Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Government

Why Are Some Liberals Freaking Out Over What Happened at the Supreme Court on Wednesday? We Explain

Feb. 28, 2013 8:31am Mytheos Holt

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a question not touched for nearly 50 years – namely, the question of whether parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 still stand the test of constitutionality, and specifically a section that has long plagued states’ rights advocates.

Unfortunately for liberals, who view the VRA as one of their landmark legislative achievements, the answer to that question may well be “no,” as many court analysts seem to have viewed the oral arguments in the case as either an unadulterated disaster for the government, or at least as a strong sign that a majority of the court is willing to consider striking down at least part of the act.

And to add to the Left’s consternation, Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his strongly worded opinions, attacked the motives behind reauthorizing the supposed touchstone of racial equality for being motivated by Congressional cynicism about race in an impromptu speech. Here’s Scalia’s statement from the transcript of the oral argument (emphasis added):

Well, maybe it was making that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that’s — that’s a problem that I have. This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress. The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?

This statement touched off a furious reaction from the liberal corner of the blogosphere and commentariat, and understandably so, given that Scalia more or less took a cleaver to one of their most treasured sacred cows. Apparently there were gasps even within the Court chamber when Scalia made his comment about “racial entitlement,” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor furiously challenged Bert Rein, the attorney arguing for striking down the act (and by extension, Scalia) afterwards:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?

MR. REIN: No. The Fifteenth Amendment protects the right of all to vote and -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I asked a different question. Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?

MR. REIN: Well, Congress -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think there was no basis to find that -

MR. REIN: — was reacting — may I say Congress was reacting in 1964 to a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent in certain jurisdictions. So to that extent, as the intervenor said, yes, it was intended to protect those who had been discriminated against. If I might say, I think that Justice Breyer -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere?

Readers might understandably wonder what prompted this outburst, and also, just what on earth the case was about in the first place. As such, we’ve put together the following handy explanation for the fireworks.

What Is at Stake

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to allow the Federal government to stop nine states (almost entirely Southern states) from practicing voter suppression against racial minorities in the South. Moreover, when Congress originally passed the law, they acknowledged that banning only particular suppression tactics would be ineffective, given that these same states would just come up with new, more subtle ways of suppressing votes once the more explicit ones were banned. So as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they included a controversial provision in Section 5 called “preclearance.” From section 5:

Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

In other words, any time one of the states (or any of the counties within those states) covered wanted to implement a new set of voting laws, they would have to get the Federal government to sign off on those laws before they could be implemented. Needless to say, this provision has prompted outrage from states’ rights advocates, and has been the subject of constitutional controversy for some time.

Which brings us to this particular case, in which Shelby County, Alabama, sued to have Section 5 overturned, claiming that its method for deciding which states would be subject to preclearance was badly out of date (as it still relied on a calculus used at the time of the law’s original passage), and that the law itself exceeded Congress’s authority, given the absence of the same extraordinary conditions that existed in 1965. A vote by the Supreme Court to strike down Section 5 would thus make preclearance either unconstitutional entirely, or force Congress to pass a new form of it, which would be much harder and more messy in the present climate.

So What’s Alll the Fuss About?

Essentially, striking down preclearance would allow states a much freer hand in terms of cracking down on certain forms of voter fraud, or to redraw their Congressional districts such that districts that formerly were designed to be “safe” and keep specific minority members of Congress in power could suddenly become competitive. This would threaten many “safe” Democratic seats, and would also act as a symbol that the Court believes the racial tensions of the 60′s are a thing of the past. In other words, it would be a nightmare for the portion of the Left that focuses on identity politics.

In this context, the frenzied reaction to Justice Scalia’s remarks makes even more sense, given that Scalia declined to even accept the idea that those voting for the VRA in the present day had noble motives. Rather, he attacked supporters of the VRA for cynicism and also used the phrase “racial entitlement,” which makes those who see racism as an enduring fact of American society see red because it suggest their concerns are not valid.

More to the point, Sotomayor’s valiant rearguard action notwithstanding, the liberal Justices mostly spent their time trying to get the argument against the VRA dismissed not by defending the VRA, but rather by arguing that Shelby County had no standing to sue, which some may see as an implicit concession that the VRA’s preclearance measures are not worth defending.

Adding to this problem, in the process of making their argument, those same Justices said things that are likely to offend conservative residents of the South, and especially of Alabama:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I ask you a question? 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.

MR. REIN: Well, I -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: In — in the period we’re talking about, it has many more discriminating -240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by Section 5 objections. There were numerous remedied by Section 2 litigation. You may be the wrong party bringing this.

MR. REIN: Well, this is an on-face challenge, and might I say, Justice Sotomayor -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But that’s the standard. And 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?[...]

JUSTICE KAGAN: But think about this State that you’re representing, it’s about a quarter black, but Alabama has no black statewide elected officials. [...] If you use the number of Section 5 enforcement actions, Alabama would again be the number two State on the list. I mean, you’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama.

No doubt, many residents of Alabama would object to the idea that their state is the second most racist in the country and still unavoidably has to be policed by the Federal government. And indeed, the argument from both sides during the case played on ideas that at least some people in the country would find offensive. These were eschewed by the court’s swing vote, Justice Kennedy, who sent mild signals that he was favoring overturning preclearance.

Still, both liberals assuming the worst and conservatives feeling optimistic should be wary of over-confidence about their predictions. Oral arguments are an infamously poor predictor of what will happen in a case when the Court rules. For instance, in HHS v. Florida (also known as the Obamacare case), oral arguments went terribly for the government, yet they ended up winning the case.

The Voting Rights Act is not dead yet.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (244)

Tigress1
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:49am
I’m not sure if I completely understand what all this is about, but the impression I’m getting (even though it’s not mentioned above) is that the Progressives are getting worried about all the states that have been passing Voter ID laws and want to make it a Federal issue rather than a local or state issue.
Regarding whether some portions of the South have changed, living in Memphis, most whites have changed, however, the blacks don’t know when to leave well enough alone. There are some old-timey whites still around that are stuck on the Confederacy because they have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. They simply want their heritage to be remembered; but recently the city council voted to change the name of Forrest Park because they don’t like Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK and a Civil War general) Now we have dueling sects of the KKK and black people scheduled to protest on March 30th. Maybe now the black people will realize that they have the same rights as the whites, and will leave things alone and move on with life. Stop stirring up stuff! Everyone, whites and blacks need to remember that the past is the past. Get over it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:01am
  One more thing: The gun issue is coming into play regarding these protests also. People are freaking out because many KKK members have carry permits, etc. Memphis tends to be the testing lab for things in this country because nobody pays attention to this city. It’s like we are invisible to the rest of the country. What happens here (if it is successful) usually starts popping up elsewhere in the country. Right now things are simmering but haven’t reached the boiling point – yet. Pay attention!
  
  Report this comment
- WireWizard
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:23am
  The key issue is treating some states and regions differently under federal law based on their actions from 50 years ago. Those 9 states cannot implement ANY changes in voting laws without approval from the feds.
  
  Report this comment
- IndyServative
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:29am
  @TIGRESS1–
  
  I’m with you. But, you can see the perceived racial overtones in your comments can’t you. Minorities will take your comments to perpetuate the racial divide. SAD, SAD, SAD for them.
  
  It amazes me that most whites want to get on with life, like you say, but many whites, blacks, minorities, or liberals etc. want to prolong the racial battle. They want restitution for something that happened 50, 100, 200 years ago or more. What is their agenda?? Chaos? Free stuff? To be in control?
  
  Who knows? I’m sick of the Jackson’s and Sharpton’s of the world fueling the fire of racial tension. THEY are the problem. Prejudice has been and always will be a part of human nature. We all practice it every day in the choices we make; where we eat, shop, live, etc. This goes for all races. It is who and what we are.
  
  My God people. Take one for their “content of character” and not the “color of their skin”. Its easy. As soon as you strike up a conversation you start making those prejudicial decisions. Just be open minded… both black and white.
  
  Jeez I’m tired of all of this !!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:41am
  Government can’t be trusted to regulate itself. Voter id’s laws would apply to everyone no matter what their race,gender or sexual oreintation. By definition it there for can’t be racist. equally applied law is equally applied.
  If minority groups don’t want to get id’s it’s on them NO ONE IS STOPPING THEM.
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:51am
  Indyservative, I just want everyone to get along. However, witnessing what is going on in Memphis locally, I almost feel pressed to pick a side, either the blacks or the KKK. Personally, none of my ancestors were even in America at the time of the Civil War, so maybe that is why I can see both sides of the issue. I can see why the blacks wanted to change the name of Forrest Park. It’s an ugly history. I would like to hope that they want to change the name because they want to move away from that time. That’s a positive! However, I also understand the old-timey white Southerner’s side as well. Their history (the KKK side) is even uglier, but that doesn’t mean that they should be forced to abandon it just because the blacks want to does it? If we have to put up with “Black History Month” then the park’s name should remain. After all, isn’t that part of the same history? One race’s history is not more important than another. We should remember our history even if it is nothing to be proud of. Just learn and move on. When the park becomes an old, neglected, abandoned and never-visited park then we as a civilization has advanced in a positive way.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:23am
  Happy last day of black histrionics month!
  
  Report this comment
- ChildOfTheKing
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:31am
  Understand this: the LIBERALS will not let this die. WHY? Because they don’t have to. As long as WE, THE PEOPLE, or those who are simply tired of all this, DO NOTHING, then they will continue with their insinuations, their diatribes, their anger, their REVENGES, their tirades. DON’T YOU PEOPLE GET IT YET? No one in this country (IN THE MAJORITY) IS STANDING UP TO THESE LIBERALS – yes, that means YOU. Most of you simply sit on these blogs and lash out with WORDS to one another. The liberals simply sit back and LAUGH at you.
  
  Do you get on the phone and call your Senators?
  Do you do anything CONSTRUCTIVE except COMMENT ONLINE?
  
  I was on the phone all day yesterday, talking to my Senators, along with other states’ Senators, AND the White House about this Administration releasing all those prisoners because of the Sequester coming. I was so angry (but very civil and polite) and had my facts in front of me and the reasons for why WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION DID TO RELEASE THESE CRIMINALS TO ARIZONA, WAS SIMPLY IMMORAL AND WRONG AND AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR THE PRESIDENT!
  
  A MAJOR Conservative movement needs to be started, to counteract these liberals. When it grows large enough, the liberal left WILL STOP THEIR IDIOCY.
  
  The MAJORITY of this country is not even close to being racist anymore. We want equality. We want all Americans to enjoy their Constitutional freedoms.
  
  IT IS THE MINORITY WHO IS NOT ONLY CAUSING THE PROBLEMS, BUT WHO ARE CREATING THEM.
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:31am
  Since most, of the more conservative, folks believe, deeply, that Bah Rahk was illegally nominated and falsely elected….twice, this issue should be a top news story, but it won’t be…..Unless sharpton , or Farakhan, get a grip on it, and, then it will be spun outa the solar system. Its, purely, a divisive issue and will not make much headway in the present climate.
  posing and posturing is the norm. The issue will fade into oblivion as the fed usurps more and more authority from state gov. Kagan and Sotomayar are both so transparent in their predispositions it is laughable.
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:42am
  Tigress….You seem well informed. What’s your take on the building animosity toward Christians? Do you think its related to the decades old ‘race’ issues, or are they disparate? Are the issues related at all? In your opinion, will this “discrimination” be as easy to legislate against as the race issues were 40 50 years ago? Is it possible to define it, or, even recognize its nature, in this hyper-secular political atmosphere?
  I’ve got theory, that has at its base, a comparison with ’60′s lib
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:47am
  Childofthething, Do you think calling senators actually does anything either? The pretend to listen only to vote the way that favors the ruling class – the politicians. People post comments ANONYMOUSLY because they sense that the gov. is going to seek revenge eventually – even though it’s just a blind hope. The gov. probably already has our names… The gov. is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around. Hey, maybe the KKK is on to something? ( I can’t believe I just said that!)
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:49am
  Wow – can we say by to that big loud mouth black woman in Houston – I think it is Cynthia big mouth and when yshe opens it all you see is mouth. Then theres that black woman in California that keeps getting elected with a 3rd grade education and defended her husbands bank getting million in bailout because the neighborhood needed it. Probably Charlie Rangel will be gone – he now worth $n 6 million bucks after coming in on a Army seargents pay.
  
  Report this comment
- tonypro
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:22pm
  @IndyServative
  “”Jeez I’m tired of all of this !!!!!”"
  
  My sentiments exactly!!!
  
  The ONLY reason race is still a discussion at all, is because the demoncrats use it as a tool to help them get elected by fear mongering, and using it for division.
  
  This has been, and still is, one of their strongest tools for separation, if they didn’t have the race card to play, then the majority of their tactics would come unraveled.
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:26pm
  MaxJones, I think the building animosity towards Christians has its roots in the Progressive’s “Global Government” AKA “Global Communism”. The ultimate goal is to replace God with government, where the whole world will put their faith in government instead God. I don’t view it as a race issue too much except that the blacks tend to side with the secular Progressives because the Progressives are pandering to them. The Muslims also are working with the secular Progressives because they have their sights on “Global Government” as well – just an Islamic Global Government – Global Sharia.
  In a way, this discrimination will be easier for the government to support because it is more insidious than racial discrimination. It’s not “black and white” (no pun intended). Through incremetalism meeker religions such as Christianity will be diluted by legislation. Meaning will be lost. It will vanish everywhere except in the churches and homes. More forceful religions will gain power and prominence due to “special privileges”. Eventually the secular Progressives and the Muslims will duel it out. There are black Christians, black secular Progressives and black Muslims so they will be caught in the middle. Then they will have to pick sides.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:27pm
  People living off of the government should not be permitted to vote. This leads to mob rule.
  
  Report this comment
- Annirich
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:32pm
  The KKK was the strong-arm of the Democratic Party. 70% of the votes for Obo last Nov were black, asian, hispanic and latino. People, please understand one vital important realization, America died last Nov. And the Progressive Socialist Liberal Dems will forever have control. The Dems have kept the Blacks on the Dem plantation, and the immigrants are climbing right onto their platform as well. There are so many Obo and Progressive controls now that your Liberties people, are GONE!
  
  Report this comment
- country_hick
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:40pm
  Tigress1; You stated – “People are freaking out because many KKK members have carry permits, etc.”.
  
  What about members of the NBPP, Nation of Islam, etc? They don’t have concealed carry permits? they shouldn’t be worried about?
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:56pm
  Country_Hick, exactly! This is where the gun issue comes in. The KKK obviously has a bad reputation, and they (the media especially) want to link guns with “bad people”. The fact that the KKK will be hidden behind hoods (even scarier!) has made the City tell the KKK that they can’t bring guns to the protest. (I don’t know if protesters CAN be told to leave behind weapons? Maybe so?) Either way, the media is using this as an opportunity to leave an image in people’s minds about “bad people carry guns”, or maybe even “white people with carry permits belong to the KKK”? Of course, that is completely false, but the media wants to plant that idea. Pure manipulation.
  
  Just one thing to remember: If the KKK is allowed to carry guns behind their white hoods, then they may be setting a precedent for Muslims in burkas to carry guns as well? Be careful!
  
  Report this comment
- RoDogg
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:19pm
  Just a thought here but logically if the fed has control over states in voting laws…. doesn’t that enable dictation and really equate to something radically opposite to the design of our entire system also known as a REPUBLIC?
  
  Report this comment
- SteveinSC
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:22pm
  As an “old-timey white” from SC with ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy, I’d like to make a few points. The KKK that N.B. Forrest helped found was disbanded in 1869 and has little in common with the present KKK. Forrest was actually in favor of reconcilliation between the races in his later years, (I’m sure the Liberals would say he was senile.) Forrest Park is named for Forrest because he’s buried there. So I for one, if I had a vote – which I don’t, would not want the name changed. Of course, I suppose they could disinter him and dump his body in a land fill and then change the name. That would certainly make the Liberals happy until they discovered some other place, street or building was named for a Confederate hero. I’m wondering who the Civil War will have been fought against once all traces and public mentions of the Confederacy have at last been eradicated. I think it’s ironic that today’s Democrats receive no blame for racial tensions past or present when it was their ancestors who held the slaves, started the Civil War, instituted Jim Crow, stood in the doorway to deny access, voted against all the civil rights acts (1957, 1960, 1965, etc.) and even largely voted against the Voting Rights Act the article is about. Instead it’s Republicans who are the racists. Obviously, the Low Information Voters are out in force in Memphis and elsewhere.
  
  Report this comment
- FstEti
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:30pm
  TIGRESS1, I probably represent tens of thousands Blaze visitors who don’t comment very often. I want to thank you for your articulate thoughts today (as well as most responses), and your insightful example of the ridiculous reaction to renaming a local park as an example of the supposed racial divide that some of our citizens continue to claim and cling to.. I, like many others I imagine, am continuously fascinated at the amount of time people seem to have on their hands to expend on whatever “issue” that they deem important enough to let it identify them as “activists”. I think that it speaks volumes regarding the quality of life in our Country. As I am retired and diagnosed with an illness which defines my life span, I have the luxury now to join in these conversations from time to time but that certainly wasn’t the case while I was working, particularly when my wife and I were both working and raising a family. I would love to have someone interview the protestors who are under the age of sixty and ask them whether or not they are employed. That’s not to say that Americans shouldn’t stand up for what they believe in but good grief, the name of a park? Really? That said, I agree with a previous comment regarding a particular political party which is deeply invested in maintaining racial and economic divides for political gains and I believe THAT should be a subject of time involvement that might actually effect important changes that would be beneficial for our Nati
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:35pm
  Steveinsc, the Low Information Voters rule Memphis. It sounds like there are several “sects” of the KKK. In fact on group of the KKK is teaming up with the Crips to protest the other KKK. Who to believe? Who to believe?
  
  http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story/Gang-Member-Teams-with-Klansman-to-Protest/cryOi-3R6EOuCwD2mcu4Iw.cspx?rss=59
  
  Report this comment
- obamasacommie
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:01pm
  At what point are white people going to stand up and say enough of this crap. I have been called racist so many times it has no impact at this point. The only reason i’m called racist is because I refuse to be silenced and I am willing to say what I believe and stand on principle not just hide behind a party or what that party tells me to say. I have been threatened, I have lost promotions at work, been in fights, and the list goes on and on. Everyone here has been dealt the same hand if they have had the gall to speak up for their beliefs. This president as well as most of these democrats is a racist in the true sence of the word. Every choice they make violates the rights of white christian straight conservative men. And the ability to do so is all based on the wrongs of the past. I hear blacks and mexicans and gays and women all the protected class complain non-stop about their percieved mistreatment. It’s time you people (yes I said you people) grow up and take care of your responsibilities and I for one could careless what you think about me. I want nothing from you and if you cant take care of your children or whatever else it is you demand from me is your problem. There is racism in this country and I would argue it’s 90% minority against majority which is clear if you read the news or lesten to these people speak. My God stop being shut down by these people, you owe them nothing, at this point they owe us much.
  
  Report this comment
- jorge_washington
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:11pm
  “The key issue is treating some states and regions differently under federal law based on their actions from 50 years ago.”
  
  Lie, the issue is a continuing abuse of voting rights toward minorities by these states/counties. Any area that has a long track record of no abuse can opt-out of this. Unfortunately, the state that bought this law suit doesn’t have a clean record so the only way they get their way is to take advantage of the right-wing cabal, otherwise today known as the supreme court.
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:12pm
  Fsteti, thank you and I’m sorry to hear about your illness. Yes, this is time consuming (I even skipped a class I enjoy so I could finish here today!), but as I said earlier, sometimes I think Memphis is a testing lab for issues that pop up elsewhere in the nation. There are too many facets of this to simply ignore and hope that the rest of the nation will somehow learn on their own. On the surface simply renaming a park is indeed trivial, but it stirs up so many other things that are bubbling beneath! It reflects the erasing of American history, a history that would probably be much better if it was forgotten, but also one in which we could no longer learn from. So many of our country’s problems are due to this stupid racial divide that is perpetuated by the Progressives. They constantly poke and prod people until they protest. They can’t just leave things alone. If only people could see it! Pay attention in your own cities. Fsteti, Take care of yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- SteveinSC
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:43pm
  Even haters on opposite sides can find someone they hate in common , I guess. My only point was that the KKK founded by Forrest hasn’t existed since 1869 and so he really has little to do with what the latest incarnation – founded in the 1930s – does or says.
  
  I think it needs to be said that just because some Southerners are interested in our past and would honor our ancestors, it doesn’t mean that we hate Blacks or wish them any ill. I wish them all the best. I view them as equals. I would appreciate it if the haters among them would extend me the same courtesy. Don’t judge me by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character. I think it’s interesting that the KKK and the Neo-Nazis are strongest in the Mid-West rather than the South. The South has changed. When they put the racism of the late ’50s and early ’60s of TV and everyone saw it for what it really was, most of the South rejected it outright. And that’s why the South shifted to the Republican Party away from the Democrats. The Democrats were the segregationist, not the Republicans. It took years to push the segregationists out in some places, but they’re pretty much all gone or at least are no longer in power. Black and White Southerners have far more in common than they know. They should seek their common ground rather than looking for mutual offense. We now need t opurge the race baiters from out midst and send them the way of the segregationists and the Dodo.
  
  Report this comment
- Sea-Wolf
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:48pm
  “Everyone… need[s] to remember that the past is the past. Get over it.”
  
  Yeah, good luck with that. Point well taken by me, but part of the reason for the Balkans’ War in the 1990′s was become of some offense that occurred back in the 1600′s.
  
  People might bury the hatchet, but they never seem to forget where they buried it.
  
  Report this comment
- TheTruthTruthTruth
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:07pm
  Hey Tiger, Memphis is not the hub of America. I grew up there, I know. Let them change the damn name and forget about it. Name the park “3/6 Mafia” and let the fall begin. Memphis is going to shoot it out all-up-in thurre some day soon.
  
  Report this comment
- scubaandskidoc77
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:17pm
  Interestingly, if the liberals stopped for a moment and thought about what they were doing, a majority of them would probably want to change their tactics. Simply put, equality can only be achieved by bringing people down to a lower level , since most people loose the ability to achieve higher level as you go up the scale. Secondly, there are only two ways to get ahead in the world. Either be good at what you do or put down the person next to you so in effect you think that you are better. The second is racism. Oddly enough many black leaders , Jackson, Sharpton, etc. encourage reverse racism . This only makes everybody a loser. They should encourage a good work ethic, familly and faith.
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:20pm
  Unfortunately whatever amount of journalistic skill or historical context mytheos was attempting to portray got destroyed in this one slip of the keys….”freer hand in terms of cracking down on certain forms of voter fraud” As mytheos is very well aware that the activity within republican controlled state legislatures relative to voting laws such as voter id laws have nothing to do with voter fraud. Not withstanding the notion that voter fraud is anymore associated with minorities or democrats is also BS. mytheos might provide some use by actually doing a detailed report on the amount of voter fraud, where and how. It is interesting to note that same people who resist any infringement on the 2 amendment and their precious right to own a gun, see no problem with countless attempts to limit, restrict and insert roadblocks in front of citizens exercising the fundamental of rights in a democracy. That being the right to vote.
  
  Report this comment
- RufusEdinwhirl
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:23pm
  Try telling one of these progressives that it was the democrats that founded and ran the KKK. They have no idea of their own history. Tell them it was a republican that ended slavery. They will likely have a cow but not believe any of it because they’re brain boogied, locked on stupid. The democrat party is the biggest bamboozle in recent world history. They’ve been so successful at suckering and fooling their followers that most will never even know they’ve been had.
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:25pm
  Blacks don’t want equal rights, they want superior rights. They don’t simply want the right to vote, no. They want the right to vote 2, 3 maybe 4 times or more. They are full of crap. I and many other American patriots, that’s right, patriots, fair-minded, objective, tell it like it is folks are now, and have been sick of them for a long time. Their gutter culture has done more to ruin this great land than any other single factor.
  
  Report this comment
- Lgbpop
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:45pm
  No, that’s not the case at all. What’s going on is that Congress in 1964 managed to cobble together a collection of legislation that Earl Warren’s Court declined to review. Amongst its more idealistic clauses at the time was one stating that state voter-eligibility laws approved jointly by the federal Congress and Supreme Court were frozen in place for a five-year period; that no law frozen thereunder could be changed without approval of the Federal government (completely eclipsing state-court review) and that if the Congress was not in session, a State or County law could take place conditionally upon ex-post-facto Federal review of said law. Bottom line was, State sovereignty was superseded unilaterally by the Federal government in the name of racial equality.
  
  Over the intervening 40+ years, subsequent Congresses renewed the VRA without state acquiescence and without major, timely review by either the Congress or the Court. In other words, a law enacted in November 1964 was renewed periodically without even bothering to see if conditions which made the law necessary in 1964 still existed. Think of a law regulating buggy whips (yeah, I grew up near Westfield Mass.) renewed without question into the 1990s. It may have been necessary into the 1930s if you REALLY stretched the truth, but…
  
  Now, leftists hoping to keep the leash tight are having conniptions over the passage of time. There are more voter violations in Illinois than down here. The VRA needs to come to a
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:48pm
  Also, when my white ass goes to vote, no sooner than I walk in the door I am swarmed by little old ladies demanding my ID. They are practically like vultures they are so desperate for me to prove I am allowed to vote. Any black cretin or minority goon that thinks that I should have to put up with this crap, but he/she should not is messing with fire. The snowman is getting sick of this. He is arming up and ready to fight. We have had enough of you trouble makers and once the button is pushed, no force on earth will be able to stop it. You will be driven into the oceans or left to rot where you fall. You have been forewarned.
  
  Report this comment
- debloo
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:28pm
  “The gov. is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around.”
  You hit the nail on the head with this statement.
  I am highly offended at the remarks of JUSTICE KAGAN:” But think about this State that you’re representing, it’s about a quarter black, but Alabama has no black statewide elected officials. [...] If you use the number of Section 5 enforcement actions, Alabama would again be the number two State on the list. I mean, you’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama.”
  1.There are redistricted zones in Alabama just for the this very reason. 2. Justice Kagan doesn’t know what the heck she is talking about. Our district 7 has Terri Sewell. 3. Walk a mile in an Alabamian’s shoes Justice Kagan!!! Then you might have some kind of a clue what Alabama is like. Otherwise get off your self appointed high and mighty horse!!!
  Justice Kagan needs to get her facts straight!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:32pm
  Hi Truthtruthtruth! Well you know how it is here then. I’d say to just change the name just to keep peace too, but I heard there are other cities around the country that have been changing names of parks, etc. There might be something to this “erasing history” bit. In fact Nashville just passed a bill stating that parks, monuments, roads, etc. that were named after a war could not have their names changed.
  
  http://wpln.org/?p=45769
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_ArTeest_Glenn
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:08pm
  “Why Are Some Liberals Freaking Out Over What Happened at the Supreme Court on Wednesday? … many court analysts seem to have viewed the oral arguments in the case as either an unadulterated disaster for the government, or at least as a strong sign that a majority of the court is willing to consider striking down at least part of the act.”
  
  DON’T BELIEVE IT! Remember … ObamaCare? (Only the most recent one.)
  Don’t let those traitors on the supreme Court play their games on you yet again. They are 1/3 responsible for the present overthrow of the United States Of America and the war on your God-given Liberty. Justice will come for them. Then you can cheer.
  
  “America: Freedom To Fascism”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak
  
  Report this comment
- epepep
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:45pm
  The wrong side won in 1865. The Yankee tyrants created a true slave nation during Reconstruction. Black slavery would have died out within 20 – 30 years. Sure it was WRONG. But not allowing the South to Secede proves that we are slaves. If this were truly a FREE nation, we would have the right to LEAVE it.
  Unfortunately, now the Northern Yankee ultra liberals have rewritten all the history books and brainwashed America and the World. If you are not allowed to LEAVE, how can you claim that you live in a Free Country?
  The South is now much more true to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, than the Yankee North — they are nothing but liberal socialists, who once upon a time believe in true individual liberty and capitalism. THEY elected Obama.
  The Supreme Court is defending LIBERTY and FREEDOM, at long last, for ALL Americans, not just liberal socialist Yankees.
  
  Report this comment
- moreoilplease
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:51pm
  Jrook
  
  I love this statement.
  
  “As mytheos is very well aware that the activity within republican controlled state legislatures relative to voting laws such as voter id laws have nothing to do with voter fraud”.
  
  Is he aware of your delusion? Voter ID laws have nothing to do with voter fraud?
  
  Of course you are aware voter ID laws have everything to do with vote fraud. And I know you would agree that it’s reasonable to verify the identity of the person claiming to be on the voter rolls. As a “reasonably” intelligent human, you are definitely aware that almost everyone has ID, even illegals. As a person who would never engage in ridiculous rhetoric, you obviously know asking someone to prove their identity to vote is not tantamount to voter suppression. And as a upstanding, truth telling decent human being, you would never accuse state legislatures of voter suppression using Alynski tactics with no evidence. Especially when you realize that almost everyone has ID and if you don’t it’s not unreasonable to ask them to get ID.
  
  Of course you realize you posit absurd notions in the above statement and it must have been a really bad attempt at humor. So, good one JRook, good one. Glad you see it my way!
  
  Report this comment
- Concernd4USA
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 12:10am
  I think that this will really hurt liberals in places like Illinois. If redistricting were to happen to allow for fairer districts rather than districts that are predominantly one race or almost all minorities. Then people would have to run on issues not just race and it would hurt their case. Ironically this is happening when one of those benefitting (Louis Guiteriez) is pushing for immigration reform. He has represented a predominantly minority district for the better part of 2 decades. Jesse Jackson Jr would be in the same boat. But he will be in the majority in whatever jail he goes to.
  
  Report this comment
- dmerwin
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 1:21am
  This is truly an issue of the federal government tacitly agreeing to gerrymandering in Michigan, New York, Illinois etc and ruling over mostly conservative states with an iron fist, look at Alaska’s recent attempts to re-district as an object lesson. Hint Alaska, is the ONLY non southern state on the list. Ironically every ten years the democrat, read liberal, states are able to re-district to the democratic party’s wishes without any restrictions regardless of what the geographical configuration of the district looks like. Look up “gerrymander”.
  
  Report this comment
- old white guy
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 6:17am
  tigress1…… i agree with your comment re voter id being a concern. the libs want to leave things open so their supporters can voter early and often. voter id laws would reduce fraud in most elections.
  
  Report this comment
- vadale
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 8:20am
  Every one of those southern states were run by dems during that time…..never forget that.
  
  Report this comment
- child of the King
  Posted on March 2, 2013 at 9:17pm
  Some won’t ever get over it.There’s some black puppet masters like the Rev. Jackson and his counterpart Rev.Sharpton ,Louis Farakan,Maine Waters and I’m sure there is plenty more out there that have nothing better to do than to go out and get their faces on tv or names in the paper and try and keep the racial fires stocked because they don’t want the blacks to find out the truth and they loose their power or strings on them.
  
  Report this comment
Gargent_Furball
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:46am
The Constitution is the answer. Just pay attention to it. States have their rights to do what they want.

The US Governments number one job is to protect or boarders. Do that first, then lets talk about racial strife.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Nepenthe
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:02am
  States have the right to bar minorities from voting?
  
  Report this comment
- MikeD
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:36am
  Constitution is your answer…how could a state bar a minority from voting with the 15th Amendment? Do your homework Nepenthe.
  
  15th Amendment
  Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
  
  Report this comment
- OldVet
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:43am
  Districts have to be changed periodically because some grow and some shrink in population. We have approximately 500,000 citizens per district. This means boundaries must change as the census indicates population migration. Now as to “voter ID”, the purpose is to assure that individuals vote only once as is their right to do. You only have to look at who is complaining about “Voter ID” to deduce who is likely to be the most guilty of this method of voter fraud. The idea that citizens are not able to obtain valid identification at some time in their lifetime is ridiculous to say the least.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:56am
  @Nep
  
  as you have been told, there is the 15th Amendment..but besides that..the Constitution DIRECTLY allows the States to set up the process by with they will conduct voting and elections and when they choose to do so and how they will be tabulated and results reported…
  SO…the VRA CAN NOT tell a State that their elections laws must be cleared through the Federal government NOR can it tell a State how they check the ID of those supposedly registered to vote in their State NOR how to draw up Congressional districts…
  
  Report this comment
- jorge_washington
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:48pm
  “The Constitution is the answer. Just pay attention to it. States have their rights to do what they want.”
  
  That’s right-wing; the states have done so in the past that includes slavery. You remember that, our founding fathers had one hand on a piece of black slave ass and the other hand holding a bible. Yes sir, that a Judea-Christian nation for you.
  
  Report this comment
- cloudsofwar
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:38pm
  this story makes me YAWN. is this another story regarding race? when will this country be able to set this aside? we have a black POTUS and yet the RACE baiting continues. the libs still think that whitie is trying to cancel out black voters. and with our first black man as potus it’s just getting worse and he’s helping to stoke the flames. YAWN
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:58pm
  Don’t worry Jorge.
  You will have your chance to choose sides. See you there.
  
  Report this comment
- freedom_gurl35
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:15pm
  jorge_washington – And which founding fathers are those with “one hand on the slave”, as you so gracefully put it? Men like Sam Adams? And ALL the states had slaves at one time? You sure about that?
  
  Might want to do some homework before you spout off things you know nothing about.
  
  Report this comment
Vision Harry
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:32am
Ed Shultz is secretly posting as Your sensei
Chris Matthews is secretly posting as Encinom
Rachel Maddow is secretly posting as Dora Glasberg
Bill O’Reilly is secretly posting as The Big Mick

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bitterclinger
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:46am
  Well, that explains it.
  
  Report this comment
- RollyBones
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:06am
  Ya know, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least! After all what else do they do during the day other than get pissed about efforts to thwart their agenda!
  
  Rolly
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:52am
  lol whats your evidence? I’m sure you’re joking.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:53pm
  Perhaps, but there is no way in hell the Mick is O’Reilly. WangDang is probably Dan Savage.
  
  Report this comment
- ECOMCON
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:50pm
  And I post as myself. Unfortunately I’ve been attacked occasionally as a left wing wacko because my nickname is sadly similar to another one, which IS a left wing looney.
  
  Any google check on my nickname will reveal the source from which I took it, namely from the classic movie called Seven Days in May. I sided with the generals in the movie then, and would do so now in real life. That’s why sometimes my last sentence is “It’s time”.
  
  Report this comment
SenatorLoser
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:29am
So Florida must be really racist since they redistricted to get rid of Allen West.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MBA
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:24am
uh ho–someone said the forbidden truth–racial entitlement. Look out here comes obamy and eric holder. Funny, no one considers caucasion a race just an excuse for bad behavior.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:23am
The libs have to make sure the deck is stacked. Proving who you are is okay for one right but not another. How about background checks to vote? Some animals are more equal than others.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:11am
  Background checks for voting already exist in some states, for example, to keep convicted felons from voting, even after they have completed their sentences.
  
  Report this comment
- monkeybones
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:47pm
  4 legs good 2 legs bad
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:04pm
  The whole title of this piece is odd. It should read “Why are most liberals freaks?” The entire premise is off.
  
  Report this comment
- MN NICE
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:57pm
  Lloyd – the lack of background checks is how we ended up with Franken… That, and nobody bothered to look in that goofy bast ards trunk
  
  Report this comment
SREGN
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:20am
All laws which give preferential treatment on the basis of race should be overturned. If our goal is to eliminate racism, we can’t have laws promoting it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- starman70
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:29am
  The voter law (VRA)was necessary when it was passed years ago when the vote was denied to certain classes. Now, however, it has opened the door for RAMPANT voter fraud (In one case, a peoson voted 6 times and admitted it).
  
  Now with modern technology, voter ID using pictures or biometric data should be instituted to insrue the one man one vote principle.
  
  The act should be replaced with a more modern version, including citizenship requirements to keep illegal imigrants from voting.
  
  Report this comment
- bumfuzeled
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:56am
  Amen! The VRA was NEVER needed, the feds just needed to enforce the bill of rights equally to all states.
  
  Report this comment
DoctorRon
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:15am
I have never understood how a law could pertain to only a few states and still meet the test of “equal protection under the law.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:13am
  It’s very simple: because those were states with a long history of denying “equal protection under law.” It may be time to end VRA, but there were perfectly good reasons for it in 1965.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:43am
  If only we had 20 million illegals and an entitled welfare class in 1965. We could already be Greece or Zimbabwe by now.
  
  Report this comment
- bumfuzeled
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:55am
  You have to think irrationally to understand how discriminatory legislation can be perceived as fair. Most progressives/socialists and sociopaths can only think irrationally so it makes sense to them. This is why we have a progressive income tax when the only fair tax is a flat tax.
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:14am
baloney…they will follow what Obama says.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:13am
Eric Holder and Obama must be having kittens and bricks over the possibility that the Democratic safe seats are possibly in danger.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:04am
  Now why would they be worried about losing those seats? The right-leaning Supreme Court is saying that voter surpression doesn’t happen in those places any more. Therefore, those seats should be safe if the district’s voting demographics stay the same. I wonder why you would you ever come up with the idea that those seats could be lost if Section 5 was overturned? Oh – maybe because you and everyone else knows what will happen if Section 5 is changed.
  
  Report this comment
- REALID 239823749828-HIF
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:38am
  @SOSORRYFORYOU
  Wow, you really don’t get it do you? You are actually that oblivious. That’s amazing to me. It’s pretty much spelled out in the article already, but I guess expecting you to actually read the article would be too much.
  
  The reason those seats would be in danger is because they are HELD by voter fraud which is abetted by section 5. If you get rid of section 5, those states will be allowed to pass laws reducing voter fraud, ergo, the seats would be in danger.
  
  In any case, having the federal government police a state on a matter like voting laws is not only unconstitutional, it’s just a really bad idea. Assume for a moment that Republicans are in power in Washington. Does any one think for a moment that they would allow a state to change their voting laws in such a way that would precipitate more blacks to vote? They would strive to keep illegals from voting too, but they would do it for the wrong reason. How about Democrats? Are they every going to allow a change that suppresses voter fraud? No, it’s not going to happen because they’re all snakes without a shred of honesty or integrity.
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:44am
  @REALID 239823749828-HIF: You last few statements regarding Republicans and Democrats really sums things up. It’s a sad commentary about where we are politically. It explains why the original Washington politicians only worked part time and had jobs in their home states. Why politicians were never supposed to be “professional” politicians and how by allowing it has perpetuated itself into this self-feeding monster we know today.
  
  Report this comment
SIG40ONDAHIP
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:07am
LOL , free rib lunch if ya’ll get on the bus on go picket!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:24am
  The “rib-lunch” will be like the commercial about Insurance-giveaways…the dollar-bill on the fishing-pole-line being pulled away when you grab for it!! The PROG-O-CRATS will have the pole and have one rib on the hook… … .
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:06am
Maybe they should worry about the Midwest instead of the South, considering the black woman from Ohio who voted for Obama 6 times in the last election.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:53am
  That was fair to liberals because she is black and they are a protected species in the DNC. Judge that one by the content of her character….
  
  Report this comment
- MDECKER
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:39pm
  My wife has not received an absentee ballot for the last two elections. My wife and I are white. Our Representative is Gwen Moore. Do you think we are represented equitably?
  
  Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:05am
I have no confidence whatsoever that the court will strike that crappy law down. After the Roberts betrayal on ObamaCare, I see the Supreme Court as fricking joke. They are in the tank for the NWO just like all of Congress and the Executive Branch. A huge reason Obama got “re-elected” was because of the inability of the states to crack down on rampant and pervasive voter fraud. Don’t hold your breath on this one folks.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wildwop
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:41am
  I agree with you 100%. Just like giving Obama and Gore the Nobel Prize; in my opinion the Nobel Prize means nothing because apparently you don’t have to do anything to receive one.
  
  Report this comment
- Grandma T
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:31pm
  I agree with you also. The Supreme Court hasn’t been upholding laws for some time now. I couldn’t believe when it didn’t follow historic business law and protect the bondholders who should have been paid first before any protection of the unions during the automobile company bailout.
  In this case, all states should come under the same laws. No states should be singled out for special treatment or discrimination.
  
  Report this comment
- DAYWATCHER
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:50pm
  Dead on MIL-DOT….
  
  Report this comment
- freedom_gurl35
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:20pm
  Totally agree with you. I’ve stopped hoping and holding my breath where government is concerned. None of them do what’s in the best interest of the American people: it’s all about protecting party and themselves.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:04am
Racial entitlements (and affirmative action) should never be thought to be permanent. Sure, discrimination still occurs; but the law needs to be applied equally to all. What’s the use of “righting wrongs” if it just goes too far to the other side?

Adding additional hurdles to specific states is unconstitutional, and I hope the SCotUS overturns this provision.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:53am
  Voting is a Constitutional Right, not an entitlement. If voters feel their votes are being surpressed, it is our government’s Constitutional obligation to protect those Rights. Many voters in these states still feel their votes are being surpressed. Section 5 should stand.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:39am
  @Sosorryforyou
  
  “Voting is a Constitutional Right, not an entitlement.”
  
  Agreed.
  
  “If voters feel their votes are being surpressed, it is our government’s Constitutional obligation to protect those Rights.”
  
  False. If voters feel their votes are being suppressed, they can take their case to the courts, which will decide whether their evidence is factual or based on paranoia. If votes are in fact being suppressed, then the situation will be dealt with. It is not within the government’s power to place additional restrictions against only some states and not others.
  
  “Section 5 should stand.”
  
  I disagree on Constitutional principles. Provision 5 should either be expanded to encompass all states, or it should be removed. I prefer removal.
  
  Report this comment
- Simple Skeptic
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Discrimination occurs all the time. A progressive tax system is discriminatory against the payor in favor of the taker, esp. considering not all dollars collected are to benefit all equally. Example: Military benefits all equally, USDA and HUD do not benefit all equally. Why isn’t a discrimination suit brought to bear in favor of those who pay taxes?
  
  or
  
  “NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!”
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:46pm
  Locked,
  The only discrimination that I see is against the snowman.
  
  SoSorry,
  So if they “Feel” that they are prevented from voting then that makes it true huh? How about them coughing up some ID like the rest of us have to? Oh no, they are blacks. They shouldn’t have to. Look you cretin. These same vermin you vociferously advocate for will rape you and cut your throat if given the chance. You will not escape because you are a prog. They will annihilate you. They will have their way with you and then stuff you face first in a trash can , like they did that couple years ago. Have fun prog sucker.
  
  Report this comment
Lt_Scrounge
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:59am
The liberals are all up in arms because they know that if photo ID is required to vote, voter fraud is significantly reduced. Obamao didn’t win a single state that had voter ID laws. Personally, except for military, there should be no voting other than in person at the polls with a photo id required.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:02am
  This is what you must know:
  
  What voter fraud?
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- sta
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:08am
  Not really. Michigan (my state) has voter ID laws and BO won.
  
  Report this comment
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:15am
  Absolutely right, the Democrats are seeing their generations long power base becoming undone one step at a time.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:17am
  Curtailing voter fraud doesn’t curtail ignorance STA.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:23am
  YS
  http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/hearing-held-for-2-cases-of-alleged-voter-fraud
  That just one case only actual caught because she was caught telling people about it.
  
  Report this comment
- Edroch
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:39am
  Funny how Dems want you to show ID and have background checks etc. for you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights but they do not want voter ID to exercise your 15th amendment right to vote…
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:53am
  STA
  Michigan was going for Romney as was Ohio and even PA and VA…then magically all the “rural” counties were done and only the inner cities were left…and POOF…Obama by 10s of 1000s..in Philly, Cinci, Detriot, and other urban areas, Obama magically had 100% of votes cast…most precincts in “urban” MidWest states were 85-90% Obama…and many of those states also allow “same day registration and voting”….there were buses of people coming into some precincts with utility bills showing the same address and account number but with different names….
  
  useless to have voter ID laws if you allow “same day registration” as well and lack the ability to check the validity of the residency…..
  
  Report this comment
- AbrahamsSheepdog
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:23am
  Thats it in a nutshell, Ohio’s old machines in old lady’s shed & churches storage basements need double checked next time.
  @ your senless. You’re a waste of time.
  SAY IT AIN’T So.
  
  Report this comment
- gyro
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:35am
  Lt_Scrounge well writen
  
  Report this comment
- wowjustwow
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:25pm
  VRW – even fox news admitted that they were following inaccurate polls that showed Romney winning…when he wasn’t. That’s most of the reason why Karl Rove has been severely marginalized.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:47pm
  Mr or Ms NAUGHTYCAL,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Oh goodie, my turn:
  
  http://www.lvrj.com/news/woman-arrested-for-voter-fraud-pleads-to-lesser-charge-188276291.html
  
  You’l love the photo. And this . . .
  
  http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud?lite
  
  Jut a couple of quickies.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
BrutalTruth
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:56am
The stupidity of these two women is simply astounding. Aren’t they supposed to make findings based upon fact and not feeling?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thibx
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:56am
no states should not draw line just to get a certain race in office, it is wrong.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:47am
.
If you are dependent on the government like the Free Lunch Slaves…..

You should not be allowed to Vote…..

Is it just me or is Soreismyhole a bitter Latino woman?……

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- biohazard23
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:06am
  According to the regime, being bitter and extremely biased/racist passes for being “wise”.
  
  Report this comment
- moreteaplease
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:06am
  She is so blatantly bitter and racist against whites that I can’t stand to look at her or hear her voice.
  She is the embodiment of the liberal view on tolerance….meaning that ONLY WHITES should be held accountable for tolerance of all other racial segments.
  
  It’s clearly obvious why Obama wanted her up there.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:33am
  The hags/Soto/Kagan had a fraction of this many questions about 0 care.
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:47am
You mentioned Justice Kennedy, but what about the Court’s other swing voter, Chief Justice Roberts?

It would be surprising if the 3 Conservatives voted to keep it and even more surprising if the 4 Liberals voted to strike it down. But the Conservatives have to impress both swing voters, Liberals only need one of them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- FlyinDutchman
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:01am
  Roberts will vote as O tells him.
  
  Report this comment
noslave
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:43am
the descrimination now is allowing voter fraud as proven to go un-punished?with that fraud allowed we will never have a fair election?like russia and other communist countries,you can save on gas ,stay home and wait or the ruleing class to tell you who won?it certanly happened this election and the olitically corect castrated public just sat by and accepted it,up the ???

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Edroch
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:45am
  Every time you come across a case of voter fraud you MUST file a lawsuit against the person responsible for it. Hold them personally responsible. Sue everyone involved. Sue those in authority responsible for allowing it to happen. Once a few of these cases are made public they will think twice before doing it.
  
  Report this comment
beenaroundyaknow
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:43am
Sotomayor again shows her intolerance to argument against her already determined views. This is not the first time she has cut of responses to her questions. She will turn out in the end to be one of the worst picks for SCOTUS but only after she has contributed to irreparable damage to the original intent of the Constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
naughtycal
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:41am
If a picture ID is a requirement for everyone who wants to vote no matter what race. Then the law isn’t racist its inclusive to everyone.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:51am
  Bingo!
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:59am
  This is what you must know:
  
  Let’s pass a law that says everybody has to have a sense of humor to vote. That’s inclusive. (Except for Michelle Malkin.)
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:14am
  YS,
  I’ve seem Malkin make a joke of liberal politicians,those who vote for them and the fascist regulations they created for a while now…so she has a sense of homor.
  It’s just that you don’t get the joke
  
  IT IS SO
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:32am
  The running joke is WangDang sweet senseless. A combat marine aligning with known socialists and progressives. That is rich. Too much to digest between rib aches from laughing. Or is it a doctor? Maybe a pro bono litigation specialist? Perhaps just a lavatory attendant with a depleted imagination. We know he has a thing for scouts, tents, and big woods. Standard pansy ass lib off the latest drug cocktail with serious delusions of self aggrandizement. No more.
  
  Report this comment
- Shrugged
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:16pm
  @ yoursensei – You would negate your own right to vote?
  Michelle Malkin deserved an Oscar – much more so than some who have received one.
  
  Report this comment
galaxie_man
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:40am
Why does this have to be so hard? In order to vote you should be:
1). 18 or older
2). Mentally competent (although never enforced, how else are liberals allowed to vote?)
3). A LEGAL U.S. citizen.
4). Not a criminal (convicted felon or worse).
Any person or group that denies someone their ability to vote, goes to prison. No one is denied based on race, gender, religion, etc.

Simple!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:13am
  “Why does it have to be so hard?”
  Answer: Because Dem progs have to cheat and lie and steal in order to win. Thus they argue vehemently and throw out the race card in order to gain an advantage.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:54am
  galaxy,
  How do you prove any of that info.without an picture ID?
  ID’s are a way to guarantee people are who they say they are. Of course we should also those at the polling places could still enable fraud. So yes make the crime punishable as a felony. Removing all right to vote and 5 years imprisonment or parole.
  
  Report this comment
chickiefromthesouth
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:39am
It’s about time that some of these outdated policies be removed. The states really need to stand up for themselves and take their power back from the federal government.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Southernsoul
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:39am
Do I think racial discrimination in voting still occurs? Why of course it does. Why else would the New Black Panthers be allowed to patrol polling places and not be persecuted?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:01am
  This is what you must know:
  
  You’re persecuting them right now. As for them not being prosecuted, the Bush administration was the first to choose not to pursue that, just like they chose to not purse the Minutemen who were threatening Hispanic voters. Unlike the two black guys standing on the steps that so drastically scared you white folk, the Minutemen were waving guns around.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- catty
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:08am
  HaHaHa
  
  Report this comment
- Patriot Z
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:05pm
  sensei: lol that never happened..nice try tho. however lets take the statement at face value. so wht you are saying is that because bush didnt pursue something that was clear voter intimidation. its ok to ignore more cases of VIDEO TAPED voter intimidation. because bush ‘did it first’? WOW i love how you libs can use bush as an excuse for everything. wow obama , for being the smartest pres ever’ sure gets easily messed up by a president that hasnt been in office for almost a decade. looks like sensei needs to go back to skool!
  
  Report this comment
- DIR
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:52pm
  @PATRIOTZ
  
  Forget the ‘skooling’, a person needs a brain to comprehend. Somebodyelse’sensi needs to go to a funny farm where the atire is a straight jacket. He’s a phychic friends network wanabe, but his prognostications are so nutty he’s even been banned from the Huffington post. He comes here to share his pearls of wisdom (not) with the rest of us.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:44pm
  Mr or Ms PATRIOTZ,
  
  This is waht you must know:
  
  Actually, it did happen:
  
  A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported: “In Arizona, Roy Warden, armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons.”
  
  A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) “said he reported the incident to the FBI.” The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: “If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it’s something we take very seriously, and we’ll be looking into it.”
  
  Perez testified that Bush-era DOJ “declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation” against Minutemen. Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, cited the Minutemen case in his May 14 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and said that “the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation.
  
  Nobody came foreqard to claim they were intimidated or did not vote because of the Black Panthers.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:52pm
  Catbox that was probably your most intelligent post, ever.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.