Forum Thread

The importance of protecting the Right to Vote

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 10 Posts
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The past decade has seen some attempts on deny the vote to many citizens of America. It is imperative that ALL people receive their right to vote. States are using their privilege or Constitutional interpretation to deny voting rights based on their separation from Federal Legislation. So, what makes the vote even more important now is the Supreme Court. Whoever is elected as our future leaders will have a impact to who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, which determines laws imposed on Americans. Is it possible that some Judicial decision from SCOTUS can take away our vote? Yes, it is possible. By appointing future Justices to SCOTUS, they can make a majority decision and ruin all our lives.

    Our current SCOTUS membership is:
    Antonia Scalia (Reagan-1982).....senior associate Justice
    Anthony Kennedy (Reagan-1988)....associate Justice
    Clarence Thomas (G.Bush-1991).....associate Justice
    Ruth Ginsburg (Clinton-1993)....associate Justice
    Stephen Breyer (Clinton-1994)....associate Justice
    John Roberts (G.W.Bush-2003)....Chief Justice
    Samuel Alitto (G.W.Bush-2006)....associate Justice
    Sonia Sotomayor (Obama-2009)....associate Justice
    Elena Kagan (Obama-2010)....associate Justice

    Eight sitting Justices and one Chief Justice makes up the SCOTUS, plus three retired (O'Conner, Souter, and Stevens) may be called for opinions assisting the Court. An estimated 10,000 petitions are filed and 1200 may be acted upon by a single Justice each year.

    You can see that our next Presidential election will most likely find replacements for outgoing Scalia or Kennedy. Scalia did announce last year he was going to retire, but may have been toying with the media.

    There are some interesting web sites monitoring and producing critical reviews of SCOTUS decisions.

    http://abovethelaw.com/scotus/

    This is a daily blog on SCOTUS impact to the public.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

    This is a live blog of orders and opinions sponsored by Bloomberg Law.

    Some Scalia facts. Born 3-11-1936 and is currently reviewing the following cases: Hearing NSA Spying, Campaign Finance Law, ACA Exemptions for Business and Corporations. Scalia made media hype during his past decisions and rant against a majority SCOTUS decision on DOMA.

    When we vote this fall and in 2016, remember that whoever gets office may have a direct impact to who gets into the Supreme Court. Congress can give unique advise and guidance to the President, who appoints the Justices.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: The past decade has seen some attempts on deny the vote to many citizens of America. It is imperative that ALL people receive their right to vote. States are using their privilege or Constitutional interpretation to deny voting rights based on their separation from Federal Legislation. So, what makes the vote even more important now is the Supreme Court. Whoever is elected as our future leaders will have a impact to who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, which determines laws imposed on Americans. Is it possible that some Judicial decision from SCOTUS can take away our vote? Yes, it is possible. By appointing future Justices to SCOTUS, they can make a majority decision and ruin all our lives.

    Our current SCOTUS membership is:
    Antonia Scalia (Reagan-1982).....senior associate Justice
    Anthony Kennedy (Reagan-1988)....associate Justice
    Clarence Thomas (G.Bush-1991).....associate Justice
    Ruth Ginsburg (Clinton-1993)....associate Justice
    Stephen Breyer (Clinton-1994)....associate Justice
    John Roberts (G.W.Bush-2003)....Chief Justice
    Samuel Alitto (G.W.Bush-2006)....associate Justice
    Sonia Sotomayor (Obama-2009)....associate Justice
    Elena Kagan (Obama-2010)....associate Justice

    Eight sitting Justices and one Chief Justice makes up the SCOTUS, plus three retired (O'Conner, Souter, and Stevens) may be called for opinions assisting the Court. An estimated 10,000 petitions are filed and 1200 may be acted upon by a single Justice each year.

    You can see that our next Presidential election will most likely find replacements for outgoing Scalia or Kennedy. Scalia did announce last year he was going to retire, but may have been toying with the media.

    There are some interesting web sites monitoring and producing critical reviews of SCOTUS decisions.

    http://abovethelaw.com/scotus/

    This is a daily blog on SCOTUS impact to the public.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

    This is a live blog of orders and opinions sponsored by Bloomberg Law.

    Some Scalia facts. Born 3-11-1936 and is currently reviewing the following cases: Hearing NSA Spying, Campaign Finance Law, ACA Exemptions for Business and Corporations. Scalia made media hype during his past decisions and rant against a majority SCOTUS decision on DOMA.

    When we vote this fall and in 2016, remember that whoever gets office may have a direct impact to who gets into the Supreme Court. Congress can give unique advise and guidance to the President, who appoints the Justices.

    It would be nice; if possible at all; that any of to be elected judges have no church affiliation nor had an army etc. training.
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I've talked with members of the Tea Party, who are usually quick to point out that they are defenders of the Constitution. As Jon Stewart recently pointed out, however, the Republican Party seems quick to ignore parts of the constitution they don't agree with, but are eager to support the 2nd amendment, which does NOT give them absolute gun control rights. The 2008 Supreme Court case of Heller v. District of Columbia reaffirmed the fact that gun rights ARE subject to reasonable controls.



    The Tea Party (in particular) consistently avoids discussion of the 15th Amendment (which was ratified on February 3, 1870) , which actually takes a very dim view of all those pesky voter ID laws that have been passed in the last few years. It's a pretty short amendment, and it reads as follows:

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatio
    n

    Since minorities overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, the Republicans feel they have no choice but to limit voting access to anyone who isn't an old white guy. As a result, it's critically important that as many Democrats as possible vote in the 2014 elections, and it's also EXTREMELY important that the Democrats reach out to the independent voters. Even in red state Arizona, independent voters outnumber Republicans. With the exception of the Office of the President, and the Senate, Republicans have a majority in both the House of Representatives and the various state legislatures.


    To give you an idea of how far removed from reality the Republican Party is, I'd like to quote Jim Yong Kim, who is the 12th President of the World Bank Group:


    Many people have the misconception that my field -- global development -- is just about do-gooders and charities helping the poor. To be sure, many charitable groups are doing generous, laudable work. But global development extends far beyond charity and has a greater impact on the global economy than most people think.

    Strong economic growth in developing countries became an engine for the global economy after the 2008-09 financial crisis, accounting for roughly 50 percent of all global growth. In addition, fully half of the United States’ exports now go to emerging markets and developing economies.

    Global economic development can be good for your bottom line. Our focus is on helping more than a billion poor people lift themselves out of extreme poverty and on boosting the incomes of the poorest 40 percent in developing countries. To do that, we need to find economic growth strategies that help all segments of society in emerging markets -- reaching even fragile states striving to put years of conflict behind them and to create good jobs for their people.

    The question I ask my team all the time is, what’s our plan? Increasingly scarce public funding isn’t enough to get the job done. We need to attract private sector investment that creates jobs. Ninety percent of all jobs in the developing world are created by the private sector. If we have high aspirations for the poor and vulnerable, there is no argument: We need the private sector to flourish, even in the poorest countries.

    At the World Bank Group, we’re focused on three main paths toward strengthening economies in developing countries:

    First, we need growth that is inclusive. We now have good evidence that the best strategy for countries is to foster the kind of economic development that will include everyone. A good strategy both economically and politically is ensuring that a growing economy benefits the poorest 40 percent of the population.

    Conversely, when nations exclude people because of their gender, ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation, or other reasons, then their economy suffers, and the frustrations of those excluded can spill into the streets. Growth without inclusion is unsustainable, and threatens the prosperity and security of all countries.

    Second, countries need to invest in their people. Investing in education, health, and social protection not only pays off for individuals whose lives are improved, we now have evidence that it contributes directly to economic growth and greater stability for their countries.

    For most poor people, a good job is the key to escaping poverty. To get those jobs, they’ll need good skills, a quality education, and years of good health as they’re growing up and when they’re adults.

    A commission led by Nobel laureate Michael Spence found that countries with the best growth performance invested 7 to 8 percent of their GDP in education, job training, and health. Furthermore, if low-income countries could achieve equal numbers of men and women in entrepreneurship and the labor force, it would boost GDP per capita by 15 percent.

    And third, we must never lose sight of the deepening threat of climate change. Climate change could erase decades of progress in poverty reduction. The poor are the first and the most severely hurt by its effects -- but all nations’ economies suffer as well. If we don’t confront climate change, we won’t end extreme poverty, and we’ll leave an awful legacy for our own children and grandchildren in the process.

    We have an historic opportunity. We can end extreme poverty in our lifetimes if we promote economic growth that includes everyone, invest in people, and protect opportunities for future generations by fighting climate change. At the same time, by creating conditions for strong and sustainable growth, developing countries’ economies will continue to help fuel the global economy. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Working together, we can build a more prosperous, sustainable and just world.

    At the recent CPAC meeting, Paul Ryan said that "free school lunches mean that poor parents don't care about their kids."


    Despite the fact the 22nd amendment prohibits any President from seeking a third term, the "regular viewers" of FOX News think that Obama is going to run for a third term - because they heard it on FOX "news". 30% of the Republican Party, incidentally, also believe that Obama is a Muslim, which means that the only sane thing to do is to vote for as many Democrats as possible during the 2014 elections.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Take notice, SCOTUS just dumped on the American maintaining a law on campaign contributions. What makes it stink is that Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alitto indicated it is a citizens right to donate his funds and the "Silent, but deadly" Thomas wanted to eliminate all limits. These are your Justices of the highest court in the land that are appointed by the people you vote for during national elections. This is why elections are so important to place the people we can respect on the Supreme Court.

    What also makes the SCOTUS decision stink is there are no reforms on campaign donations that should be for public review. America should know who is funding and what amounts are donated. I am always against hidden campaign donations from the public. American voters should know who is funding these candidates. There is too much money floating around for corruption to sway American politics.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: Take notice, SCOTUS just dumped on the American maintaining a law on campaign contributions. What makes it stink is that Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alitto indicated it is a citizens right to donate his funds and the "Silent, but deadly" Thomas wanted to eliminate all limits. These are your Justices of the highest court in the land that are appointed by the people you vote for during national elections. This is why elections are so important to place the people we can respect on the Supreme Court.

    What also makes the SCOTUS decision stink is there are no reforms on campaign donations that should be for public review. America should know who is funding and what amounts are donated. I am always against hidden campaign donations from the public. American voters should know who is funding these candidates. There is too much money floating around for corruption to sway American politics.
    How is leveling the playing field 'dumping' on the law? The Unions were being allowed to 'buy' elections (sometimes supporting candidates a majority of the people the Union is supposed to be representing are opposed to...) so the supreme court opened it up so corporations can 'buy' elections as well (sometimes supporting the candidates a majority of their workers are against...) The law was unfair and biased to unions, this made if fair. Not the way I would have done it, but if your going to have an exception to campaign donation limits for Unions you need to have one for Corporations to be fair...
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: It would be nice; if possible at all; that any of to be elected judges have no church affiliation nor had an army etc. training.
    As an atheist and non-military person, this seems like some random, arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with legal and Constitutional knowledge.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: It would be nice; if possible at all; that any of to be elected judges have no church affiliation nor had an army etc. training.
    As an atheist and non-military person, this seems like some random, arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with legal and Constitutional knowledge.
    Not not to put words in Dutch's mouth but perhaps he was suggesting (rightfully so, I might add) that religious and military prejudices have no place in legal opinions! I, for one, would feel a lot better off being judged by an Atheist who had no military background as I believe religion and the military are two off the most corrupt institutions known to mankind.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: It would be nice; if possible at all; that any of to be elected judges have no church affiliation nor had an army etc. training.
    As an atheist and non-military person, this seems like some random, arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with legal and Constitutional knowledge.
    I guess you have no idea at all on "judgement" it should be impartial and not be influenced by the "judges" affiliation or "preferences".
    Right now as just has been done 5 of these judges; show typical preferences and twist words to get it their way. The same judges act on abortion and birth control the same way; they were not put in those seats by mistake but were elected in those positions because of their affiliations.
    Indeed thiscountry is run by: 1) money 2) churches 3) Pentagon 4) billionairs ( Koch brothers with church affiliation)
    Zach; it is time you wake up.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Why do think all of these judicial candidates face off with Congress during their confirmation hearings, it certainly appears that it's to show cause as to why they belong on the Supreme Court, but in reality it's to show how far one will lean one way or another on certain hot bed issues. Sometimes their previous decisions on matters while in a lower court may be brought up to help understand their thought process, but make no mistake about it ,the confirmation process is nothing but political.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Why do think all of these judicial candidates face off with Congress during their confirmation hearings, it certainly appears that it's to show cause as to why they belong on the Supreme Court, but in reality it's to show how far one will lean one way or another on certain hot bed issues. Sometimes their previous decisions on matters while in a lower court may be brought up to help understand their thought process, but make no mistake about it ,the confirmation process is nothing but political.
    J.C. you are right; just about everything in this country is rigged; even Wall Street, Supreme Court, Elections; sorry just about everything.
    Either get used to it or leave the country or stop thinking and smoke pot.