SCOTUS says keep punishing the Rs for cheating

[Yurt]

poor truthmatters....no matter what forum she posts on she is ridiculed.

at least Im wealthy with facts unlike you ass slime.


Your idiot taunts shame you not me

you don't know boo about facts. you completely ignore voter fraud in your party. you're a hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

then explain how this SCOTUS decision is NOT REAL?

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

how do you just deny these facts?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

then explain how this SCOTUS decision is NOT REAL?

Why don't YOU explain why it's the only fucking thing you want to talk about.

Did one of your fabulous local democratics get their ass handed to them in an election, and you're in a rage about it?



Sended fum muh iFoam usin sum magikl whitey ju-ju shit.

 

[Truthmatters]

you people are put right denying cold hard court documented facts that go all the way to the SCOTUS on nothing more than hate of me?


your really fucking stupid and evil

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The SCOTUS says you R party sucks the whole dick

The SCOTUS says --

YOU R PARTY. ??? WTF? ???

Why would the SCOTUS speak such unintelligible ungrammatical idiocy?

TderpM is implicitly contending that lolberals Democrat Party members suck only PART of the dick.

And she imagines this means they aren't somehow still cocksuckers.

 

[Truthmatters]

your fucking party cheats and you think it just fine.

your fucking traitors to this country

 

[Truthmatters]

see gentle reader.

the party right down to the base defends this shit.

they are the party that hates this country

 

[IlarMeilyr]

your fucking party cheats and you think it just fine.

your fucking traitors to this country

YOUR party cheats and YOU are absolutely devotedly SILENT on it.

You are a moron and a full fledged full on **** hypocrite, tderpm.

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?




For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is NO court record that compares with this on the left you fucking liar

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?




For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

your party is slime

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



January 14, 2013


just last year.

now why do you refuse these cold hard undeniable facts?




For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

Sended fum muh iFoam usin sum magikl whitey ju-ju shit.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw]Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube[/ame]


the fall of 1980



The founder of the Heritage Foundation

 

[Truthmatters]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times



In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:

"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."

Unseals Document

She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe




right from the top of the party

 

[Rat in the Hat]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times

Sended fum muh iFoam usin sum magikl whitey ju-ju shit.

 

[Yurt]

your fucking party cheats and you think it just fine.

your fucking traitors to this country

YOUR party cheats and YOU are absolutely devotedly SILENT on it.

You are a moron and a full fledged full on **** hypocrite, tderpm.

this

 

[Truthmatters]

note the right here is FROZEN and refuses to accept facts

 

[Truthmatters]

how is this SCOTUS decision good for your party?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

there is NO court record that compares with this on the left you fucking liar

The unstated, implied premise of tderpm's "argument" is"

"Unless here is a court record of it, then a thing does not exist."

This is why tderpm's "arguments" are always so laughably unpersuasive.