Friday, June 28, 2013
One Has to Work Hard to be this Clueless
I read this morning, with a few giggles, this idiot piece by Bob Cesca regarding Shelby County v Holder, about which Supreme Court case I wrote a few days ago here. Let's get to it.
The title, which I admit Bob might not have written, is telling: Supreme Court Helps the GOP Revive the Era of Jim Crow. Of course, anyone who knows any history of the past 150 years in America knows that the GOP had nothing whatsoever to do with Jim Crow laws. That was exclusively the creation of racist Democrats, generally in the South. So the writer's pretending (or believing) that the Republicans want to recreate in any way the vile, racist past the Democrats created necessarily causes the reader to believe Mr. Cesca is either lying to us or is a moron. Sadly, the title is the highlight of the piece. He writes:
See above. The idea that Republicans are dedicated to keeping Democrats from voting is a Big Lie. What we are interested in is: One citizen; one vote. We are for fair elections. Apparently, that's not what the Democrats want. So in a way accusing, without the slightest bit of evidence, the Republicans of wanting political advantage through breaking election laws is essentially projection.
Presenting a well reasoned and successful argument that times have changed is "abusing government powers?" I fear the cartoons Mr. Cesca creates and directs has given him a child-like view of the world. Presenting a well reasoned and successful argument to the Supreme Court is not abusing government power it is availing one's views to it. Sorry you didn't like the outcome, Bob. Welcome to the party, pal.
Sorry, Bob, voting is, I think, just a tad more important that fast food. It certainly is as important as cashing a check or getting on an airplane. I do, however, believe your "steps" to easier voting are indeed brainless.
I don't believe Bob knows what the 10th Amendment says. He's probably unaware of the role it played in some of the DOMA cases, which he no doubt celebrates. But back to actual facts. The only thing that changed with Shelby County was the formula for applying the "pre-authorization" section. If any state now passes a law that runs afoul the '65 Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment, the feds, under the former, can petition the courts to stop it. That hasn't changed. The law is still the law against disenfranchising laws. And most semi-simpletons know that a law requiring a would-be voter to produce a state-issued, picture ID in order to vote is OK vis a vis both the '65 Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment. Bob ought to familiarize himself with Crawford v. Marion County (6-3, Justice Stevens writing the opinion) before he makes a fool of himself ranting about voter ID laws as if they were exactly the same as the infamous poll taxes set up by racist Democrats. He really ought to learn about the Jim Crow period in the South before he even mentions Republicans in the same sentence with Jim Crow.
I know it is another Big Lie to say that the pro-slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, racist, segregationist Democrats all became members of the abolitionist, pro-freedom, pro-equal rights, anti-lynching Grand Old Party of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King sometime in the 60s or 70s, but the people who can say it with a straight face must necessarily be completely blinded by politics or simply historical imbeciles. I'm tending for the latter with Mr. Cesca.
The title, which I admit Bob might not have written, is telling: Supreme Court Helps the GOP Revive the Era of Jim Crow. Of course, anyone who knows any history of the past 150 years in America knows that the GOP had nothing whatsoever to do with Jim Crow laws. That was exclusively the creation of racist Democrats, generally in the South. So the writer's pretending (or believing) that the Republicans want to recreate in any way the vile, racist past the Democrats created necessarily causes the reader to believe Mr. Cesca is either lying to us or is a moron. Sadly, the title is the highlight of the piece. He writes:
...the Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder ruling...allows Republican-controlled states to deliberately target and disenfranchise Democrats.What? The case merely declared unconstitutional the "definition" section (4) regarding which states needed to get federal permission (Section 5) to change any voting laws (including redistricting). The ruling did nothing to vitiate the role of the feds in enforcing the voter non-discrimination and anti-disenfranchisement sections of the law. (I always thought the Fifteenth Amendment was sufficient, but what do I know about the law. By the way the 15th Amendment passed in the House solely on Republicans' vote; not a single Democrat voted for it). The southern states which fell under Section 5 got there because of Democrat's disenfranchisement of nearly all black voters through a subset of their evil Jim Crow legislation and the KKK's terrorist enforcement. Is it possible that Mr. Cesca, a graduate of a college I have never heard of, is completely ignorant of history? I have to think that he is. He writes:
Put another way, the Supreme Court just removed a huge barrier between the Republican Party and its continuing strategy for suppressing Democratic voters, thus giving the Republicans an extra advantage on Election Day.
See above. The idea that Republicans are dedicated to keeping Democrats from voting is a Big Lie. What we are interested in is: One citizen; one vote. We are for fair elections. Apparently, that's not what the Democrats want. So in a way accusing, without the slightest bit of evidence, the Republicans of wanting political advantage through breaking election laws is essentially projection.
It's difficult to envision a more obvious example of a political party abusing government power as a means of deliberately targeting the opposing political party.
Presenting a well reasoned and successful argument that times have changed is "abusing government powers?" I fear the cartoons Mr. Cesca creates and directs has given him a child-like view of the world. Presenting a well reasoned and successful argument to the Supreme Court is not abusing government power it is availing one's views to it. Sorry you didn't like the outcome, Bob. Welcome to the party, pal.
Republicans cleverly ginned up a fake voter fraud crisis then prescribed new laws to combat the fake crisis. Every single Republican-controlled state government has passed or is attempting to pass laws that will require a second layer of government approval, the acquisition of a Voter ID, on top of registering to vote. You know, because Republicans hate big government bureaucracy.There is, alas, nothing fake about voter fraud. It's just very hard to prosecute. It doesn't matter if it happens enough to sway elections or not, any fraud is too much fraud. We Republicans merely want people voting to prove they are who they say they are, just as the banks, airlines (and AG Holder's door guards) require us to prove our identity to cash a check, get on an airplane (or enter the Justice Department HQ). There is no new bureaucracy required, no bigger government. Who doesn't already have a government issued ID? We just don't want bad people lying and cheating in an important political function, voting. Apparently the Democrats want something else, want people to be able to lie and cheat with even greater impunity about voting early and often, as they say in Chicago.
Casting a ballot should be as easy as ordering a hamburger at a drive-thru window, and the steps to get there are no-brainers.
Sorry, Bob, voting is, I think, just a tad more important that fast food. It certainly is as important as cashing a check or getting on an airplane. I do, however, believe your "steps" to easier voting are indeed brainless.
And now the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has allowed these governments, under the preposterous cover of 10th Amendment "states' rights," to pass more of these laws with impunity.
I don't believe Bob knows what the 10th Amendment says. He's probably unaware of the role it played in some of the DOMA cases, which he no doubt celebrates. But back to actual facts. The only thing that changed with Shelby County was the formula for applying the "pre-authorization" section. If any state now passes a law that runs afoul the '65 Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment, the feds, under the former, can petition the courts to stop it. That hasn't changed. The law is still the law against disenfranchising laws. And most semi-simpletons know that a law requiring a would-be voter to produce a state-issued, picture ID in order to vote is OK vis a vis both the '65 Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment. Bob ought to familiarize himself with Crawford v. Marion County (6-3, Justice Stevens writing the opinion) before he makes a fool of himself ranting about voter ID laws as if they were exactly the same as the infamous poll taxes set up by racist Democrats. He really ought to learn about the Jim Crow period in the South before he even mentions Republicans in the same sentence with Jim Crow.
I know it is another Big Lie to say that the pro-slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, racist, segregationist Democrats all became members of the abolitionist, pro-freedom, pro-equal rights, anti-lynching Grand Old Party of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King sometime in the 60s or 70s, but the people who can say it with a straight face must necessarily be completely blinded by politics or simply historical imbeciles. I'm tending for the latter with Mr. Cesca.
Labels: Democrats and Republicans switching; Shelby County v. Holder; Historical Idiocy
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 10:53 PM 
