Things that will help the GOP before 2022 elections.

[Dill]

(04-21-2021, 06:29 PM)bengaloo Wrote: The lawyer in you is pretty awesome Fredtoast, and I like you for that. You're a very intelligent person. 

I havent made false statements and wasn't corrected by anyone. I dont see anything you or Dill put out there as fact either including the pbs article, nor were my feelings decimated like Bigpapa implied. 
 

Wait, you are saying the Supreme Court did not rule against the NC voter law as discriminatory against Blacks? That is not a fact?  https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487935700/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law

"But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina's history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature's knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.

[bengaloo]

(04-23-2021, 08:45 PM)Dill Wrote:
Wait, you are saying the Supreme Court did not rule against the NC voter law as discriminatory against Blacks? That is not a fact?  https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487935700/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law

"But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina's history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature's knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.

Yes I am actually. The ruling wasnt based on reality in my opinion and was a bad ruling. Are you saying the Supreme Court is right about everything they've ever ruled on? Should I start posting Supreme Court rulings that dont favor the things you believe in or fit the narrative of your political beliefs? Do you just believe in things because the Supreme Court says so? Is it really that easy, forreal?   

[Dill]

(04-24-2021, 02:38 AM)bengaloo Wrote: Yes I am actually. The ruling wasnt based on reality in my opinion and was a bad ruling. Are you saying the Supreme Court is right about everything they've ever ruled on? Should I start posting Supreme Court rulings that dont favor the things you believe in or fit the narrative of your political beliefs? Do you just believe in things because the Supreme Court says so? Is it really that easy, forreal?   

Certainly one may disagree with rulings. I disagree with the Dred Scott and Plessy rulings, but I don't dispute the factual basis of these rulings, the "reality" that Scott was a slave under then Missouri law and not a US "citizen" with standing to sue under then federal law, or that Pullman cars were legally segregated in 1892 LA and Homer Plessy violated a state law by boarding in the white section. 

The case under question here involves a Federal appeals court ruling which the SCOTUS declined to hear. https://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%204th%20Circuit%20NAACP%20v%20NC.pdf

So the question is what "reality" are you disputing?  

Do you disagree with the factual basis of the Appeals Court ruling, that--

1. The Republican party of NC collected data on voter behavior.

2. Then passed a series of laws targeting the behavior of one racial demographic which tended to vote Democratic? 

If you do disagree, are you 

3. disputing that 1 and 2 actually occurred (i.e., claiming there is no factual record of these actions) or, 

4. granting that they did occur, are you disputing that such targeting amounts to voter suppression, as stated by the NC GOP official in Fred's post above?

Upon what "reality" should the court's decision have been based? What is your access to that reality, if not party records, public statements by party officials, and data in the court decisions?