Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Disappointed Eric Holder

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 relies on 40-year old data no longer reflective of racial progress and changes in US society. By nullifying Section 4 of the act, the Supreme Court remands this issue to the Congress.

What is this issue all about? It was a lawsuit initiated by Shelby County, Alabama that questioned whether a 2006 congressional decision, to reauthorize Section 5 of the Act under the pre-existing coverage formula in Section 4(b), exceeded the authority of Congress under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and in violation of the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the US Constitution.

Okay, so let’s review. From 1865 to 1964, Democrats in southern states did everything they could to deny black Americans their constitutional rights. These were called Jim Crow laws (Jim Crow being an epithet for black persons). In 1965, the federal government intervened to prohibit these Democrats from discriminating against black Americans, which was a de facto assault against the sovereignty of states. Specifically, Section 4 of the Act used a formula that intended to determine which jurisdictions within states had to gain federal permission to modify its voting laws.

Today, states that were once guilty of these civil rights violations are no longer discriminating against black Americans because democrats no longer control these states. So it is appropriate for the court to remand this issue to the Congress, which must now redevise its formula as a condition of continuing to interfere in matters that belong exclusively to the states.

The court's decision disappointed Eric Holder, however. In his response to the Supreme Court decision, he said, “Now like many others across the country, I am deeply disappointed—deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter. This decision represents a serious setback with reference to voting rights, and has the potential to negatively affect millions of Americans across the country.”

Mr. Holder must be talking about the setback in suffrage that resulted from his refusal to prosecute black thugs who attempted to intimidate voters in 2009.  But Holder is right: all is not well in America when in some states during the 2012 general election, black rednecks and white liberals voted numerous times to reelect Barack Obama, thereby stealing the election —efforts, which some believe, began as early as 2009.

Yes, indeed; America has a lot of work left before we achieve voting honesty. What has changed since 1965 is that it isn’t a bunch of white democrats denying votes to black Americans. It is rather progressive communists denying fair and honest voting to everyone else.

Mustang Sends


Always On Watch said...

Sheila Jackson Lee has weighed in on yesterday's decision by the SCOTUS. Good grief!

Meanwhile, in Texas: Texas AG Abbott says voter ID law will 'take effect immediately'. Excerpt:

...“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” Abbott said....

It will take long time for the squawking about yesterday's SCOTUS decision to subside.

Always On Watch said...

PS to Mustang: I heartily agree with your final paragraph. Well said!

Always On Watch said...

Two good essays from the Daily Caller:

1. A historic affirmation of racial progress

2. Supreme Court’s VRA decision a win for our system of government

JonBerg said...


I agree; the "final paragraph" speaks volumes!

Ducky's here said...

Well, it's not simply a minority issue

Tip of the cap to Wendy Davis.

Z said...

Thanks for all that info, AOW..will read it when I get home from work.

Ducky, good for HER! Got to keep those abortion clinics killing unborn babies. Bravo, Wendy.
And God help you.

And God help us all...thanks to the Supreme Court's decisions this morning.

Our poor children.

Z said...

One has to wonder about a country in which its citizens need not show proof of citizenship before they vote on all those things which affect its citizens.
Anyone who doesn't agree with that is so questionable.

And there are so many people who simply don't. It's such a basic, fundamental, common sense requirement...and when we let that go, how did we expect so many other things not to go?

Z said...

Let me put it another way: Anybody who thinks voter ID suppresses votes is not thinking big picture;
People ought to be able to arrange a FREE voter ID. They ought to be able to think ahead and register ahead as we did the last 200 years.

We lower the bar and you can see the consequences.
Let's properly educate ALL Americans so they can vote intelligently and correctly...THAT is the dream; but that seems to be the nightmare for leftwingers..

Z said...

Maybe people just can't figure out that they can only vote ONCE.
EVERY REPUBLICAN wants EVERY LEGAL VOTER TO VOTE, no matter WHAT party this person votes for.
We have GOT to get things back on track.

Anonymous said...

Z, it boggles my mind. France has over 80 percent participation at the polls with a voter ID and a registration deadline. So the whole thing about voter IDs preventing people from voting is an utter bunch of crap.

Z said...

See, Frog Burger? You are so right; this is total nonsense. I wish you could find the time to write on this comparison and what is really behind the American reticence.
In Germany, they have an ID card and use it and can only vote once...the card gets swiped or something and no other precinct can take it.

Our leftwingers haven't figured that out yet, apparently, in their zeal to make sure everybody votes. (as if)

Z said...

One more thing before I'm even more late to work this morning:

Letting folks vote on Saturdays might mean more with JOBS will vote; perhaps that's scary to the leftwing.

JonBerg said...

Fraudulent + Low Information Voters = Obama in the White House again! This Nation can never be better than the veracity and the caliber of its 'stake holders' (voters).

Constitutional Insurgent said...

The irony in the opposition to this ruling, is that if the racial paradigm in the nation is such where we still need the VRA.....then it proves that both the VRA and liberal policies in regards to race have been an abject failure.

Scotty said...

The hoopla over this is yet another distraction and another attempt to divert the uninformed's attention.

We must keep repeating, Fast and Furious, Fort Hood, Bengazi, IRS, NSA, Boston.....

Law and Order Teacher said...

This hasn't been about the right vote for sometime. It's about controlling who will vote. The lefties want their people to vote in numbers that overwhelm the workers who fund the country.

It's beginning to take effect and this ruling puts the whole plan in jeopardy. They don't care about the right to vote, they want to control who votes. Who wants to control the process? The usual suspects: race baiters, progressives, and other lefties.

Getting questionable voters to the polls in the necessary numbers is about the process. If you can keep the numbers up by putting in large numbers of unregistered and in a lot of cases illegal voters into the system you overwhelm it.

First, however, you need to control the process. This ruling jeopardizes that control.

Mustang said...

I agree, Scotty … we must not forget these things you mentioned, but I believe so many changes in such a short period of time is no coincidence. This is the agenda of the current occupant of the White House, and those in the Senate. We cannot afford to be one-dimensional Americans. I’m certain most of us on the right can walk and chew gum synchronously.

Ducky's here said...

We don't need the Voting Rights Act because ever since it was enacted, voting rights have improved.

Am I interpreting the board correctly?

Sam Huntington said...

Ducky, surely you aren't quite as stupid as your statement suggests ...

Z said...

What fantastic comments; thank you. I learn SO MUCH from most of you.

But Ducky...your implication being we don't want Black Americans to vote, is that right?
Tell me who's more prejudice, those who think Black Americans can't vote without being bused in, and with no identification and not until the day OF the election because they just don't know how to register like they USED to?

Or those of us who think Black Americans are intelligent enough to prove they're citizens, can figure out how to get free ID, and can make it to the polls as well as they did before leftwingers started picking them up (and paying them) and convincing them they're poor victims of Republicans?


C Yoda said...

Did bill clinton and eric holder split the money bribed from mark rich, or for himself did bill clinton pocket it, hmm?

Dave Miller said...

Pretty sweeping statement about Ducky Z... I don't think he was saying that at all, more he was pointing to the fact that voting participation among previously discriminated people has improved since enactment of the voting rights act.

Can anyone argue otherwise?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Can anyone argue otherwise?"

I don't think that anyone can...but can anyone argue that these regulatory burdens on the states are still needed. SCOTUS didn't think so.

JonBerg said...

C Yoda,

Good question but when you are talking about members of the Nation's largest criminal enterprise, the DemocRAT party, I'm sure it's meant to be purely rhetorical.

Z said...

Dave....that's the point; it went without saying...Nobody needs to remind anybody above that we're glad ALL people can vote now.
I hate to say "I think I'm interpreting Ducky correctly.". sad, I know.

Anonymous said...

How asking for an ID card is limiting voting rights?

I have a right to drive and I still need a driving license. Or I have a right to run a business and I still need a business license. Or I have a right to buy beer and I still have to show my ID (Yes I'm still getting asked sometimes.)

Marine4Ever said...

Beam me up, Scotty. I'm with you!

Dave Miller said...

I think one of the issues with a Voter ID is how it gets decided what is accepted. For instance, if someone is from California, yet goes to school in Alabama, where do they vote?

Legally, they are not a residence of Alabama, so they must vote absentee. How does that happen if you must show an ID to vote?

I am all in favor of this, if we can have a federally set standard that every state must follow and one that is grandfathered in to give some grace to seniors that may not have the types of ID some are calling for.

There are still many people of color in our country who were denied ID years ago who are still alive. perhaps we could set the age limit at 60 and below must have ID, but allow for some flexibility for those older.

But again, as how to run an election is under the authority of states, how could we get to a uniform standard?

If we are to go with the types of ID that other countries use, like France, or even Mexico, wouldn't that argue for a federal standard?

Z said...

Dave, they're offering free IDs to everybody, so I think that works.
But I also like your idea of an exclusion of those under 70, not 60.

As for going to school or working in another state, I don't see why a voter ID can't be updated to say "working in TX" or "schooling in TX.." and include the dates.

The ID card in Europe works perfectly.........but Conservatives get real nervous about a federal ID card. I have never agreed with them on that. We have such snooping now that a mere Fed ID card sounds like a declaration of one's independence!

Robert Sinclair said...

There are people who own homes in Ohio and Alabama, New York and Georgia, Massachusetts and Florida. Many of these people (and I do mean to suggest that the numbers are significant) vote in both states. Apparently, no one sees this as a significant problem, in spite of the fact that on a national basis, you have people voting twice when in fact they are entitled to vote once in a presidential election.

My belief is that most states could not care less about this. If someone votes illegally in two states, which of the two states should claim harm? Could not the voter say that since he or she pays taxes in both states, he or she is entitled to vote for members of congress, the state legislature, and state judges? If neither state is offended by this institutional fraud, then no harm means no foul. However, the problem is, harm has been done—particularly in presidential elections.

What about this?

Z said...

I wish ONE LIBERAL would respond to my claims of how I believe it's Democrats who don't trust in the ability of Black America to DO for themselves like we all do.
MOST can and DO.

Yes, the history's HIDEOUS; being owned by white people, not being able to even learn to read, not getting the vote, Jim Crow, etc., but that's OVER.
I know so many Black friends who've told me there's NOBODY more prejudice than Black folks against Whites (not all, but MANY) let's stop the BS of racism of Whites toward Blacks, by the way.
It's about even-steven now.

BUT, to insist we bus Black folks into voting areas, and for Rangel to scream how WE KNOW THERE WAS VOTER SUPPRESSION in the last election as if it's a damned FACT, is NUTS.
Then we have people like Ducky who STILL suggests there was just one lone Black guy who wasn't threatening at a predominantly white voting precinct at all and it was just a little joke or something? (or?? or WHAT?) !...when EVERY SINGLE VIDEO or STILL shows TWO guys who admit to being in the New Black Panthers...carrying NIGHTSTICKS and refusing to SPEAK.....oh, and wearing some kind of clothing that makes them look like cops or something..what's with that?
That's not voter suppression??? :-)

So...why do liberals have no faith in Black Americans?

Z said...

Robert, if you could have seen the two times I've seen astonishing things that led to voters voting more than once.
one was a gorgeous black girl who charged into the dining rm of an old age home nearby with her cell phone...she came in and said "I live really far but work around here, can I vote?" She was told she could if she signed the PROVISIONAL BALLOT BOOK, voted, got on the phone and talked about going to 'the next one'...
then, I SWEAR, an old lady was wheeled in to vote whose tongue was literally hanging out of her mouth, head bowed...she was GONE. but her Black attendant was going to "help" her vote, you betcha!
I was stunned.

I saw a guy at another precinct during the election before who came in and said "I I'm not in there..can I vote?" They said "Sure, just sign the provisional book!"
I looked at the Jimmy Buffet-type who said he could vote and said "Are you kidding me?"
He says "What's the matter, don't you think everybody should vote?"

Here's the really odd thing; For YEARS everybody who worked at the precincts in my neighborhood were old people..retired, etc. It was kind of the neighborhood joke in a sweet way! The last 8 years or so, they've been hip, young's an astonishing change. One has to ask oneself...WHY the sudden change?


At least in Los Angeles, the provisional books DO NOT GET READ. Who's going to go downtown to the headquarters and listen to people read out of provisional books and check their neighborhood sign-in books to see if someone voted twice? REALLY?
A dear friend on the Stanford Board and the Board of the Heritage Foundation , and worked directly under Reagan, come to think of it, told me "Z, they never open those can vote 50 times.."

Z said...

OH MY GOSH...go read Mustang's blog and see why the head of the NAACP thinks Voter IDs shouldn't exist.
Congratulations, Leftwingers, you're TOTALLY nuts now.

Anonymous said...

For instance, if someone is from California, yet goes to school in Alabama, where do they vote?

In France, it's the address where you reside that matters. So if a student's address is still his parents' address, he has to vote in his parents' town. But if he rents an apartment, his address is technically where his apartment is. Unless he hasn't changed his registration, in which case he has to stick to his parents' voting place.

But you can always vote by mail so what's the big deal in that case.

Z mentioned personal IDs. In France, you do use your personal ID as the voting ID. And you must carry your personal ID at all times, which is a pain in the butt since cops can ask it anytime. If you don't have it you have to go to the precinct to prove your identity. (One early morning around 4am while walking to work I was walking and remembered I had forgotten it, decided to run to my apartment so I wouldn't be late, and cops who saw me decided to chase me to my apartment, asking for my ID, their hand on their gun. Not a great feeling.)

But the US could have a system where you have a voting ID that you don't have to carry.

Dave Miller said...

Z, if you believe liberals have no faith in black America, there's no response to give you. That's about as preposterous a statement as conservatives hate black America.

I think both sides can see the problems, yet differ on the solutions.

I would just say this... we are all, black people, white people, brown people, etc., going to run a race together however some of us, by virtue of past policies are not going to have to run as far to reach the finish line. WHo's gonna get there first?

The policies and practices of our country for generations has had profound impact on many who do not share the skin color you and I do.

My family has generations of homeowners since m Dad's family came over as founders of this great country. That reality has given me, my wife, my son and the rest of my family a wealth of advantages few people of color will ever realize.

As a country we will be navigating this reality for years.

It is never as simple as liberals have no faith in black Americans or conservatives hate black Americans.

Both of those views are great examples of the extreme tripe that infects us today.

Us libs do not have all the answers, in spite of our frequent arrogant sounding logic. Neither do conservatives have all the answers despite their frequent righteous sounding anger.

Unless and until we find a way to work together, with some legitimate give and take, grace and gentleness, we are all in a mess.

Jack Whyte said...

Dave, I don't know if liberals and conservatives can work together for as long as you (as an example) refer to liberal logic, vs. conservative anger. You seem to (once again) set yourself up as a superior being. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, especially in light of the illogic expressed by progressive policy for the past seventy years.

But thanks for the reminder about trying hard to work together.

Sam Huntington said...

I believe there is a profound dishonesty about American politics. It is not enough to have each candidate present his or her case, letting the chips fall where they may on Election Day; no, our politicians are so focused on winning there isn’t much they won’t do to ensure a victory—even when winning the election is absolutely the worst thing for this country. Raise your hand if you do not see this as a problem.

Then there is the manipulation of “inferior” beings that we conservatives find repugnant. I’m speaking now of Democrats who did everything they could to keep blacks from voting, and then when a Republican black man led the civil rights movement, jumped on that train to convince blacks, disadvantaged in a number of areas, that Democrats had their best interests at stake. How in the world the progressive movement ever pulled this off is an amazing story by itself. It comes from buying votes a la Johnson, promising free things paid for by others. More amazing is that this was a gift given to Johnson by the Republican Party. The situation is unseemly from the very start, made worse by politics as usual.

Progressives continue to assume that blacks aren’t smart enough to figure things out for themselves; they need people like Pelosi to spell it out for them—enriching herself in the process, of course. In addition, should any blacks pursue a conservative agenda, why, they are just a bunch of Uncle Toms and traitors to their race. Why, the progressives even sent people to tea party gatherings to disrupt proceedings and, hopefully, record a racial incident for the evening news.

Even Dave suggests that conservative blacks are illogical and angry. Or was he only writing about whites? Yes, it is disappointing to see so many people who allow themselves to be used and enslaved to government programs when they could achieve so much on their own initiative. Robbing Americans of initiative seems to be the progressive standard. We should give serious consideration to this; we should ask, why? We should wonder why the progressive agenda is so anti-American.

Z said...

Sorry, Dave. While I see a lot of truth in what you write, the fact that leftwingers constantly under value Black America is just the truth.
I don't think they realize that even Affirmative Action has run its course and is only an insult today.

I'm happy your family has a 'wealth of advantages' and will venture a guess that a lot of White people don't have that.

I love the Black Americans I know, I don't see them as different, just darker, and until we start treating them that way, it's an insult. And the Left seems to hold back on honoring and believing in them.
Obviously, I'm generalizing, I can't say "except in YOUR family where your wife's black, or my new nephew is black.........." but, in general. Sadly, I believe it's wrong to Black America to think they can't get it together well enough to VOTE, etc etc.........

Jack's right, we DO have to work together. I'm hoping the Democrats start seeing that, too. I am TIRED of them saying things like "the PARTY OF NO" to Republicans just because Reps disagree. Or "they have no ideas" when the fact is they DO but they're not Democrat ideas..
Yes, I KNOW Reps insult Dems, too, but we've come to a point where it's "Dems are right and Reps are EVIL.." not wrong...and THAT, my friend, is WRONG, UnAmerican and stupid...but prevalent.

Sam, I believe that agenda is anti-American, too.
Thank you for your excellent remarks.

Dave, by the way, I just read again your comment about Conservative anger: you've taken our kids and made them far-left puppets (Obama's giving free cars now, did you see the amendments to what's jokingly called the HEALTH CARE bill today?)...and he has them going to their parents to sell Obama Care..did you see THAT article?
Yes, we're angry because we are NOT EVIL and it's about DAMNED TIME LEFTWINGERS STOPPED WITH THAT>

We at least used to have the same goal: the love of America and the values of the Founding Fathers.
Today, it's BIG GOV'T or BUST to the left, and SELF RELIANCE and CHARITABLE GIVING from the Left...w
and you're winning.

Z said...

And the media is SO in the tank it's absurd and you know it.
Picture Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS, Solyndra, etc etc.. and how they'd be if this was happening to a Republican?

And they wrongly accuse Bush of starting F&F as if he didn't start that program with the EXPLICIT directions to "Give the guns to them , then WATCH THEM...see where they go..." oh, no...........the media (and HOlder) say that Bush started this but I've heard guys in on the Bush F&F stings in MX who then were told by the new DoJ to give the guns away AND LEAVE, to the point where they said "What? LEAVE? Now? You mean, take our eyes off the guns?" "Yes," the answer was. I'll never forget hearing those interviews.
And that was OBAMA, NOT BUSH, Bush wanted them WATCHED... but we hear "Bush started F&F.." How utterly dishonest.

that's just an example.

A Republican would be dead in the water with all these scandals and CNN's (and the networks) BARELY covering's laughable.

Z said...

I know I sound so angry and I AM angry.
I feel like there's really no hope and our kids are unthinking leftist robots and teachers so dishonorably indoctrinate...what's the percentage of leftwing teacher in universities? Something like 90%? I don't think they all indoctrinate, but I hear such awful stories from conservatives college kids I know.
And what's the percentage of media which is liberal? About the same, i think?

And that reflects all over the news.

I just want FAIRNESS...for no one party to be painted as the evil party, the old fashioned, nasty's not deserved and our kids can't think through that 'hip onslaught' they're subjected to, sadly.
SOME can, I know some high schoolers who are all OVER that, but most can't.

JonBerg said...


"If we are to go with the types of ID that other countries use, like France, or even Mexico, wouldn't that argue for a federal standard?"


1)Picture ID

2) Proof of Citizenship

3) Demonstration, by test, of basic knowledge of: civics, American history and economics.

Why Not?

BTW, I think you mentioned that you sometimes work in Oaxaca. I spent a few days there and loved it. Of course Monte Alban (sp?) but I was really impressed with the University's Orchestra playing some of the best classical music on the Zocalo (sp?) right adjacent to our hotel. Great place, my friend!

Always On Watch said...

Every senior citizen whom I personally know has a photo ID (available through the Department of Motor Vehicles). One cannot get medical treatment without a picture ID -- be that medical treatment in doctors' offices or at the hospital. If one is too feeble-minded to obtain a photo ID, then one should likely not be allowed to cast a ballot either.

Marine4Ever said...

As i said on Mustang's site, I have all sorts of picture identification cards (military, drivers license, concealed carry, book of the month club) and I'm always PROUD to show them when I'm asked to do so. Never had a problem yet! After viewing any one of my appropriate ID cards, I'm usually asked, "Could you please just put that away?"

Dave Miller said...

Z, your repeated comments that liberals constantly under value black America says that you believe either black America is not smart enough to see that, or just so self interested that they would bankrupt America for their own benefit.

I do not believe either of those outcomes.

Jon, regarding the federal standard, would you, and the rest of the conservatives here support a federal election card that could be used to ID all voters? I would certainly support that for everyone under 65 on the day the law is signed.

Other countries do it, and from what I've seen and read, it has worked well.

But my impression is that most conservatives would not support that kind of ID at a federal level. Am I wrong on that?

And yes, it is Monte Alban, one of the great archeological sites in the west. There is not much better than an evening in the zocalo under the trees with the state band, or orchestra playing from the kiosk or elsewhere nearby. I am guessing you were in the Hotel Marques or Hotel Monte Alban... both nice places.

Jack and Sam, using the word arrogant, I meant to at least imply that us libs, me included, frequently think, and even assume we are normally right, even when we are not.

Sorry for the confusion...

JonBerg said...

"would you, and the rest of the conservatives here support a federal election card that could be used to ID all voters? I would certainly support that for everyone under 65 on the day the law is signed."

I don't speak for anyone else but if such a card was earned by successful completion of the factors that I itemized above, I can't see why I wouldn't support it. Why only under 65, though?

saeed ahmed thanvi said...

World's Most Popular Cars, Hot Speed Cars, Hot Cars with Hot Girls, Cars Latest Pictures with all info, Latest updates Cars Models and Company Cars, Strange Vehicles, Concept Cars, Top 10 Expensive Cars in the World.
Visit this Link for More Strange Vehicles and Cars with Latest info and Pictures

Marine4Ever said...

He doesn’t look too disappointed in this picture.

And a "No Problems... Just Challanges!" to Mustang. Thanks, Colonel!

Semper Fi!

beamish said...

"How asking for an ID card is limiting voting rights?"

The same way gun registration magically isn't racist.

Dave Miller said...

Jon Berg... I am assuming there are some people who, because of age, past family situations, etc., who might not be able to technically prove citizenship with papers that would pass muster with some folks.

I think a lot of seniors have birth certs that are the old form with finger and foot prints that would no longer be "legally" usable.

Maybe over 70 years, but I believe this would be a good way to silence the squaking on the left about seniors being booted off the list.

And then after a generation, that group would be gone, and everyone would be on the system.

I'm looking for a way to remove objections from the left beforehand...

Dave Miller said...

For me Jon, I find that both sides have either an inability, or unwillingness to hear and consider the other side.

I really do think we can get some solutions that ultimately will work for both sides if folks could sit down for coffee or beer together and work on things with a sense of mutual respect.

Of course that doesn't work in the quick shoot from the hip world of the blogosphere...

JonBerg said...


What "side" are you refering to? My side is the United States Of America. If Idiots overwhelm the system what the Hell do you think will happen???? Oh, sorry with the re-election of Obama they already have.

Dave Miller said...

Jon, I'm talking about the folks, both liberal and conservative who believe they, and they alone are "on the side of the United States of America".

It is the people, from both the left and the right, who are convinced that there is ever only one way to get to a certain goal.

If people are not willing to work towards getting past the bitter rage in an attempt to find common ground, they we do have a problem.

The people that took every chance to bash Bush, denigrate him personally, and assume the worst about him are no better than those that do the same towards President Obama.

As to voter ID, I doubt many of your conservative brethren would support a national ID system because by definition, it would have to administered by the Feds.