Washington Times telling bald-faced lies now

What’s new?  It’s the Lame Stream Media.  The headline is a flat out lie, and so is 90% of the article.

Here’s a picture of the liar, article below with links:

Catherine Poe

 

 

Voting Rights basically killed by Supreme Court: Now what?

Look for some states to step up their efforts to suppress minority voter turnout.
Photo: Demonstrators protest voter suppression in N.C. earlier this month AP photo
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 – Ad Lib by Catherine Poe
Catherine Poe

WASHINGTON, June 26, 2013 — With states still finding ways to restrict voting, particularly in the South, by making it difficult to vote, it was hard to believe that the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote would strike out the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But on Tuesday it did just that, effectively gutting the historic measure.

What it means is that all bets are now off since the Supremes have basically said all is well and the era of discrimination at the ballot box is over. After all, we have an African American president, don’t we, and a bunch of Southern black mayors.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has not given adequate justification for continuing federal oversight of the nine states, mostly in the South. Have the five Justices, who supported Shelby County, Ala. contention, read the new tactics that are now being employed to suppress voter participation? Makes you wonder how they missed these biggies in restricting the right to vote:

1. Stricter voter ID laws with photo identification, a hardship on many minorities as well as the elderly and the poor.

2. Gerrymandering districts by race as was done in Texas, though temporarily stopped by federal judges.

3. Shortchanging minority districts with not enough voting machines, effectively making prohibitively long lines to vote.

So what were the Five Supremes thinking? A look at the written majority decision reveals a lot.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the law is “based on 40-year-old facts having no relationship to the present day. 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. It cannot simply rely on the past.”

Chief Justice John Roberts AP

But the Voting Rights Act is not a 40-year-old relic, but was renewed again in 2006 when then-President George W. Bush and a strong bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress agreed that such legislation was still necessary to protect the right to vote and that, according to the 15th Amendment, that right could not be abridged on the basis of “race, color, or previous condition servitude.”

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2013/jun/26/voting-rights-basically-killed-supreme-court-now-w/#ixzz2XKg7zojm