• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama and Holder Overreach Their Authority Again... (1 Viewer)

ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,459
Location
The North Shore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Texas GOP pans Holder move - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

The lawmakers say Thursday's surprise move by Attorney General Eric Holder asking a court to require “preclearance” of new Texas laws steps on states' rights, wastes taxpayer dollars and defies the Supreme Court's June decision to scrap a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

“Once again, it's the federal government telling the states what they can and can't do,” said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas). “Even after some defeats on the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court, the administration still continues to thwart the will of the people of Texas.
Click to expand...


So now when Obama & Co. can't strong arm the SCOTUS they just ignore it...

I'm not sure if they know this, but we do have checks and balances in this country (supposedly)

When will some of those kick in to stop this abomination?
 
Holder doesn't have the authority to ASK for something?
 
ChezC3 said:
Texas GOP pans Holder move - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com




So now when Obama & Co. can't strong arm the SCOTUS they just ignore it...

I'm not sure if they know this, but we do have checks and balances in this country (supposedly)

When will some of those kick in to stop this abomination?
Click to expand...




I predict that the Obama administration will win this kerfuffle, and that the rights of all American citizens to vote, without 1st having to pass through a difficult maze, will not be infringed by the GOP in Texas.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Holder doesn't have the authority to ASK for something?
Click to expand...

No, not something that is at odds with his oath and responsibilities of office. The SCOTUS has already rung in letting him know, clearly, that the pre-clearance nonsense is unconstitutional.
 
shrubnose said:
I predict that the Obama administration will win this kerfuffle, and that the rights of all American citizens to vote, without 1st having to pass through a difficult maze, will not be infringed by the GOP in Texas.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

I predict they'll lose in the lower federal courts due to the recent SCOTUS decision on just this matter.
 
clownboy said:
No, not something that is at odds with his oath and responsibilities of office. The SCOTUS has already rung in letting him know, clearly, that the pre-clearance nonsense is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that a 5-4 vote is "clearly" telling us that certain requirements are unconstitutional - even when there have been such splits in my favour on several occasions. In as much as the SCOTUS ignored the findings in a 2012 federal court that found, because of recordings and emails, that Texas legislators had deliberately shaped voting districts to restrict the impact of minority votes. So when Scalia wrote that requiring "pre-clearance" in certain states and districts was no longer needed because there was no record of racial prejudice in establishing districts or election rules for at least 40 years - he was either lying or ignorant of recent federal court findings.
 
clownboy said:
I predict they'll lose in the lower federal courts due to the recent SCOTUS decision on just this matter.
Click to expand...




That's a possibility, but it doesn't mean that the Texas GOP will win in the long run.

One thing to think about: How will the Supreme Court enforce its rulings? It has no armed forces at its disposal.

The President, on the other hand, has a lot of police and military power ,he could ( Probably won't.) declare the entire Supreme Court 'unlawful combatants and lock them up at Leavenworth for an extended period of time. What could they do, besides a lot of whining?
 
shrubnose said:
I predict that the Obama administration will win this kerfuffle, and that the rights of all American citizens to vote, without 1st having to pass through a difficult maze, will not be infringed by the GOP in Texas.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

Why is that same voter ID law legal (and constitutional?) in Indiana. Using decades old "evidence" of past discrimination does not mean that all election law/redistricting decisions in the 9 "bad" states are automatically suspect. Had Texas done something that no other state had done, then I might agree. What we have now is some bizarre "separate but equal" justice, allowing Indiana to have a law that we should somehow disallow Texas from having. Obvioulsy it is not simply the voter ID law that is being challenged, only that a red state should dare be allowed to enact it.

BTW, why is that "difficult maze" allowed for buying alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo?
 
shrubnose said:
That's a possibility, but it doesn't mean that the Texas GOP will win in the long run.

One thing to think about: How will the Supreme Court enforce its rulings? It has no armed forces at its disposal.

The President, on the other hand, has a lot of police and military power ,he could ( Probably won't.) declare the entire Supreme Court 'unlawful combatants and lock them up at Leavenworth for an extended period of time. What could they do, besides a lot of whining?
Click to expand...

That was Jefferson's argument after Madison v Marbury didn't go his way. So you'd have been okay with President Bush banning all abortion because SCOTUS did not have the military power to enforce Roe v Wade?
 
I think the SCOTUS decision said the old formula for determining which states' laws required preclearance was unconstitutional.

It did not say that preclearance itself is per se unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom