Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (The Washington Post / The Washington Post/Getty Images)
The LA Times
As one might expect, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no difficulty putting her finger on the point of Texas' voter ID law: it's openly racist.
Ginsburg's colleagues voted 6-3 to allow the Texas law to remain in effect for the upcoming election. But as she observed in a scathing dissent issued Saturday, the measure may prevent more than 600,000 registered voters, or 4.5% of the total, from voting in person for lack of accepted identification. "A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic," she wrote.
The law's intent is "purposely discriminatory," Ginsburg concluded. Citing the U.S. District Court ruling that declared the Texas law unconstitutional, she observed that since 2000, Texas has become a majority-minority state. That gave its Legislature and governor "an evident motive to 'gain partisan advantage by suppressing'" the votes of blacks and Latinos.
Is there any better testament to the bankruptcy of Republican political ideas than the party's consistent effort to win elections by limiting the vote?
The gun loons on this site have said before they agree with these voter ID laws, knowing they infringe on the right of people to vote.
ReplyDeleteYet they scream if you try to pass a law that would not infringe on their right to own, buy, and use a gun, to try and keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, or simple rules to keep people safe from guns.
That's called a hypocrite.
I guess that firmly puts you as a hypocrite too. Luckily I can say I'm not one of them, because I don't support suppressing votes or gun rights.
DeleteThen I'm not talking to you am I asshole. Why am I a hypocrite?
DeleteOnly a grabber loon would continue to equate any subject to guns and "gun loons" at fault.
DeleteHoney, the sandwich bread is hard, gun loons fault.
The car is out of gas, gun loons fault.
Its cloudy out today, gun loons fault.
Because you are calling someone a hypocrite for wanting one and not the other, while you want one and not the other.
DeleteWhy be anonymous? Just choose some silly handle that nobody has any idea who the hell you are. This isn't facebook. Soon you will gain a reputation and possibly friends.
DeleteYou're not really a hypocrite. Just somebody with nothing to say.
TS, You're right. It's not strictly racism. They are simply trying to maintain a republican majority by suppressing the black vote. Who could blame them? Anything goes. It's a battle. But it wasn't Ruth Bader-Ginsburg who used the term, it was Mike. The truth remains. But we all know this already. It's old news.
Good news is that it mostly seems to be backfiring this time around. Community activists have been fighting this kind of thing for over fifty years. But some of the old fights have resurfaced with the nullification of the Voting Rights Act and other actions of the current reactionary right-wing SCOTUS. This, in turn, has fostered a new boldness in state legislatures to pass meaningless, suppressive measures.
Kurt,
A lot of things are much easier when you are white, have plenty of money, an automobile, a driver's license, et cetera. None of that has anything to do with a right to vote. One name, one vote, one legal address. There is no fraud going on here. These people are already registered to vote.
I cry like a fucking baby when I think about the current state of race relations in this country and how little progress we have made in my lifetime.
Well since it's your contention that I have nothing to say, there isn't any reason to have something to say name either.
DeleteFJ,
DeleteDo my opinions, or words change if I go by a name, or not? I make you the same offer I have made all the gun loons on this site. You name me and I will use it. So far no takers. And if SS and others quote a named person when it was really an anon., what importance does a name mean when loons pay no attention to who is talking anyways and are just making sure their talking points are made?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous October 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM
Well since it's your contention that I have nothing to say, there isn't any reason to have something to say name either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above comment was not made by me and I'm sure others think it was and was intended to make people think it was. I could care less. It only adds to the proof that gu8n loons are liars and have to deceive to make a point, or as usual mislead and lie.
SS claims if I had a name he could then search this blogs archives to see what I said in the past, fine, but he claimed to have searched this blog for comments made by "Sandra" and said she had made no comment on this site in over a year. A total lie since she had made comments just a few days before he made that claim. I see no reason to jump on requests of liars, and no one has seemed to have any trouble knowing it's me.
As far as claiming that as long as I am anon. I have nothing to say, I will add your insult to the rest I receive from the other lying idiots and name callers on this site.
I wonder anon. whose fault are gun injuries, deaths, and crimes? Are they the fault of those who do not own guns?
DeleteYour examples are so childish and lacking in reality I can only believe you are 6 years old. You are missing Rush's show, by now.
TS,
DeleteYou will have to do better. I am for voting rights and gun rights. Next lie.....
Gun control anonymous, I vote for the handle Microbrain.
Delete" I make you the same offer I have made all the gun loons on this site. You name me and I will use it. So far no takers."
DeleteI took you up on this before, and then you reverted back to being nameless.
Well anti anon, since this article was about Ginsberg's opinion on voting, not guns, you were the one that brought it up. So the question to you is what does the voting issue have anything at all to do with guns????
DeleteHere's one. How about El Cuervito?
DeleteUltimately cool. The little crow. Like a corvair. Circa 1980 Southern California.
If I were an anonymous commenter who wanted to participate in the discussions, I'd give myself a fucking name. What's so hard about that?
DeleteSorry TS you never gave me a name that I should use. Next lie TS........please show me your comment where you offered a name for me to use.
DeleteThey are both federal rights anon.
DeleteThat seems reasonable TS, I'll consider it. Just to note that's the first time you offered a name for me, unlike your comment above stating you have previously offered up a name for me to use.
DeleteIt's not hard at all Mike, but it is a dishonest attempt to change the subject as usual for these liars. Not to mention all the reasons SS has given for me to use a name turned out to be lies and SS to be a liar. I'm not in the habit of giving liars what they want, just on general purposes on how I deal with liars. Just as I'm not in the habit of treating people kindly who insult and name call me. They deserve nothing better than a response in kind.
DeleteUse the name “Steve”- if you are asking me to come up with a name for you.
DeleteI'll have to reject "Steve." There was a "Steve" on here a while ago and I don't want his baggage, but I suppose that's why you suggested the name.
DeleteWhy not accept Steve's baggage? You've taken on his viewpoints, writing style, mannerisms, and you've even adopted his bizarre "name me" request. Why not go full-Steve? If not, how about "Stephon"? That's like a sexafied Steve.
DeleteYour conjecture that I am "Steve" is BS. Try some proof not just another of you lying insults. Your usual BS, lying, and game playing is now my basis for ignoring and rejecting your request. Why aren't you insisting other anons. use a name? I will respond to reasonable requests from reasonable people, not liars, game players, BS artists, and people who just like to throw insults. Thanks for being an ass and proving my point.
DeleteGetting ID that's acceptable for voting is neither difficult nor expensive. I haven't noticed any whining about it being required for buying tobacco, alcohol, and guns (and actually, in Texas, a concealed carry permit is accepted as ID at the polling place), or for driving a car--isn't that equally "racist"?
ReplyDeleteRemember when ID was required to attend the 2012 Democratic National Convention? Now that's ironic--and "racist," apparently.
You haven't been paying attention to the lawsuits and why these voter laws are losing in court. Your example clearly shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
DeleteLosing in court?? If they were losing in court then this subject would be different, but its not. Texas has just had its latest battle in court and voter ID won. You WILL NEED an ID to vote. The libs were going after Arkansas next but decided after losing Texas there wasn't any point in losing further states.
DeleteBut I am sure the court battles will continue after the mid term elections before the big race. Its going to interesting to see how far that's going to play out. Wind up in SCOTUS? A win there means ID to vote anywhere in the country, are the libs ready to risk that much?
Whoops, my bad. I just realized that it was SCOTUS that has held up Texas voter ID laws. 6 to 3 no less. So we are losing?
DeleteDefine winning.
"Remember when ID was required to attend the 2012 Democratic National Convention? Now that's ironic--and "racist," apparently."
DeleteI don't think they required the same type of ID as the Texas law requires for voting. So, no, neither ironic nor racist.
Better check again Mike, exactly the kind of ID to vote was required to attend. As well as a voter registration card, both had to match.
DeleteI don't think they required the same type of ID as the Texas law requires for voting.
DeleteInteresting. I don't think I'd previously ever seen the position articulated that a requirement for a certain kind of photo ID would not be "racist."
So tell me, Mikeb, got any examples of a racially neutral photo ID requirement? If you could find an ID type that would not be accepted at a Texas polling place under current law, but was accepted at the 2012 DNC, that would be even better, but for now, I'll be grateful simply for edification on what kind of photo ID requirement would not be "racist."
Maybe they were the same requirements. That would mean that both could be accused of being racist since as this post indicates, those excluded are mostly blacks and browns.
DeleteI just realized that it was SCOTUS that has held up Texas voter ID laws. 6 to 3 no less.
DeleteAnd that brings up an interesting question: is Justice Ginsburg arguing that two thirds of the Supreme Court, including the only African-American justice, ir prejudiced against African-Americans?
Loosing means loosing more than one case and just within a week three States have struck down these voter laws including Wisconsin, not to mention other States before the last few weeks. To bad you view death and injury from gun shot as a win/lose, "gotcha", "side" debate. Like SS you just like to put numbers on people dead from gun shot and are not sincere about finding legal ways to curtail those deaths.
Delete"is Justice Ginsburg arguing that two thirds of the Supreme Court, including the only African-American justice, ir prejudiced against African-Americans?"
DeleteYes, I think that's exactly what she's arguing.
Is there any better testament to the bankruptcy of Republican political ideas than the party's consistent effort to win elections by limiting the vote?
ReplyDeleteHold on, I thought the point of this article is that Republicans are motivated by racism. Then they finish by leaving the reader with this strange concept that they might be interested in "winning elections" as the reason for passing these laws.
The facts clearly show that minorities and the poor are unfairly effected by these voter laws. Republicans know that and that makes it racist.
DeleteWhy do republicans want to make voting harder?
In her statement, if you replace registered with potential then her argument stands better, wrong but better. In order to register to vote in Texas you have to show an ID, or prove your a legal citizen of Texas anyway. So the problem is,,,,,,,, what?
DeleteAll this does is prevent dead people from voting again, addresses that don't exist or has a vacant lot. Fake IDs are prevented as well as fake people, or family pets that voted in the past. Yes, all of this and more has been done and admitted proudly by the very people that have done it, and are now in jail or still awaiting trial for voter fraud in Texas.
Gun control disproportionately affects minorities and the poor as well. That doesn’t mean your motivations are born from racism.
DeleteFor one thing, why change laws that have worked well for decades? There is no voter fraud (about .00010% of voters) to justify such laws. Why end extended voting hours that have worked well for decades? Why make voting harder? Why do Republicans choose changing laws that are known to effect minorities unfairly?
DeleteWhen these leftist liberal loonies can explain to me why the NAACP requires an ID to march in one of there protest marches against voter ID, I might reconsider my position.
ReplyDeleteTalk about hypocrisy. Sheesh!
orlin sellers
"The state law requires voters to show a state-issued driver’s license, personal ID card or concealed handgun license, or a U.S. citizenship certificate, military ID card or passport."
DeleteTo march, a Ralph's card or Welfare ID was probably sufficient.
"To march, a Ralph's card or Welfare ID was probably sufficient."
DeleteCould be, however those may not mean a proof of residency which is required to have a say in that states representation of voting.
Comparing any non governmental organization to government procedures, is disingenuous.
DeleteMikeb, no the NAACP ID requirement was a valid photo ID the same as the one they were marching against. Nice try, though.
DeleteAnon, tell that to the liquor store.
orlin sellers
OS, a liquor store is not a government owned business. ??? your question makes no sense.
DeleteProbably didn't make any sense to you at all. Since there was no question.
DeleteIt didn't make any sense since it is a false comparison, which you don't understand.
Delete"OS, a liquor store is not a government owned business. ??? your question makes no sense."
Delete"It didn't make any sense since it is a false comparison, which you don't understand."
I understand the difference between a false comparison and a question. Do you?
Since Government AND non government entities both require a government issued ID for specific purposes to ID who is legal and who isn't for those specific purposes isn't in any way a false comparison at all.
To vote, drink, smoke, drive, board an airplane, open a bank account or do any banking business, to enter certain government buildings and so on are ALL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED. So your lie about a false comparison is pure bullshit! OS is spot on with his non question comparison.
Checking ID's is NOT a government requirement. It is a company policy to avoid breaking the law and selling to unqualified buyers. What else do you have?
DeleteContradict yourself much anon? The law states ID MUST BE CHECKED, not only to avoid breaking the law by selling to those that are unqualified, but NOT checking the ID is against the law as well.
DeleteBesides, HOW ELSE would you know if a person is not qualified if you don't check the ID anyway.
Want more?
Yes I want more. Prove there is a State, or federal law requiring ID's must be checked. It's not true. I'm waiting.
DeleteSure, just look in Texas for example ( I would post pics of them but this site wont let me), on each Tobacco sign, each Alcohol sign, on certain non-prescription "over the counter" drugs are signs that ID MUST be checked as per STATE law. There are also ATF signs beside The STATE signs indicating the same law, ID MUST be checked, federal law. I know, I smoke, I see these signs every week when I go to the grocery store for my groceries and cigarettes. I have seen them for decades. They are in Spanish and English.
DeleteSorry, there is no law requiring an ID must be checked and you have given no proof of such laws. Please cite the law for reference. A sign is not proof. I have worked liquor stores all over the country, there are no such laws, just company policies. Still waiting for your proof.
DeleteIt's a trivial exercise to find an example of the law requiring ID for tobacco:
DeleteUnlike alcohol, state and federal law says that anyone under 27 must show identification before purchasing cigarettes.
And then there's Utah law:
DeleteSocial clubs and restaurants must verify age using an electronic verification device before anyone who appears to be 35 years of age or younger may gain admission to a social club, or obtain an alcoholic beverage in a restaurant.
Worked liquor stores all over the country huh. Can't hold a job or what?
DeleteTypical lying gun loons. You did not provide any laws, you gave signs and articles that did not state any law, because there is no law. Next lie, liars......,
DeleteNo reading comprehension at all huh.
Delete