Holder - Texas and 'Pre-clearance'

D

DFWAg

1,000+ Posts
I read this in the AM. Our esteemed Attorney General is now arguing that the State of Texas has shown such a pattern of discriminatory behavior over the years that our state legislators need to pre-clear any potential voting law changes with the Dept. of Justice or Federal Court System before taking legislation to a vote.

Holder - Texas can't be trusted

I come down on the fairly conservative side of this debate. I agree with the Roberts court that the assumption that the South in general as well as Texas are somehow exactly like they were in the 1965 is about as logical as assuming all Germans are still Nazis.

That being said, he alleges that recent redistricting plans are patently discriminatory. Is there any legitimacy to this?

Also, at its core this seems to be some sort of rear-guard action to shore up the now gutted Voting Rights Act, and it makes for good optics to yuck it up with Philly liberals talking about all the hateful and narrow minded hicks down in Texas and how the fair and truthful Dept. of Justice will stick it to that lot.

It makes me wonder how applicable any of the Civil Rights Act in this age. Where I live up in Chicago, minorities have pretty much run the show for years. The "Man", the WASP banker or lawyer, is a rather vilified species. Modern cities in Southern towns have diverse representation in elected bodies. How much legitimacy is there in claims of modern civil rights leaders that Jim Crow lives and we need a strong federal government control system to prevent minorities from being lynched or set up on by police with attack dogs?

Basically I am wondering what is the state of racial discrimination in the political system?
 
We know from history that redistricting is controlled by the party in power and we know that when Dems controlled they redistricted to their advantage, Why wouldn't they?
just like the Repubs are now
that btw includes keeping some districts that are historically predominantly one paryt intact so you end up with as an example SJL safe districts.
That has worked that way with each party.

So I guess you could make a case that redistricting. like it is in every state in the union and like it has been for as long as redistricting has been done this was discriminatory.

BO's hate for Texas has gone beyond petty.
 
Holder and BO have just as much respect for the SC as they do for the Constituion and State's Rights. Never mind that the SC just ruled against singling out states for special scrutiny, Holder knows what's best for the country.
 
Gerrymandering is one of the main problem with politics in our union. But attacking Texas without addressing the issue nationwide does nothing but add to the country's problems.
 
Where does Eric Holder rate among Attorney Generals since 1960?

Here's a list, omitting the 'acting' assignments:

Robert F. Kennedy, 1961-64
Nicholas Katzenbach, 1965-66
Ramsey Clark (TX), 1967-69
John N. Mitchell, 1969-72
Richad Kleindienst, 1972-73
Elliot Richardson, 5/73-10/73
Robert Bork, 1973-74
William B. Saxbe, 1974-75
Edward H. Levi, 1975-77
Griffin Bell, 1977-79
BenjaminCiviletti, 1979-81
William French Smith, 1981-85
Edwin Meese, 1985-88
Richard L. Thornburgh, 1988-91
William P. Barr, 1991-93
Janet Reno, 1993-2001
John Aschroft, 2001-2005
Alberto Gonzales (TX), 2001-05
Michael Mukasey, 2007-09
Eric Holder, Feb 3, 2009 to present
 
Has voter fraud been widespread in Texas? I ask the question because I haven't done any research and look to the more enlightened to provide some data. Is this additional government regulation really necessary?
 
NJLonghorn, you are right that article is a bit biased. However get past the trying to play the Republicans use this more and use it more aggresively or as the conclusion of the article states
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
There are two simple ways to limit (not eliminate) voter fraud.

1. Require photo ID to vote.
2. Shorten early voting periods to 1 week or less.

Simple, easy, and does not require lots of government intervention or new expense.
 
one of the more glaring examples of voting fraud is the use of pac money to buy votes. For example, in my part of the state it is not unusual to see a candidate spending a lot more money than they are reporting having received. Then, right after the deadline for reporting has passed the candidate gets a huge infusion from the Committee to Make Big Bucks Polluting the Hell Out of MY County. NOw you know the candidate knew all along the money was coming, but the opposition has no chance to howl about how the candidate is bought goods if the money is not reported until the final, post election report.

This is sleezy and common.

Of course, what is also sleazy and common is finding fifty people registered at one address and all fifty voting at the same time and then the voter showing up elsewhere to get his ten dollars.
 
Eric Holder may be wrong about many things...and he may be wrong for focusing on Texas...but his intention is valid. Now I will open a can of worms.

Republicans are exclusive and Democrats are inclusive. Period. End of statement. Republicans are correct about many things...many...but they are still exclusive. That is why they will slowly lose all national elections. They may win in 2016...maybe...but national elections will soon become only democrats. .unless the Republican party changes.

Look at women's issues, immigration, gay issues, latino issues....the list goes on and on. Republicans don't get it....so they just try to change the rules. It will work for a while...no doubt...but not for long.
 
All groups are exclusive. Don't fool yourself. Democrats are very exclusive toward people who believe in free market answers to societies problems. They are very exclusive to people who don't want to abort babies. And on and on and on.

Every group must have a common set of values and ideals or there would be no reason to self-identify.
 
Republicans don't get it, and they continue to make fools of themselves in Texas for all the world to see.


rolleyes.gif
 
Conservatives are for Individual Rights, not Group Rights, that right there is the failure of your argument. Conservatives could care less what color you are as long as you contibute to society as the individual that you are, when you cry this group or that group, the hearing aid gets turned off.
 
And the only issue that you mentioned that should be a function of the Federal govenment is Immigration.

You come here legally and don't overstay your welcome, I have not issues. When you break the law to come here and are nothing but donkeys for Mexican drug cartels, I have a problem.

Secure the border, stop the flow of illegals and then we can talk about what is inside the country already.

Abortion, over 50% of the country is against the practice. I know more women that are against abortion then for abortion, you really should look at who you are hanging out with......

I as well as a large portion of my Tea Party could care less if a person is gay or not, have you ever been to a Tea Party meeting and asked?

You really should quit getting your talking points from MSNBC, you are doing nothing but parroting them and it shows your ignorance on the subjects.

Now let's talk about Federal issues that matter........

Again, conservatives believe in the individual and that postive contribution to society....
 
Your reference to being monkeys for the drug cartels is a reason that latinos are mostly democrats. And, by the way, members of any drug cartel should be deported if we can.

The platform of the republican party states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I never, and I do mean never, watch MSNBC. I don't parrot anybody. I make my own decisions. I am more on the republican side of the abortion debate....so you are off base there.

You are way too conservation for an intelligent conversation. I know that, but sometimes just can't myself from responding to you. Oh well.
 
Here in Chicago, Democrats have redistricted several areas, basically destroying any chance for incumbent R's to win their new districts.

Reminds me of that scene in FNL where they redraw the borders so west dillon gets the choice football players.

Seems to happen everywhere.
 
I never watched the FNL TV show, but that is straight out of history and mentioned in FNL the book. Odessa school districting was blatantly preferential to a certain high school.
 
Mr. Deez, I am always happy to have these discussion with you. We see things differently but at least I can understand and appreciate your views.

I agree that the republican party should be pro-life. I should have been more clear in my post, it is the rhetoric that is a problem for me. I think comments concerning women using abortion as birth control, a women made her choice when she had sex, a women should just go on and have the baby and put it up for adoption, etc. are problematic for many women and turn them off. If the republicans would focus on what the Supreme Court said about viability and the health of the mother, I think more people would seriously listen.

I mostly agree with you on immigration. I am not opposed to doing what it takes to close our borders. However, dealing with the illegals already here is a separate issue. Many illegals are productive law abiding people (other than the fact that they are illegal). When republicans just throw them in the criminal bucket, it is a problem for me. It is not practical to deport them all (and I don't think we really want to for reasons you stated), so lets be adults and come up with a workable solution.

I want this country to have entitlements. I want everyone to have access to healthcare (I know obamacare is a mess....not the point of this post). I don't want people living on the street. I don't want people to starve. Unfortunately, we have a lot of fraud and abuse of the system. I wish there was some practical way to fix that. However, there are people on this board who will state that the only reason I am a democrat is because they provide me with food stamps and other free stuff. Such ridiculous rhetoric.

And while I see your point on gay marriage, there is more to it than the republicans have lost on this issue. There are still 37 states that do not allow it. Other than court intervention, many of states, including Texas, will never change. Or, at least, not any time soon. As I have said before, I think the republicans should just give up on this. Their conservative religious base might be upset, but they probably will not leave the party (see abortion issue). Just blame it on the liberal courts and state legislatures (in states where it has been approved) and move on. That will fix the gay-friendly straight people issue in elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top