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
|
|
|||||
|
59 votes
|
|
82% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
18% | |||
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Top Opinion
-
JP 2012/06/12 13:15:15I support Rick Scott in the voter Purge
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..
Only republicans? I doubt the black panther would appreciate being associated with the republican party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
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?
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.
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.
How was the Dream Act badly written? Perhaps you should offer some pointers on lucid writing.
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 ...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cant get used to him.....he needs to go.
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.
Are you happy with the Supreme Court's ruling today?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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....
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...
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
: