H.R. 1 And The Fight For Voting Rights -- We The People!

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 6/22/2021 at 5:49 PM, B-Man said:

 

Leftists -- We need to change the rules because our ideas don’t stand on merit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You spoke the magic word - Merit.  Eliminating merit or the system of meritocracy is at the heart of everything the left supports.  And everything they oppose.  In their minds nothing is earned.  Everything is the result of privilege or the lack of privilege.  And their most recent fantasy is that its all based on race.  Its at the core of some very stupid ideas which boil down to eliminating the assessment of qualifications or ability in deciding anything.  

Imagine how pro sports or the Olympics would look like if the concept of merit and ability were eliminated.  Too many tall NBA players or too many fast track athletes on the national team.  That's the world they seek.  The liberals dream world is one completely devoted to mediocrity and the pursuit of a lowest common denominator to create an under-performing and dysfunctional society.  

[B-Man]

 

[Doc]

How much of our tax money is this going to waste?

[B-Man]

 

[Chef Jim]

On 6/25/2021 at 8:59 PM, Doc said:

How much of our tax money is this going to waste?

We have to get an accounting of:

 

A. How much in taxes and fees are being collected 

B. What is the money being used for and what it that amount. 
C.  A-B=waste. 
 

Quite simple actually. 

[Big Blitz]

 

 

You do you Pravda.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Big News.

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in a major voting rights case involving whether Arizona voting restrictions are racially discriminatory.

 

The high court ruled Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate the Voting Rights Act and were not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is now reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan dissented.

 

 

The restrictions at issue toss out ballots cast out of precinct and ban campaign or community groups from collecting ballots, which GOP critics call "ballot harvesting."

 

Kate Shaw, a Cardozo law professor and ABC News legal analyst, said the ruling was a big win for Republicans and will have real-world implications.

 

"This is a ruling that definitely will make it easier for states to impose restrictions, harder for plaintiffs and voting rights groups to challenge these kinds of restrictions, and could really impact the outcome in close elections going forward," she said.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-major-voting-rights-racial-discrimination/story?id=78182724

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

[B-Man]

 

THE big news of the day..............not that "we got Trump" fairytale.

 

 

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Ballot Harvesting Restrictions

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/supreme-court-upholds-arizona-ballot-harvesting-restrictions/

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/07/01/scotus-upholds-arizona-voting-integrity-laws-n399978

 

 

SCOTUS upholds Arizona voting integrity laws

 

 

Arizona Democrats had sought to throw out two voting integrity laws passed in that state in 2016. Those laws have been used as a model for new laws passed in other states since the 2020 elections, so the precedent of this case could prove important.

 

One of the laws states that only the voter, a member of their family, or their caregiver can deliver a completed ballot. The other law requires election officials to reject ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Today, the Supreme Court announced that they found the laws to be constitutional on a 6-3 vote. Be sure to note the spin that NBC News applies to their coverage of this story.

 

{snip}

 

We’re once again seeing the media adopting the insulting language of the Democrats every time they don’t like a new election law, saying that the laws “make it harder for minorities to vote.” I’ve yet to hear a single person explain that rationale coherently.

 

In the Arizona examples, the first law defines who can legally take a completed ballot to be submitted, limiting that choice to the voter themselves, their family members, or a caregiver. Are the plaintiffs somehow claiming that minority voters don’t have family members or the ability to get to their precinct? The second law rejects ballots cast in the wrong precinct. I’m sure that happens from time to time, but the assumption being made by the plaintiffs seems to be that minority voters aren’t smart enough to locate the correct precinct while their white counterparts can manage the task. That’s not a very good look.

 

Regarding the second law, the plaintiffs had also claimed that officials moved polling locations more often in minority districts, leading to confusion or mistakes. There are already rules in place, however, describing when and how polling locations can be changed. If they have proof that election officials have been violating those laws, the answer isn’t to scrap this law. It’s to investigate and arrest the people doing the switching.

 

What we seem to be seeing here is another example of the Supreme Court sticking to their traditional precedent of leaving the specifics of voting rules up to the individual states as long as they don’t prove to be discriminatory. That’s probably the reason that the Democrats continually accuse Republican officials of “discrimination” in crafting voting laws. But whether it’s the rule concerning who can deliver a ballot (which was passed to cut down on ballot harvesting) or a requirement to vote in your own precinct, those laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, gender or any other demographic.

 

Now that there are challenges bubbling up over new voting laws in Georgia and many other states, today’s decision will probably prove important. The lower courts will need to consider this case as precedent when hearing the others.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Banning ballot harvesting isn't a restriction on voting in any way.

 

It is a restriction on who can touch your ballot.

 

Only 11% of the country think ballot harvesting should be legal.

 

The Carter Baker Commission on election integrity specifically warned against it.

 

You don’t have to call regulating it “voter suppression” just because Stacey Abrams does.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

SUPREME COURT DELIVERS MAJOR BLOW TO DEMOCRATS’ CAMPAIGN AGAINST STATE ELECTION LAWS

 

On the last day before its summer recess, the Supreme Court upheld two Arizona voting provisions that Democrats and civil rights groups challenged as disproportionately burdening minority voters. The vote was 6-3, with only the three hardcore liberals dissenting.

 

Justice Alito wrote the opinion. That’s always a great sign.

 

Much more at the link: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/supreme-court-delivers-major-blow-to-dems-campaign-against-state-election-laws.php

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

Apparently the defense asked to provide stats on how many voters would be suppressed by these laws and the plaintiffs couldn’t provide any. Shocker. 

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

Apparently the defense asked to provide stats on how many voters would be suppressed by these laws and the plaintiffs couldn’t provide any. Shocker. 

I wanted to see them explain how it was racist.

[B-Man]

 

 

A Good Day for Free Speech and Free Elections

National Review, by The Editors

 

Legal constitutionalists and political conservatives have had reason to be disappointed at times with the Roberts Court, but today is not one of those days. The Court concluded its 2020-21 term with a pair of 6-3 rulings written by George W. Bush’s appointees (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) and joined by all six Republican appointees to the Court. Both reached the right conclusions. Both will advance the progress of the law toward a vibrant space for democracy, by protecting free speech and free and fair elections.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/a-good-day-for-free-speech-and-free-elections/

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

SCOTUS Defends Election Integrity, Democrats Panic

by David Catron

 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld two longstanding provisions of Arizona election law, provoking widespread trepidation among the Democrats. In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that it was permissible for the state to limit ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting. Such limitations are commonplace throughout the country, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) took Arizona to court claiming that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The DNC lost but appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which inevitably ruled against Arizona. SCOTUS overturned that ruling. The panicked Democrats vehemently denounced the Supreme Court’s decision as an undisguised assault on democracy.

 

https://spectator.org/scotus-election-integrity/

 

 

[Doc]

Like I said, and in the vein of "prove there was fraud," prove these laws are racist.  If you can't, they stand.

[B-Man]

 

 

Former Democrat Representative Accidentally Admits: Election Integrity Laws “Could Really Cost Democrats Seats”

 

Democrats go into full-blown panic mode as GOP poised to uphold fair elections... A former Dem rep from Maryland accidentally admitted Democrats could lose congressional seats if Republicans are able to pass more election integrity laws... Former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards made the admission during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC, saying the GOP’s new rules to secure elections “could really cost Democrats seats in the House and the Senate.”

 

https://www.newswars.com/former-dem-rep-accidentally-admits-election-integrity-laws-could-really-cost-democrats-seats/

 

Read the full transcript of the exchange via RealClearPolitics.com:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/08/donna_edwards_warns_gops_state_voting_restrictions_could_cost_democrats_seats_in_congress.html

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Sounds like a "Filibuster".....................LOL

 

 

 

 

 

Brilliant.........Of all the places to mount this protest, DC is optically the most beneficial to Texas Rs.

 

 

 

[BillStime]