Obama and Holder Overreach Their Authority Again...

[ChezC3]

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.

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?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

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?

Typical for this administration...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Holder doesn't have the authority to ASK for something?

 

[shrubnose]

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?

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.

 

[clownboy]

Holder doesn't have the authority to ASK for something?

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.

 

[clownboy]

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.

I predict they'll lose in the lower federal courts due to the recent SCOTUS decision on just this matter.

 

[Somerville]

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.

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.

 

[shrubnose]

I predict they'll lose in the lower federal courts due to the recent SCOTUS decision on just this matter.

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?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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?

Unbelievable, wait, actually it is believeable....

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

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?

 

[clownboy]

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?

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?

 

[ChezC3]

Unbelievable, wait, actually it is believeable....

and how sad is that?

 

[EdwinWillers]

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?

Scary times..

 

[Cameron]

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.