• 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: Supreme Court Decision a 'Setback,' Says He's 'Deeply Disappointed'


May 11, 2013
Reaction score
Political Leaning

By Daniel Halper

In a statement, President Obama called today's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act a "setback."

"I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," reads Obama's statement.


Read more:
Obama: Supreme Court Decision a 'Setback,' Says He's 'Deeply Disappointed' | The Weekly Standard

Eric Holder Just Threw a Temper Tantrum at DOJ because he LOST at SCOTUS
This from the dictator that doesn't view Iran's leaderhip as an enemy,
This from the loser human that blows a 100 million of our tax dollars for his enjoyment,
This from the scum that thinks its fine for his political cronies to run the IRS against his opponents,
and from the "leader" that only uses the word "enemy" when describing his political opponents.
Since when has he cared about court decisions or laws?

Reading the decision, with it's accompanying statistics supports their decision. The numbers this law quotes are 50+ years old. The Court merely says they need to be updated. Rather progressive, which is what liberals always desire from the SCOTUS. But I guess not in this case. They would rather perpetuate the outdatedness of the law since it suits their needs.
Top Bottom