is not going to stop until you stop up its source. That means getting Holder out of office by any means, including political dirty tricks (a democrat specialty) if necessary.

[Dave2]

This sewage is not going to stop until you stop up its source. That means getting Holder out of office by any means, including political dirty tricks (a democrat specialty) if necessary.

Holder isn't the source... The source is people (of any party) being in power who overly value control.

[Abraham]

Does requiring voter I.D.'s enter into the picture?

You know, that straw dog Democrats insist unfairly punishes the poor.

I'd love to know how many people get by without an I.D. in our current world?

I would guess extremely few...