Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act
NBC News ^ | June 24, 2013 | Pete Williams and Erin McClam

Posted on 06/25/2013 7:40:20 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a civil rights law that requires some states to get federal permission to change their voting rules, but it struck down the formula for which jurisdictions are covered — leaving it to Congress to redraw the map.

The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The vote was 5-4.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.

Under the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of three federal judges before they make changes. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.

The act is considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Congress has renewed it four times, most recently in 2006, with overwhelming margins in both houses.

But the law still uses election data from 1972 to determine which states, cities and counties are covered. Some jurisdictions complain that they are being punished for the sins of many decades ago.

Legal observers have said that striking down the map would mean sending the issue back to a deeply divided Congress, and they said it was an open question whether Congress could even agree on a new coverage map.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by three other members of the court’s more liberal wing.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scotus; scotusvotingrights; votingrightsact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2013 7:40:20 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

If the communists on the court were against this, maybe it’s not half bad.


2 posted on 06/25/2013 7:43:19 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi
This could be interesting. If Congress creates a series of measures to determine whether a state, county, or city is complying with the Voting Rights Act, and it is reapplied nationwide using current data, who do you suppose could be found not in compliance?

For instance: documented instances of voter intimidation. We know of one in Philadelphia. Wouldn't that be ironic?

3 posted on 06/25/2013 7:44:57 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

Great. So our partisan Congress is given the power to determine which states should be exposed to additional voter fraud. There’s no way they would ever abuse that power in order to rig elections.


4 posted on 06/25/2013 7:44:58 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

But not good enough.

Reconstruction was allowed to live.


5 posted on 06/25/2013 7:46:09 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Sure, it could work in our favor now, because we control the house. Do you think that formula will remain the same if Dems get a hold of both chambers though?

This could be like the redistricting, giving whichever party is currently in power an undue influence on upcoming elections.


6 posted on 06/25/2013 7:46:52 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

Sounds to me like the Court has just made the Voting Rights Act a dead letter. Since the Congress will never agree on how to redo the map, it will just sit in a corner and gather dust like a buggy whip.


7 posted on 06/25/2013 7:47:22 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; ...
Just tuned my PC to MSNBC and Rev Al Sharp-head is freaking out over this.

He says they are going to mobilize and MARCH and demand congressional action,
good luck with the house Al , I am sure the GOP senators will sellout again though.

This is good and about time.

8 posted on 06/25/2013 7:47:58 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Reconstruction was allowed to live.

Basically, this put it on a death watch - any vote for keeping a state on this is effectively labeling the state as a bunch of bigots - who is going to vote for that?

9 posted on 06/25/2013 7:49:28 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
He says they are going to mobilize and MARCH and demand congressional action, good luck with the house Al...

What do you mean? The pathetic House will bend over and not even ask for lube.

10 posted on 06/25/2013 7:50:13 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
So our partisan Congress is given the power to determine which states should be exposed to additional voter fraud.

They've had it for decades.

11 posted on 06/25/2013 7:51:01 AM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

this was a current “political roadblock” where congress is incapable of rescinding a law whose time had past. Remember Holder ALONE was required to approve or not approve any change.

Now he no longer has real standing to oppose anti-fraud measures. (like one county one vote in presidential electoral awards; voter ID)

Of course this does not bode well for marriage because the pro-homosexual wing on the USSC. They firmly believe the born that way myth.


12 posted on 06/25/2013 7:51:51 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
Sorry, but anything less than a firm repudiation of this travesty leaves a smoldering ember that can be fanned into flame later.

I see this as nothing but a loss. The only reason Demoncrats are upset is that they think they lost just a little ground.

13 posted on 06/25/2013 7:51:59 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

That seems to be the trend on the Court. Tell the other branches (and by extension the voting public) that they need to live with and deal with the messes they create.

It was also the underlying rationale for Roberts’ (wrongheaded) ObamaCare ruling.


14 posted on 06/25/2013 7:52:33 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

A 5-4 victory in the highest court in the nation is NO victory for the owners of this country, us.

Boy another 5-4 indecision. No honest person can tell me this is based on the constitution which is the ONLY criteria the USSC should be using.

5-4, 5-4, 5-4 ,5-4... = political hacks, political hacks, political hacks, political hacks...

What trash we have sitting on OUR USSC. Brilliant minds? Hell no. Political hacks is all they are and easily blackmailed to boot.

If the best and brightest legal minds in the country (we were told they were right?) cannot agree on what a small document like the US Constitution says how on earth can they interpret the multi-thousand page laws crafted by community organizing groups then passed by our unconstitutional ruling elite?

We live in a country ruled by By Washington elites, For Washington elites all the while the US Constitution forbids this kind of ruling elite. An once again, another day, we do nothing.


15 posted on 06/25/2013 7:52:34 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth .............


16 posted on 06/25/2013 7:53:19 AM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi
...by three other members of the court’s more liberal wing.

What is NBC saying here... as opposed to what? the less liberal wing?

17 posted on 06/25/2013 7:54:20 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
This could be interesting. If Congress creates a series of measures to determine whether a state, county, or city is complying with the Voting Rights Act, and it is reapplied nationwide using current data, who do you suppose could be found not in compliance? For instance: documented instances of voter intimidation. We know of one in Philadelphia. Wouldn't that be ironic?

No member of Congress has the balls to stand up and point out that racial voter intimidation these days is far more black-on-white than it is white-on-black.

18 posted on 06/25/2013 7:54:30 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I don’t think the Dems are upset about this at all. It’s going to be a great mobilizing issue for them going into 2014. Their base will believe itwhen told that this ruling overturned the voting rights act when it does nothing of the sort (preserving preclearance, just sayng that a 50+ year old formula can no longer be used)


19 posted on 06/25/2013 7:55:33 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
Basically, this put it on a death watch - any vote for keeping a state on this is effectively labeling the state as a bunch of bigots - who is going to vote for that?

I predict that it will instead be replaced with some sort of criteria. Although there will certainly be a lot of maneuvering to determine that criteria, it will give any voting jurisdictions that are affected a way to escape it by complying.

However, I expect it would also result in a lot of frivolous legal action to declare a jurisdiction NOT in compliance, like the American Disability Act has been misused.

20 posted on 06/25/2013 7:55:44 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

We should accelerate the state by state takeover.

Eliminating the unionista style black liberation theology voting “assistance” on sundays is a good start.

Mandating voter ID without the need of DOJ blessing is a good start.

Changes can be made without any notice to the DOJ.


21 posted on 06/25/2013 7:58:04 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi
Section 2 in effect requires the creation of majority-minority districts in the South which the GOP is just fine with -- so I wouldn't expect them to begin to re-draw any districts until after the 2020 Census.
22 posted on 06/25/2013 7:58:49 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Except that the Reconstruction will now include Central and South America.


23 posted on 06/25/2013 8:01:13 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

It should be requirement that voting districts be rectangular (to the extent possible).


24 posted on 06/25/2013 8:02:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
If the best and brightest legal minds in the country (we were told they were right?) cannot agree on what a small document like the US Constitution says how on earth can they interpret the multi-thousand page laws crafted by community organizing groups then passed by our unconstitutional ruling elite?

Obviously this decision (and most other major decisions these days) had elements of partisanship (particularly among the 4 libs in the dissent), but sometimes the very fact that the U.S. Constitution is such a small, concise document creates disagreement about what it means. Take this case, for instance - the 15th amendment prohibits voting disenfranchisement based on race, color, etc., AND authorizes Congres to enforce the legislation with "appropriate legislation." Reasonable minds -- even "the best and brightest legal minds in the country" -- can differ on (a) what is "appropriate legislation," and (b) who gets to determine what is "appropriate legislation" (e.g., is that Congress's job, or the Supreme Court?).

25 posted on 06/25/2013 8:03:13 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

the race industry now has no income stream. You no longer need to “pay off” al sharpton/jessie jackson/naaLcp/racism lawyers. This is their industry which has been closed by the USSC.


26 posted on 06/25/2013 8:04:17 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

As a proud Southerner by birth, a current resident of a Southern state, and a US citizen, I want to know why laws are applied to me that aren’t uniformly applied to all.


27 posted on 06/25/2013 8:05:12 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Refuse; Resist; Rebel; Revolt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

<.....”Mandating voter ID without the need of DOJ blessing is a good start........Changes can be made without any notice to the DOJ.”......>

This is a good day for states....Voter ID should be heavily pushed now in every state!


28 posted on 06/25/2013 8:05:22 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

So what happens if Congress is not able to agree on a new formula?


29 posted on 06/25/2013 8:05:38 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

Preclearance was an issue debated when the Voting Rights Act was renewed for 25 years in 2006. President George W. Bush should have vetoed the legislation for this very reason. Instead he signed the bill and included Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton in the signing ceremony in July 2006.

No more Bushes.


30 posted on 06/25/2013 8:08:09 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

I’m amused at all of the “good face” optimists posting here.

I’m sure they were the same ones who were buoyed last July by the SCOTUS decision that the Obamacare mandate was a tax.


31 posted on 06/25/2013 8:08:09 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi
The voting rights act has created positive harm to our nation. It has placed in positions of authority over wide swaths of our country those who cannot those who cannot govern themselves much less others. As the great historian said in 1888 “In declining states the leadership intuitively chooses the most harmful course of action.”
32 posted on 06/25/2013 8:08:17 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

This guy said it well....

“..... ‘tis a grand day to watch Matthews apoplectic, O’Donnell spewing saliva as he foams at the mouth, Maddcow flummoxed by a Constitutional ruling and Ed Schultz screaming f-bombs and obscenities at the Court............. Anything that pushes the stick up their behinds a little more is a great day for America.”......

(Poster at the article Surfing usa)


33 posted on 06/25/2013 8:09:24 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
(Twutchy) Schadenfreudelicious: MSNBC host ‘physically enraged’ by SCOTUS’ Voting Rights Act decision
34 posted on 06/25/2013 8:09:39 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
...Rev Al Sharp-head is freaking out over this.

How sad. Did I say that with enough fake sincerity?

35 posted on 06/25/2013 8:10:22 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: caww

I would like to see tighter restraints on absentee balots.


36 posted on 06/25/2013 8:10:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears
As a proud Southerner by birth, a current resident of a Southern state, and a US citizen, I want to know why laws are applied to me that aren’t uniformly applied to all.

In the Twilight Zone society in which we now live, get ready (and I'm being more than half serious) for the federal government to permanently attach your Southern heritage to you, even if you move to a northern state, and for you to have to conform to strict "voting rights" requirements on where you can live and/or vote in this northern state in order not to effectively "dilute" minority voting power.

The "pre-clearance" requirement will follow you wherever you go, if they have their way. I'm dead serious.

37 posted on 06/25/2013 8:14:04 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“demand congressional action”

Fine. Boehner, please take this issue up for debate in the House, shelve amnesty for the rest of the term.


38 posted on 06/25/2013 8:14:31 AM PDT by crusader71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

39 posted on 06/25/2013 8:15:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusader71

This was exactly the type of wishy-washy decision that Holder can effectively ignore. Nothing will happen to him.


40 posted on 06/25/2013 8:15:50 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Doubt it. How many congressmen from states previously exempt from the pre-clearance procedure want to vote for the rules to apply to them? This would give DOJ the ability to micromanage elections in all 50 states and DC. There was a reason why this was made a temporary item in the 1965 Civil Rights Act and had to be renewed. GWB and the Reps could have ended it in 2006, but voted instead to extend it for 25 years.

As someone who is living in VA, I can only say, "Free at last, free at last!!!" Any Rep that now votes to expand Erich Holder's power over our nation given what he did in Philadelphia with the Black Panther intimidation of voters should be removed immediately.

41 posted on 06/25/2013 8:17:09 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It should be requirement that voting districts be rectangular (to the extent possible).

I lived in the famous New Jersey "contiguous only to yachtsmen" gerrymandered district -- until the latest gerrymander, which put me back in a Republican district. Rectangular districts would make some sense, but gerrymandering goes back to the 19th century. Computer programs that are in use now would probably get around even that requirement. You'd see districts that are 250 miles long and a mile wide.

Paradoxically, the VRA is directly responsible for the current Republican congressional majority.

42 posted on 06/25/2013 8:17:42 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

They could try to get around the rectangular requirement with computer algorithms - but they couldn’t be nearly as “flexible” as they are today.


43 posted on 06/25/2013 8:21:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

So true.

We need representatives with some intestinal and testicular/ovarian fortitude to stand up for what is right.

Alas, the nature of politics precludes such individuals from serving.


44 posted on 06/25/2013 8:22:12 AM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

This is annoying. The world HAS changed- a lot. When I am in my classroom teaching my students, the situation is the oldest person in the room (me) was born at the dawn of the ‘70s, therefore, 1965 is history. To my students, who are currently people born in the late 1990s, 1965 might has well have been 1865. Or 1765. This law reflects a situation that no longer really exists, save in the minds of a few doddering antiques and some people who make bales of political hay and cash off of race pimping. It should have been struck down in its entirety.

Also, when exactly is the South going to be treated as an equal part of the United States? Is Federal supervision of what is properly an internal state matter going to go on perpetuity, or is it going to take a 2nd Civil War to restore an equal place in the Union? (Which then opens the question- do we really want to be? :P )


45 posted on 06/25/2013 8:33:06 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

What I fear is that soon the only thing they’ll teach about World War II is how the evil Americans bombed Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Dresden, and talk about the Japanese internment camps to the exclusion of everything else, and claim that the Soviets alone won WWII.


46 posted on 06/25/2013 8:35:21 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Not while I’m teaching it- the Axis had it comin’, and the Ivans would have never got anywhere without 10,000 American trucks and 15 million pairs of boots.....


47 posted on 06/25/2013 8:40:07 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi

FROM HOTAIR:

In order for the VRA to interfere with state sovereignty, Congress has to identify where racial discrimination in voting access is so endemic as to require that kind of intervention now, and not 50 years ago:

(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.

The defense of those 50-year-old definitions did not impress the court:

(2) The Government attempts to defend the formula on grounds that it is “reverse-engineered”—Congress identified the jurisdictions to be covered and then came up with criteria to describe them. Katzenbach did not sanction such an approach, reasoning instead that the coverage formula was rational because the “formula . . . was relevant to the problem.” 383 U. S., at 329, 330. The Government has a fallback argument—because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States identified in 1965. But this does not look to “current political conditions,” Northwest Austin, supra, at 203, instead relying on a comparison between the States in 1965. But history did not end in 1965. In assessing the “current need[ ]” for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. Pp. 18–21.

In other words, the government couldn’t even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed. They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today — an argument that lends itself to unlimited exercise. Small wonder the court found this irrational.


48 posted on 06/25/2013 8:52:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotYourAverageDhimmi
This chart shows the difference between white and black voting registration in 1965 and 2004:

scotus-vra-chart

49 posted on 06/25/2013 8:56:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Sorry my FR friend but, I have to respectfully disagree with your defense of the USSC hacks, I do not give the USSC any leeway when it comes to understanding what the Founders intended.

Remember, we were promised these traitors (er Judges) were the best of the best and as such, even if they could not fathom what the founders intended there is an owners manual known to the rest of us unwashed as the Federalist Papers.

If your sole job is to understand and defend the Constitution, then it is completely unreasonable to allow ANY of these hacks any latitude and to tolerate ignorance of the very core foundation laws of this country.

If a person does not know the intent of the most basic laws of our land they have no business sitting on the bench of the USSC or any other court for that matter.

One of the most basic concepts of the Constitution is that if it is not in there, the Federal government cannot do it. That concept is now completely ignored.

Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution reflect the huge influx of dishonest lawyers into our political system. They become longer and more vague with each subsequent amendment. This is deliberate when you are a dishonest politician.


50 posted on 06/25/2013 8:58:21 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson