Good.
Why is it that any Supreme Court decisions that liberals like are "settled law" that cannot be touched, but any decisions that liberals do not like are continuously litigated until they finally get the decision that they want?
After watching the idiot college students and other uneducated “citizens” on Waters World and other TV shows, I fully support going back to a “Poll Tax”. At least that may keep some of the freeloaders from voting on our leadership. They may have to make a choice, “Spend it on drugs/booze or pay the tax.” This should raise the IQ of the voting public. (Not meant as racial because I’ve seen as many white idiots as other’s)
Kewl. I can use my Concealed Handgun License to vote again this year. :)
‘controversial’ is attached to everything not-leftist. Ev-ery-thing.
Never on Obamacare that produced widespread condemnation. Never on a bizarre anti-american, foreign policy creating a vacuum in world affairs. Never on executive orders that ignore existing laws. Nope nothing controversial about ignoring written law on immigration and deportation. Nothing controversial about terrorists entering as refugees with no legitimate background check. Nothing controversial about Planned Parenthood butchering babies for parts at big profits. The only controversy there is the whistleblowers with a video camera.
One MILLION VOTES shifted from D to R from 2008 to 2016 in the primaries in NC. NC became a voter ID state in 2016.
Such Orwellian doublespeak.
So let’s see...thats Florida, NC and Texas..any others?
Thank God!
The only thing it discriminates from is voter fraud so, GFY!
Which in essence means the nation of Mexico is suing Texas for having the temerity to deny their citizens the right to vote in U.S. elections.
Blind Squirrel Syndrome.
“Texas’ controversial voter identification law...”
No such thing. You register, show up, show ID, and get a little sticker saying you voted. Done.
The only controversy is how the leftards wish to screw with a system that seeks to avoid fraud.
Someone, anyone, please tell me how requiring the verification of the identity of a voter can be discriminating against any particular group.
They must be split 50/50 again:-) Sometimes good sometimes bad.
The states can basically discriminate on the basis on anything that they don’t amend the Constitution to expressly protect. And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect not having to show a valid photo ID before voting, or make abortion and gay “marriage” protected rights for that matter, as they have with the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights, there is nothing stopping the states from prohibiting people who cannot present a valid photo ID from voting.
Noting that all roads of corruption in DC lead to Congress imo, pro-gay activist justices have got to be more careful about recognizing constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected state powers. Otherwise, citizens might catch on to the double-standards that the Supremes are applying to things like photo ID versus abortion and gay “marriage” imo.
Yea Texas!
FINALLY.
Obama may as well pack it in.
Trump stoke the narrative, he stole the bully pulpit, and he is crushing his party with the truth.
When the media and courts start turning on you, they do it to save themselves in hopes of living to fight another day.