Quantcast

Showdown in Florida: Lawsuits fly as Florida continues to purge its voting roles. Whose Side Are you on?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/06/12 12:08:08
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Battle Royal begins in Florida. In this corner we have Governor Rick Scott, who wants to purge the Florida Voting Roles of 182,000 SUSPECTED illegal voters.

Governor Rick Scott

In this corner we have the United States Federal Government, who says that this is an attempt at voter suppression. The Department of Justice has ORDERED, the state of Florida to stop purging its voter roles in this fashion.

Department of Justice


The Justice Department said it will sue Florida in federal court for
violating two federal laws that prevent states from suppressing voters.
The state will be subject to "enforcement action," the agency said in a
curtly worded letter.

Ring Girl Round 1
Hours earlier, Florida filed a lawsuit of its own against the federal
government. Secretary of State Ken Detzner, who oversees elections, sued
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accusing the agency of
denying access to a federal database with information about immigrants.
The lawsuit claims the federal agency forced the state to run afoul of
at least one of the two federal voting laws the Justice Department
accuses it of flouting.

So Whose side are you on: The State of Florida and Rick Scott or the Federal government Department of Justice?

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/rick-scot...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • JP 2012/06/12 13:15:15
    I support Rick Scott in the voter Purge
    JP
    +11
    If you are dead or are here without becoming a citizen, you do not get to vote.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jgh57 2012/06/12 18:24:41
    I support Rick Scott in the voter Purge
    jgh57
    +7
    You must be a Citizen of the United States to be able to vote. You must be a citizen of the state of Florida to vote in Florida. You should have to prove that.
  • Hawkeye 2012/06/12 17:45:52
    I support Rick Scott in the voter Purge
    Hawkeye
    +6
    The left is engaging in tha SAME ole tactics that it engages in on EVERY issue..

    The Republicans are trying to Harm or kill off every vulnerable segment of Society that one can imagine from the elderly and the children to disabled Veterans and monorities..

    There are LAWS against what the left is claiming that the Republicans are trying to do here yet they have ZERO evidence to support their specious and false claims....

    The DOJ is on the WRONG side here.. THEY should be as dedicated towards insuring the integrity of the American Election Process as ANYONE..

    We're SUPPOSED to put UP with ILLEGAL voters and Voter FRAUD because to the LEFT,, an accusation is as good as a Conviction..

    The DOJ is an investigative arm of LAW ENFORECMENT in this country.. They are NOT the conscience of the American People.. They are NOT the Social Engineers of THIS Government.. They should be at the HEAD of these attempts to purge illegal and fraudulant voters from the rolls.. THEY should be working HAND in HAND with these States..

    They should NOT be fighting for the rights of the ILLEGAL Voter or those who commit FRAUD..
  • skip 2012/06/12 17:37:12
    I support the department of justice and believe it is voter suppression.
    skip
    +2
    only republican steal elections or voter fraud
  • Flowers skip 2012/06/12 19:04:48
    Flowers
    +5
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/vi...

    Only republicans? I doubt the black panther would appreciate being associated with the republican party
  • skip Flowers 2012/06/13 11:27:49
    skip
    quit watching fox new and learn the facts
  • Flowers skip 2012/06/13 14:14:46 (edited)
    Flowers
    Who is the one lacking facts?? You are, Skip. Voter Fraud is a issue that BOTH sides are guilty of. Don't be ignorant simply because you don't want to hear the truth.
  • schjaz skip 2012/06/13 17:05:39
    schjaz
    the facts about the panthers trying to influence votes?
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/16 02:05:16
    Jeremiah
    When have they tried to influence votes?
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/16 19:28:01
    schjaz
    in the last presidential election....pennsylvania....they used intimidation with billyclubs and threats.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/17 01:55:45 (edited)
    Jeremiah
    +1
    You are talking about that phony charge of intimidation by Matthew Drudge and his acolyte with the video camera, the one the Bush DOJ dismissed for lack of evidence. I have seen that video many times, and this one is getting very old.

    Two African American men were standing outside a polling place in a predominantly African American precinct in Philadelphia. People were streaming in and out of the building, and no one complained of being intimidated by two men from the neighborhood.

    Then along came Drudge's man with his camera and microphone and began trying to stir up trouble. He asked leading questions, but he never succeeded in getting anyone to admit to either intimidating anyone, or being intimidated by anyone. No threats were heard by anyone, not even by Drudge's man. One of the men had a night stick with him, and he was reprimanded by his group's leader.

    The case was dismissed twice. A criminal case was dismissed by the Bush DOJ, and a civil case was dismissed by the Obama DOJ. But the right still insists there was a case of some kind.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/17 15:17:51
    schjaz
    Phony charge? Nobody has the right to stand outside a voting venue with clubs. Period. It is an attempt at intimidation. Why else would they have a presence such as this? It is a blatant threat and it couldn't be more obvious. But you would prefer to blame the person videoing? come on, now.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/18 14:43:30
    Jeremiah
    +1
    Why did no one report feeling intimidated or threatened? None of the voters streaming in and out of that building looked as if they felt intimidated. Why was the criminal case dismissed by the Bush DOJ, and the civil case dismissed by the Obama DOJ?

    The simple answer? There was no case. No one felt threatened or intimidated. They were two guys from the 'hood in an African American neighborhood. It didn't look like anyone paid any attention to them, except for Drudge's man.

    Blame the reporter? Only for trying to make an issue where there was none before his arrival.

    Clubs? One of them had a nightstick, which didn't seem to bother anyone, and for which he was reprimanded. Has it occurred to you their purpose might have been to ensure that no one else could intimidate or influence the voters that day?

    What do you suppose their purpose was? Why would they want to intimidate any voters in that precinct, which voted overwhelmingly Democratic? Do you think they were sent by the McCain campaign, or by Sarah Palin?

    This one is four years old. Is it the best you could come up with?
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/19 16:58:17
    schjaz
    African American neighborhood? All I saw were whites around there...except for the intimidators. Hmmmmm.
    They had no right standing outside a voting venue with a weapon.
    Want a more recent example of trying to influence votes? Look at the question....Florida is purging and the DOJ wants to sue? Hahahaha. Then Oblahblah signs a kingly memo telling illegals under 30 that they can stay here. Yeah, that's not political. Yet another (illegal) attempt to influence voters.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/19 17:09:57
    Jeremiah
    +1
    According to Bush's DOJ, they had every right to be there, since no one had called to complain. You did not see mostly whites coming and going. If you did, you need to be checked for color blindness.

    Rick Scott is trying to purge 182,000 names from the Florida voter rolls. All of them, by pure coincidence, are Democratic voters. 95% of them are considered legally eligible voters, but Scott says many have names similar to those of convicted felons. The list of purges also, again by coincidence, has mostly Hispanic names. This is just Scott doing the bidding of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers.

    The Obama order is a concept whose time is overdue. The rules for admittance are very restrictive, and the order is part of the Dream Act that Congressional Republicans blocked.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/19 17:31:18
    schjaz
    Bush? Bush? What ?? Yikes. The Dream Act was horribly written.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/19 17:52:11
    Jeremiah
    +1
    Yes, Bush's DOJ dismissed the criminal case before he left office.

    How was the Dream Act badly written? Perhaps you should offer some pointers on lucid writing.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/20 14:50:10 (edited)
    schjaz
    (Sec. 3) Authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of, and adjust to permanent resident status, an alien who: (1) has attained the age of 12 prior to enactment of this Act; (2) files an application before reaching the age of 21; (3) has earned a high school or equivalent diploma; (4) has been physically present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act (with certain exceptions); (5) is a person of good moral character; and (6) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified criminal or security grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Authorizes the Attorney General to take similar steps with respect to an alien who: (1) would have met such requirements during the four-year period immediately preceding the enactment of this Act; and (2) is enrolled in, or has graduated from, an institution of higher education.

    Directs the Attorney General to establish a procedure permitting an alien to apply for cancellation and adjustment without being placed in removal proceedings (in addition to cancellation and adjustment availability in removal proceedings). Provides for: (1) expedited application processing without additional fees; and (2) confidentiality of applicant information.

    Prohibits the removal ...


    (Sec. 3) Authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of, and adjust to permanent resident status, an alien who: (1) has attained the age of 12 prior to enactment of this Act; (2) files an application before reaching the age of 21; (3) has earned a high school or equivalent diploma; (4) has been physically present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act (with certain exceptions); (5) is a person of good moral character; and (6) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified criminal or security grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Authorizes the Attorney General to take similar steps with respect to an alien who: (1) would have met such requirements during the four-year period immediately preceding the enactment of this Act; and (2) is enrolled in, or has graduated from, an institution of higher education.

    Directs the Attorney General to establish a procedure permitting an alien to apply for cancellation and adjustment without being placed in removal proceedings (in addition to cancellation and adjustment availability in removal proceedings). Provides for: (1) expedited application processing without additional fees; and (2) confidentiality of applicant information.

    Prohibits the removal of an alien who has not yet received a high school diploma or equivalent but has a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements under this Act. Permits such an alien to work.

    The wording went further than just for the kids.
    you are the kind of person that gets off on trying to 'best' ppl and insult them to make yourself believe you are winning but deep down you know you just don't count. your time is up.
    (more)
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/20 15:29:01
    Jeremiah
    +1
    First, I didn’t ask you to judge me as a person. You do not know me, so do not presume to judge, and I will do the same for you.

    Second, you didn't provide a link to the source for your cutting and pasting. I am not suggesting you would "edit" the data to suit your purposes, but I would like to see it for myself anyway.

    Third, I don't see a problem with how the bill was written. It didn't pass Congress, so the point is moot, but something needed to be done, and Obama had the courage to do it.

    He will probably lose votes, as he did with his position on same-sex marriage. But these, combined with his decision on killing Osama bin Laden, show what kind of courage this president has. Do you think Mitt Romney would have that kind of courage?
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/21 15:27:13
    schjaz
    You judged me when you insulted me.

    Sorry I didn't post a link...I usually do.

    Obama circumvented the law by bypassing Congress. It was a purely political move that is illegal and he knows it.

    It was not HIS decision to get Osama Bin Laden. There is much debate on the point that it could have been Ponetta because the POTUS was on the golf course and Jarrett wouldn't pull the trigger but none of that really matters to me. The American ppl wanted Bin Laden's head and if it would have surfaced (crap usually does) that this POTUS had the shot and didn't take it, it would have hurt him politically. He said he was different. He is just another back alley, dirty, lying politician.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/21 17:03:07
    Jeremiah
    +1
    It was entirely Obama's decision to send the SEALs after bin Laden. The military brass preferred a bombing strike, using either conventional bombers or drones. Even Biden and Hillary did not support the SEALs mission. According to everyone who was involved, Obama alone made the decision to send the SEALs in helicopters, as they had been trained to do on his orders.

    Now, if you have credible evidence to the contrary.... By the way, Jerome Corsi and WND are not credible sources.

    Obama played a round of golf after the order had been given. There was not much he could do at that point, and he was in constant communication with the assault team.

    He is very different from his predecessor. He has displayed strong leadership and decisiveness in critical situations, and he has not deferred to his VP, as his predecessor usually did. This was shown in the killings of the Somali pirates, the killing of bin Laden and the killing by drone of most of Al Qaeda's braintrust.

    This must eat away at those who hate Obama, especially when they think if the Republican alternative. Mitt Romney has never been decisive in his life, except when he was firing people at Bain Capital.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/22 17:23:47
    schjaz
    You trust Oblablah and I cannot tell why....especially after all this F&F scandal plus his outright lies and now this executive order? Man, you will jump off the cliff for a bad leader. Sad.

    http://gillreport.com/2012/06...

    You don't think his recent executive order regarding immigration are the actions of an arrogant, dynastic thinking narcissist?
    Don't follow a crazy person......and he is.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/22 22:14:42
    Jeremiah
    +1
    It is a good man doing the right thing. Congress failed to pass the Dream Act, so he did the perfectly proper and legal thing.

    It turns out the F&F thing began during the Bush administration, when it was known at Wide Receiver.

    Get used to him. He will be there for five more years.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/23 15:27:17
    schjaz
    He doesnt have the right nor power to decide these things on his own. He is not a king. Why doesn't he legalize pot? Or make the country like San Francisco? We could all run around naked. He can't. He overstepped his authority and, as usual he is wrong.
    Cant get used to him.....he needs to go.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/23 19:39:13 (edited)
    Jeremiah
    +1
    As president and head of state he had both the right and the authority. The president of the U.S. is the most powerful person on earth.

    I'm with you on legalization of weed, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. You can run around naked if you wish, and send pics to prove it.

    What Obama did should have been done by Congress years ago, but they did their usual thing, which was nothing. He always had the authority to do as he did, but he had hoped Congress would pass the Dream Act.

    You'd better get used to him. He isn't going anywhere until 2017.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/25 14:55:23
    schjaz
    I think Oblahblah has pretty much spoke off his next to last teleprompter. Nobody likes him anymore. He has shown his true colors and ppl are sick of the dog and pony show. Hopefully, the fat lady is getting ready to sing. fat lady singing
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/25 17:17:20
    Jeremiah
    +1
    And yet his lead in the polls is widening. People seem to like Romney even less.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/28 14:56:34
    schjaz
    Well, like I said, we will see....I know Oblahblah is not the answer but when 50% of the voting public does not pay taxes and determined to sit on their backsides, they want a president that tells them its fine to continue to do that and the country suffers. We may even live to see it completely implode.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/28 23:20:38
    Jeremiah
    +1
    Everyone pays taxes. It might not always be federal income taxes, but people pay state and local taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (whether they own or rent), license taxes, gasoline taxes, etc, etc, etc.

    Are you happy with the Supreme Court's ruling today?
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/29 15:26:26
    schjaz
    +1
    Of course I am not happy with the ruling. In Obamacare is a specific tax on BCBS. That's my medical insurance. My husband has cancer...at this moment he is in Zion, IL having another surgery. We are retired and, in a few years, we will lose the BCBS. Then its buy our own insurance (or be fined) and depend on medicare? BS! When my grandfather needed to be on oxygen, the government paid for 3 weeks of it. My mother had to pay for the last week of the month for my grandpa to BREATHE. I don't trust the government to run a candy shop. But they WILL find a way to tax us to death.
    In the meantime, we can't afford another hike in our premiums and we also have gigantic out of pocket costs plus about 200/mo in prescriptions.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/29 18:28:07
    Jeremiah
    +1
    Sorry to hear about your husband and grandfather. Bless your heart in your time of trouble.

    I am not aware of a specific tax in ACA on BCBS, which is also my insurance. I will look again and let you know.

    The law will help you when it is fully in effect in 2014. Insurance companies will not be able to raise your premiums without good reason, which they must demonstrate.

    Hang in there, friend.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/06/30 17:38:21
    schjaz
    They are already raising premiums and they will continue to go up until 2014. Everybody seems to be grabbing with both hands while they can....but in a few years, the retirement BCBS will be gone and we will be stuck the messed up bankrupted Medicare.
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/06/30 18:53:31
    Jeremiah
    +1
    Medicare will be solvent until 2032, which gives them plenty of time to make adjustments.

    You can expect the insurance companies to keep raising their premiums until that part of the law goes into effect. That's what they do, grab all the money they can. At least there will be limits beginning in 2014.
  • schjaz Jeremiah 2012/07/01 15:09:42
    schjaz
    we shall see..
  • Jeremiah schjaz 2012/07/02 05:53:01
    Jeremiah
    +1
    It is in the law. The more people know what is actually in it, the more they support it.
  • Jeremiah 2012/06/12 17:10:34
    I support the department of justice and believe it is voter suppression.
    Jeremiah
    +2
    Scott seems to be trying to return to the days of Jim Crow, when every effort was made to restrict the right of minorities to vote. It was suppression then and it is suppression now.

    Since then the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, and the practice being carried out by Scott is specifically forbidden. The federal government has every right to intervene.
  • Hawkeye Jeremiah 2012/06/12 17:52:01
    Hawkeye
    +5
    The Voting Right's Act of 1965 does NOT make it illegal to insure that ILLEGAL votes and Voter Fraud don't have a role in the American Voting process..

    That's like saying that the Civil Right's Act of 1964 makes it ILLEGAL to arrest ANY Minority for ANY crime that they may have committed..

    it's not even a good TRY at twistng the FACTS..
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/16 01:55:29
    Jeremiah
    And this is not even a good try at spinning. It is obvious that you have not read the Voting Rights Act, or you would know it is illegal to purge entire lists of names from the voter rolls for having ethnic surnames, or for having a name that might be similar to that of a convicted felon.

    This is the sort of thing they did in the Jim Crow era in the south, and it was one of the reasons the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the first place.
  • Hawkeye Jeremiah 2012/06/16 09:38:40
    Hawkeye
    You continue to persue an argument based on lies and call those who point them out liars..

    The attempt to clean up the voting rolls is NOT going after a specific group that has a certain ethnic sounding name.. It is going after a certain group that has a specific legal standing,, that is to say,, ILLEGAL.. IF it turns out that such a group HAPPENS to have a certain ethnic origin,, THAT does NOT make the attempt illegal under the law..

    Just because certain Democrats USED this to TARGET certain ethnicities in the past under a set of laws called Jim Crow,, that does not mean that this is what's happening now..

    It's like the gun running thing with the Mexican Drug Cartels..

    BUSH ran a program that had the permission and cooperation of the Mexican Government and ALL of the guns used were tagged and accounted for..

    Obama ran guns to the Mexican Drug Cartel without even notifying the Mexican Government and lost THOUSANDS of those guns,, some of which turned up at murder sites on BOTH sides of the border.. And,, NOW the Mexican Government is lodging an Official Protest..

    Though the elements of BOTH cases are essentially identical,, they are NOT the same programs.. ONE was a LEGAL though ill-advised program that was discontinued,, the other was a blatant international criminal act of WAR against the Sovereignty of an ALLIED nation....
  • Jeremiah Hawkeye 2012/06/16 19:13:33 (edited)
    Jeremiah
    I do not call people liars, or names of any kind if I can avoid it. Instead of trying to persuade you, which is obviously impossible given the armor in your cranium, I will instead defer to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division:

    Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act creates requirements for how States maintain voter registration lists for federal elections. The Act deems as timely those valid voter registration applications by eligible applicants submitted to designated state and local officials, or postmarked if submitted by mail, at least 30 days before a federal election. The Act also requires notification of all applicants of whether their voter registration applications were accepted or rejected. The Act requires States to keep voter registration lists accurate and current, such as identifying persons who have become ineligible due to having died or moved outside the jurisdiction. At the same time, the Act requires list maintenance programs to incorporate specific safeguards, e.g., that they be uniform, non-discriminatory, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and not be undertaken within 90 days of a federal election. The removal of voters for non-voting or for having moved can only be done after meeting certain requirements provided in the Act. The Act allows f...
    I do not call people liars, or names of any kind if I can avoid it. Instead of trying to persuade you, which is obviously impossible given the armor in your cranium, I will instead defer to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division:

    Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act creates requirements for how States maintain voter registration lists for federal elections. The Act deems as timely those valid voter registration applications by eligible applicants submitted to designated state and local officials, or postmarked if submitted by mail, at least 30 days before a federal election. The Act also requires notification of all applicants of whether their voter registration applications were accepted or rejected. The Act requires States to keep voter registration lists accurate and current, such as identifying persons who have become ineligible due to having died or moved outside the jurisdiction. At the same time, the Act requires list maintenance programs to incorporate specific safeguards, e.g., that they be uniform, non-discriminatory, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and not be undertaken within 90 days of a federal election. The removal of voters for non-voting or for having moved can only be done after meeting certain requirements provided in the Act. The Act allows for removal of voters from registration lists when they have been convicted of a disqualifying crime or adjudged mentally incapacitated, where such removals are allowed by state law. The NVRA also provides additional safeguards under which registered voters would be able to vote notwithstanding a change in address in certain circumstances. For example, voters who move within a district or a precinct will retain the right to vote even if they have not re-registered at their new address. –– DOJ Civil Rights Division
    :
    (more)
  • Seonag Jeremiah 2012/06/12 19:46:21
    Seonag
    +3
    The 1965 Voting Rights Act does NOT make it illegal to remove the dead from the voter rolls, those who are NOT citizens of the US and the State in which the reside (which they've lied about to just register to vote), nor people who moved to another voting district nor to another State. Get your facts right!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/28 03:20:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals