Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights Act

[thoughtone]

source: TPM

Conservative Justices Hammer The Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act took a beating from conservative justices Wednesday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of voter disenfranchisement to pre-approve any changes that affect voting with the Justice Department or a federal court.

Oral arguments showed a sharp divide along ideological lines and suggested that the conservative majority is strongly inclined to overturn Section 5 of the half-century-old law.

A question posed by Chief Justice John Roberts to the Obama administration’s lawyer defending the Voting Rights Act captured the tenor of the proceedings.

“Is it the government’s submission that citizens in the South are more racist than citizens not in the South?” Roberts asked.

Justice Anthony Kennedy labeled the formula used for Section 5 “reverse engineering” that “obscures the real purpose.” He declared that “if Congress is going to single out states, it should do so by name.”

Kennedy said there no question Section 5 was “utterly necessary” in 1965 but its validity now is “not clear” to him. “The Marshall Plan was very good too,” he said. “But times change.”

Roberts and Kennedy led the questioning challenging the Voting Right Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the questioning defending it.

Justice Antonin Scalia attributed the continued congressional reauthorization to the perpetuation of a “racial entitlement” and suggested that it will be renewed into “perpetuity” because members of Congress would never let it lapse for fear for political repercussions.

“I don’t think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act,” Scalia said. “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful.”

Justice Samuel Alito asked several hostile questions suggesting that Section 5 was unfair to the covered jurisdictions. “Why shouldn’t it apply everywhere in the country?” he asked.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who did not speak during arguments, has already signaled in a 2009 written opinion that he believes Section 5 is unconstitutional.

The purpose of Section 5 was to proactively quash voter discrimination where it’s most likely to emanate, but conservatives argue that it has outlived its purpose and now discriminates against the mostly southern regions covered.

The historic 1965 law has been reauthorized four times by Congress, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. Its constitutionality has been affirmed four times by the Supreme Court, most recently in 1999.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Supreme Court Justice Calls Voting Rights Act ​

'Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement'

​

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

In expressing his deep skepticism Wednesday for the constitutionality of a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned the motivations of Congress for repeatedly reauthorizing it since it was initially passed in 1965.

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said during oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department prior to enacting them.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”</span>

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.

The Reagan-appointed jurist said lawmakers keep reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act out of fear of political repercussions. In a sarcastic tone, he described it as odd that congressional renewal has passed with growing margins over the years in spite of the fact that racism is widely acknowledged to have become less severe in the covered jurisdictions since 1965.

The core struggle in the case is between the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and the 15th Amendment, which tasks Congress with enforcing a ban on discriminatory voting laws.

Scalia signaled that he fears Section 5 will be repeatedly reauthorized into perpetuity, regardless of whether it’s justified, unless the courts step in.

“This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress,” he said.




​

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Do any of you self-described Conservatives on this board,
(black, white or indifferent), believe that Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act -- which requires Pre-clearance, i.e., the
governmental body proposing a change in law that affecting
voting must first show that the proposed law will not have a
discriminatory effect -- before it can enforce the law -- is a
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"Racial Entitlement"</span>

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">???</span>





​

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I honestly dont expect you to get a response.

I ask them stuff all the time and hear more crickets than responses. But they pop up to spout off on other stuff all the time.
I'm not asking "trap" questions rolleyes, I just want to see where they are on particular issues.
But good luck.

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I honestly dont expect you to get a response.

I ask them stuff all the time and hear more crickets than responses. But they pop up to spout off on other stuff all the time.
I'm not asking "trap" questions rolleyes, I just want to see where they are on particular issues.
But good luck.

And the so called conservatives, republicans and libertarians wonder why Black folk don't vote republican in any significant numbers.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Do any of you self-described Conservatives on this board,
(black, white or indifferent), believe that Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act -- which requires Pre-clearance, i.e., the
governmental body proposing a change in law that affecting
voting must first show that the proposed law will not have a
discriminatory effect -- before it can enforce the law -- is a
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"Racial Entitlement"</span>

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">???</span>





​

No, as it does not specifically single out any race in it.

This law did not come out of a vacuum, but was the result of persistant, and often violent, denial of lawful treatment of certain citizens solely because of race.

Whether it is still needed is another question entirely.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

No, as it does not specifically single out any race in it.

This law did not come out of a vacuum, but was the result of persistant, and often violent, denial of lawful treatment of certain citizens solely because of race.

Whether it is still needed is another question entirely.

From your perspective, what's the answer to that question?

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

​

 

[muckraker10021]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Why Justice Scalia Despises The Voting Rights Act

John Lewis is beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge


by Cynthia Tucker

Feb. 28, 2013

http://cynthiatucker.com/2013/03/why-justice-scalia-despises-the-voting-rights-act.html

If you want to stare into the ugly face of racial resentment, take a good look at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His frank, if stunningly injudicious, remarks about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act laid bare the bitterness that so many hyper-conservatives still harbor toward black progress.

Earlier this week, during oral arguments about a challenge to the law — widely considered the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement — Scalia dismissed a critical part of the law as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Given that the VRA was passed to ensure that black Americans had the right to vote — after white segregationists had showed they were willing to beat, jail and kill activists to block the black ballot — it was a chilling remark.

I’m so glad Scalia, who has long since given up the charade of a circumspect judicial temperament, said exactly what was on his mind. It saves me the trouble of having to persuade you that many critics of the VRA are mossbacks who still resent the political transformation unleashed by the power of the black vote.

Other skeptics on the high court managed more subtle criticisms, largely built around the notion that much has changed in the decades since a young John Lewis was beaten bloody on the Edmund Pettis Bridge 48 years ago next week. It’s a very seductive argument.

I know because I was very nearly seduced by it myself. In 2005, civil rights activists were gearing up to lobby Congress to once again renew the VRA, set to expire in 2006. As I considered their arguments, I looked around at a political landscape that Martin Luther King Jr. would not have recognized.

With black men and women serving in major political posts (appointed and elected), including as U.S. Secretary of State, I was about to concede to the forces who argued that the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary. And I was prepared to disagree with the esteemed Lewis — who has now been a distinguished member of Congress for more than a quarter-century — on the point.

But the Georgia General Assembly dragged me back to the reality of the modern-day politics of racial exclusion. In 2005, its Republican members pushed through an odious piece of legislation requiring state-sanctioned photo IDs, such as a driver’s license, for voting. It became one of the first states to do so.

Then, as now, there was no compelling argument for the requirement. Despite conservative claims about voter fraud, in-person fraud at the ballot box is virtually non-existent. As many voting rights activists pointed out, the law was aimed squarely at poorer voters who tend to support Democrats, especially black and brown voters. Georgia’s voter ID law, like similar ones around the country, was designed to suppress the minority vote. So instead of giving up on the Voting Rights Act, I enthusiastically supported its renewal in 2006.

Since then, voter suppression efforts have gone into hyper-drive.

It’s true that Sheriff Jim Clark no longer waits on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge to beat protestors to a bloody pulp. But Republicans responded to President Obama’s breakthrough first victory — and the realization that it was powered by voters of color — by becoming more imaginative in their tactics to discourage, inconvenience and disenfranchise those voters. Not only did they pass strict ID requirements, but they also moved to limit early voting. It’s no accident that most of the marathon waits were endured at polling places with predominantly black or Latino voters.

The Voting Rights Act can limit the damage of those voter suppression efforts, at least in those areas of the country where Section 5 has jurisdiction. In the past three years, for example, the Justice Department used its authority to rebuff harsh voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina and to temper restrictions on early voting in Florida.

Those examples show that the Voting Rights Act, for which some brave souls gave their lives, is still necessary. Unfortunately, Scalia and his fellow partisans see the law — which simply ensures that voters of color can exercise their right to vote without harassment — as a giveaway to appease those uppity blacks.

<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#FF0000" SIZE="8"></HR>

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

No, as it does not specifically single out any race in it.

This law did not come out of a vacuum, but was the result of persistant, and often violent, denial of lawful treatment of certain citizens solely because of race.

Whether it is still needed is another question entirely.

This law did not come out of a vacuum, but was the result of persistant, and often violent, denial of lawful treatment of certain citizens solely because of race.

Whether it is still needed is another question entirely.

Not necessarily. The voting rights at of 1965 was not prompted by violent denial of voter suppression but, by non violent practices such as poll taxes and tests for voting like how many bubbles are in a bar of soap or how many jelly beans are in a jar.

Today, many can rightfully claim that poll taxes still exist. Requiring the purchase of a drivers license in order to vote. In Texas, it is easier to get a gun than to vote.

Because over the last 10 years, the republicans have been attempting to reenact voter suppression laws, you are damn right that the Voting rights Act of 1965 is still needed!

 

[SPECTRE1]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

The voting rights act should be expanded, any laws enacted that affect voting should be reviewed at the federal level (courts) to ensure they do not limit access.

What will happen is that onerous ID requirement will be enacted or voting machines will be limited in select areas.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Do any of you self-described Conservatives on this board,
(black, white or indifferent), believe that Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act -- which requires Pre-clearance, i.e., the
governmental body proposing a change in law that affecting
voting must first show that the proposed law will not have a
discriminatory effect -- before it can enforce the law -- is a
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"Racial Entitlement"</span>

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">???</span>


​

I honestly dont expect you to get a response.

Damn.

How right you were.

And, no one is surprised.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I ask them stuff all the time and hear more crickets than responses.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K8E_zMLCRNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



the same got damn sound as this guy's comments:

​

to this guy's comments:

​

characterizing legislation protecting Right of American's to Vote as a got

damn "racial entitlement."

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Hey, to be fair to Uncle Clarence, he's been making that noise since being appointed.

 

[trstar]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

These years will go down as the last death throws of the Republican party and the Conservative movement.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Prior to the Voting Rights Act, blacks were kept from voting by both political parties because they were black. JFK still wanted to use literacy tests; they even had jellybean tests where you count the number!!!


Now because AA vote 95% Democrat and can be easily identified. I think AA are being kept from voting for political purposes and not skin color. One political party wants to include as many of their votes as possible, the other one does not. Many people get this confused and think it is the 1960 all over again. If blacks voted Republican, the ID laws in the South would disappear.

The Voting Rights Act should be changed to reflect this shift. Nobody should face barriers because their political party affiliation can be easily identified due to skin color, gender, or locality.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

From your perspective, what's the answer to that question?

Ulitmately, I don't think it should stand as written for a couple of reasons.

First, to limit those provisions to those states ignore the fact that voter suppression efforts happen all over the country (I still remember soome of the nonsense that went on in Ohio a couple of presidential cycles ago). So, all states have the potential.

Second, thankfully we have a much larger body of election activists who have sophisticated means to look at the practices of election administrators, as well as access to the courts, that we did not have earlier. So we can challenge any change, anywhere, if we fell it disenfranchises voters.

So, to make a state, even though some of the previously elected officials have acted illegally, come to feds and say "mother may I" everytime they do anything regarding thier vote, does not seem efficient.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Not necessarily. The voting rights at of 1965 was not prompted by violent denial of voter suppression but, by non violent practices such as poll taxes and tests for voting like how many bubbles are in a bar of soap or how many jelly beans are in a jar.

Today, many can rightfully claim that poll taxes still exist. Requiring the purchase of a drivers license in order to vote. In Texas, it is easier to get a gun than to vote.

Because over the last 10 years, the republicans have been attempting to reenact voter suppression laws, you are damn right that the Voting rights Act of 1965 is still needed!

I understand what you are saaying, but the right to vote is merely a part of the civil rights movement.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I understand what you are saaying, but the right to vote is merely a part of the civil rights movement.

The right to vote is NOT a part of the Civil Rights movement. It is a Constitutional Right.



.

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I understand what you are saaying, but the right to vote is merely a part of the civil rights movement.

What?

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

source: Raw Story

Is Massachusetts more racist than Mississippi, as Chief Justice John Roberts hints?


Massachusetts officials came out swinging this week after Chief Justice John Roberts argued in a hearing on the constitutionality of a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that Mississippi may be more sensitive to black voting rights than Massachusetts.

That's important because Mississippi, often derided as a backwards backwater due to its ugly racial history, has to run any changes to its voting laws by the US Department of Justice, while Massachusetts, broadly seen as a paragon of the enlightened North, does not.

The argument cuts to the bone of what's in front of the Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder: Should the South continue to be punished for its past racism despite evidence that those days are gone, or is there another, broader imperative that Section 5 protections are necessary to guarantee the franchise for all Americans?

Section 5 requires that 9 states and many other jurisdictions, mostly in the South but also including parts of the Bronx, "pre-clear" voting law changes with the US Justice Department due to evidence of past disenfranchisement.

While Congress handily reauthorized the VRA in 2006 for another 25 years, conservative justices on the Supreme Court, including Chief Roberts, zeroed in this week on whether Section 5 has itself become discriminatory, since many indices suggest that blacks vote at equal or even higher rates than whites in the covered jurisdictions.

Justice Roberts pointed out as proof that Massachusetts, for example, has "the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout."

Claiming Roberts is obfuscating US Census data, Massachusetts voting officials shot back.

"The concept of black communities in Massachusetts not voting is an old slur, and it’s not true,” Secretary of State William Galvin said. “I guess the point [Roberts] is trying to make is Mississippi is doing so much better they don’t need the Voting Rights Act. He can still relay that conclusion, but he shouldn’t be using phony statistics. It’s deceptive, and it’s truly disturbing.”

As it is, Roberts is reading Census figures that partially support his contention, but he failed to include margins of error that could, also technically, put Massachusetts ahead of Mississippi when it comes to minority participation versus white. Also, officials noted, several other states have similar disparities as Massachusetts. At the same time, three Sec. 5 jurisdictions – Mississippi, Georgia and North Carolina – today have higher proportions of blacks voting than whites.

Interestingly, some political scientists also argue that Roberts' assessment didn't take into account the context of specific elections in the Bay State, and whether blacks were specifically courted – a question that would be awkward to defend if they were talking about white voters in the South.

On top of that, Roberts' jab at the Bay State is extra-prickly because Massachusetts has played a historical role as anti-slavery, anti-Jim Crow, and pro-Civil Rights in the historic struggle over America's slave-holding legacy. Well into the 1950s and 1960s, meanwhile, Southern states like Mississippi resisted mightily attempts to restore the full franchise to blacks.

But critics contend that the contemporary air of Northern superiority on racial matters shouldn't determine the plight of the VRA's Sec. 5. In arguments to the court, Solicitor General Donald Verilli said the need to keep Sec. 5 intact isn't as much about race as pernicious historical legacies in the covered jurisdictions.

But if racial voting disparities can't be proved, then, reauthorizing the VRA in 2006 "was prudent, and history is relevant, only if the citizens of the South remain more racist than the citizens of the North," writes conservative columnist George Will on Friday.

To be sure, Mr. Verilli is right that it's a problem with a heavily historical overlay, where supporters suggest that, without the protections, discrimination could creep back in. But that argument failed to find much purchase with the court's conservative majority on Wednesday, where one Justice, Antonin Scalia, even suggested that Sec. 5 extended an unfair "racial entitlement" to blacks, a suggestion that made many observers bristle.

On PBS’s The Newshour Friday night, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks called Justice Scalia’s controversial comment “obnoxious” and “ridiculous.”

None of which is to say that racism is dead in the South, a notion no one is arguing. The argument, rather, is over whether it can be demonstrated that South Carolina is objectively more racist than Indiana, for example. Both states last year passed voter ID laws, which civil rights activists say amount to a new kind of poll tax. South Carolina was challenged by the DOJ. Indiana was not.

Another Sec. 5 jurisdiction, Georgia, passed a voter ID law in 2006, had it approved by the DOJ, and saw its black and Hispanic voter participation rise, not just in the 2008 election but in the 2010 midterms, as well.

Mississippi's history is instructive, however, to those who support extending Sec. 5. Even though 37 percent of Mississippians are black, the state didn't have a black member of Congress until 1986. Today, however, 49 of 204 state legislators are black, and the state has a black congressman – a testament, most experts agree, to the success of Sec. 5.

Indeed, even the state's attorney general, Jim Hood, argued in a friend of the court brief that Section 5 still plays a "vital role" in ensuring minority voting rights in Mississippi.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I understand what you are saaying, but the right to vote is merely a part of the civil rights movement.

What?

"Merely" . . . a part of the Civil Rights Movement

I think F.A.Y., must have been attempting to make a different point . . . not intending to fall for the B.S. expounded by those who would like nothing more than to limit and restrict the ability of the poor and people unlike them to participate in the decision making process . . .


. . . I hope

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

​

"Merely" . . . a part of the Civil Rights Movement

I think F.A.Y., must have been attempting to make a different point . . . not intending to fall for the B.S. expounded by those who would like nothing more than to limit and restrict the ability of the poor and people unlike them to participate in the decision making process . . .


. . . I hope

Of course I would never attempt to speak for the poster.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Ulitmately, I don't think it should stand as written for a couple of reasons.

First, to limit those provisions to those states ignore the fact that voter suppression efforts happen all over the country (I still remember soome of the nonsense that went on in Ohio a couple of presidential cycles ago). So, all states have the potential.

There is nothing to keep the statute from being expanded into those other states or municipalities.

Second, thankfully we have a much larger body of election activists who have sophisticated means to look at the practices of election administrators, as well as access to the courts, that we did not have earlier. So we can challenge any change, anywhere, if we fell it disenfranchises voters.

So, to make a state, even though some of the previously elected officials have acted illegally, come to feds and say "mother may I" everytime they do anything regarding thier vote, does not seem efficient.

Huh?
Section 5 is what gives the Justice Dept the power to do so, so if it's working, why change it?
Again, if those states covered want that status to change, it's entirely in their hands. Do they (and you) not notice that the argument is they can't possibly get out from under Section 5 on their own so they need the Supreme Court to kill S5 for them?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

I honestly dont expect you to get a response.

I ask them stuff all the time and hear more crickets than responses. But they pop up to spout off on other stuff all the time. I'm not asking "trap" questions rolleyes, I just want to see where they are on particular issues.
But good luck.

For example, they can pop off about the minimum wage and drones but nothing here.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

For example, they can pop off about the minimum wage and drones but nothing here.

Yeah, I noticed. But I'm going to give them an opportunity to express themselves in the drone arena. Let's see how they avoid and dance around the word "Regulation" (you know, that word that tastes like poison to some on this board) . . . LOL . . . which (I believe) is sorely needed in the about-to-explode civilian & police use of drones.


.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

The right to vote is NOT a part of the Civil Rights movement. It is a Constitutional Right.



.

The movement was about having the constitution applied to all, without regard to race. Voting is a part of that.

BTW, when I said merely, that did not come off well. I did not mean to downplay it's importance, but to include it in the overall movement, which it is part of.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

​

 

[desideratum]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Conservatives know, everyone knows, why the majority of blacks continue to vote democrat. It is because they are being lied to by those so called leaders, slave pimps, who want to keep their brothers and sisters in slavery visa vie the entitlements. Plain and simple. When you earn less money you are always democrat, when you earn more money you are conservative because then you realize how much of your hard earned money is being stolen by the government for taxes. The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn.

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Conservatives know, everyone knows, why the majority of blacks continue to vote democrat. It is because they are being lied to by those so called leaders, slave pimps, who want to keep their brothers and sisters in slavery visa vie the entitlements. Plain and simple. When you earn less money you are always democrat, when you earn more money you are conservative because then you realize how much of your hard earned money is being stolen by the government for taxes. The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn.

Conservatives know, everyone knows, why the majority of blacks continue to vote democrat.

You know why too!


Voter Suppression

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Right Wings Conservative Supreme Court Justices Want To Over Turn Voting Rights A

Conservatives know, everyone knows, why the majority of blacks continue to vote democrat. It is because they are being lied to by those so called leaders, slave pimps, who want to keep their brothers and sisters in slavery visa vie the entitlements. Plain and simple. When you earn less money you are always democrat, when you earn more money you are conservative because then you realize how much of your hard earned money is being stolen by the government for taxes. The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government is directly proportional to the amount of money you earn.

Troll. You didn't even talk about the subject this time.