Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Shelby County V Holder’

… What Is Jim Sensenbrenner Thinkingg?!?! …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,March 9th,2014

.. John Boehner should and must put a stop to this , immediately .

.. Project Veritas (that is Jim O ‘ Keefe , again) caught Sensenbrenner in the act of making a political ass of himself . The U.S. Supreme Court had sound reasons for ruling the way that it did in Shelby County v. Holder . The information that the Department of InJustice was using was from 1965 , for God ‘ s Sake . The bail – out provisions in the law were grossly unjust . There was no practical way for a covered jurisdiction to escape coverage , if Main InJustice did not want them to . There was no procedural or substantial due process at all …

.. And , now  , Jim Sensenbrenner wants to give this power back to Main InJustice . Especially to this administration ‘ s Department of InJustice . What is this idiot thinking ? Those idiots in Eric Holder ‘ s InJustice Department are a bunch of radical leftist racists . They would run wild with this power and grossly abuse it , like they have already …

.. No thank you …

.. [h/t — NationalReview]..

.. [link] to the investigative videos  ..

Posted in communications strategy, Investigative, personal opinion, political blunder, political strategy, stupidity (criminal) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Voter I.D. Laws are Moral …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,August 13th,2013

.. and the racial demagogues are wrong . Very , Very wrong .

.. With the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v Holder , many states that were previously affected by the Votings Rights Act “preclearance” rules are now free and clear to implement much more common – sense voting laws and rules , especially without having to say ” Mother may I “” , especially to Eric Holder ‘ s Department of InJustice . The Justice Deparment normally acts to evenly enforce the law . Under Holder , that has changed almost 180 degrees . If you are a conservative , especially a black conservative , you are going to get screw by the InJustice Department and their goons in the Voting Rights Section .

.. At least , Shelby County defangs that crowd . the preclearance rules under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are effectively gone . Not directly , though . Their teeth have been pulled , because the stuff that gives them their punch , Section 4b , was the subject of the case . And the loons lost , big time , and 6 to 3 at the Court . Ouch .

.. Section 3 is still available . However , the old South and other areas are on the same equal footing as all of the other states . No more nannying and ” Mother may I ” , thankfully . The InJustice Deparment must actually prove its case . Also , not in the area of jurisdiction . It is done in D.C. , away from the activistas in the local judiciary . Also , direct and intention evidence of discrimination is required . Disparate Impact bull is not allowed .

.. Nicely done , Governor McCrory ! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What Part of Supreme Court Precedent Do You Not Understand ?!?! …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 25th,2013

.. Mr. Attorney General ??

.. Well , It seems that Attorney General  Eric Holder has become notoriously thick in the skull , i.e. pig – headed . He wants to haul the

Shelby County Courthouse IMG_4704

Shelby County Courthouse

entire state of Texas back  into court , and  place it under the controls of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , once again . What he wants is for the state to obtain “preclearance” before changing any of its voting procedures . efore anything , voting – wise .

.. Preclearance basically means that an entity is found guilty . They must then prove themselves innocent ,  before going ahead with any changes  to their voiting prcedures or laws . In other words , the Holder department of InJustice wants Texas to play “Mother May I ” before doing anything voting – wise .

.. Shelby County V Holder and Arizona V ITC changed all of that . Shelby County has basically placed all of the states back on a level playing field . Each state is equal , before the law and the scales of justice . Each state may implement voting changes on its own , with having to get permission  from anyone  . Only if a court case were brought against a state , and a finding were made , in theory , could a state , or another entitity , be put back under Section 5 .

Also , Shelby County undercuts Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act , by ruling Section 4 unconstitutional . In order to find evidence (Section 4) , InJustice could then make a justification (Section 5) for disallowing a change . Now , it cannot do so . Section 5 is  still available . Section 4 , however  ,  is not .  It has been disalloweed , and does not  effectively allow a court casese to go forward .

.. Az v  ITC is a sweeping precedent . It has acted to place a fairly clear line in between the ability of Congress to regulate federal elections , and the states , who can regulate who can vote . You would think that the the liberals would be screaming  “bloody murder ” over this . No , not as of yet , thankfully . Also , two of the coourt ‘ s liberals participated in the ruling , effectiviely neutering , for now , any opposition to the case .

from : …

 The U.S. Department of Justice plans to ask a federal court  to reinstate its authority over voting laws in Texas, part of a new Obama  administration strategy to challenge state and local election laws it says  discriminate by race, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday.

“Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was  presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder … we believe  that the state of Texas should be required to go through a preclearance process  whenever it changes its voting laws and practices,” Holder told the annual  conference of the National Urban League, a civil rights organization, which is  meeting in Philadelphia.

The Obama administration has been searching for new ways to oppose voting  discrimination since the U.S. Supreme Court in June invalidated a key part of  the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A 5-4 conservative majority on the high court ruled that a formula used to  determine which states and localities were subject to extra federal scrutiny was  outdated.

The ruling freed Texas and select other jurisdictions from having to submit  their voting laws to the Justice Department before they could take effect.

The covered jurisdictions were mostly in the South, a region where officials  had a history of denying minorities the right to vote. Chief Justice John  Roberts wrote in the high court’s ruling that the South had changed  dramatically.

Holder’s Justice Department had used the process known as “preclearance” to  block, among other laws, a new plan for congressional district lines in Texas  drawn after the 2010 U.S. Census. Government lawyers  and civil rights groups convinced a court that the map, if it took effect, would  have too few black and Hispanic districts.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, said after the Supreme  Court ruling that the redistricting plan could then go into effect  immediately.

State lawmakers ultimately approved a map that was deemed friendlier to  minority populations, though state Democrats still criticize it.

As a first step  in its new strategy, the Justice Department plans to make clear it supports a  pending lawsuit that racial minorities brought against the redistricting plan in  federal court in Texas.

If the court agrees the plan was racially discriminatory, then the Justice  Department will ask the court to place Texas back in the preclearance process  for an undetermined period of time, according to Holder’s prepared speech.

“This is the Department’s first action to protect voting rights following the  Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder, the first black  U.S. attorney general, told the group.

The Supreme Court in its June ruling left in place the preclearance process  and most other parts of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating only the formula for  states and localities to be subjected automatically to extra scrutiny.

Some members of Congress have discussed passing a new formula that would  comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, but they have not done so.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »