• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

Fuck Your Couch said:
The court's decision made clear that it was as much the culmination of the other voting restrictions in totality that forced them to their decision.
Click to expand...

if there's one thing that is sure to appease a self-important P.C. mob, it's a judicial determination.
 
knowell said:
Seems like complete BS to me. The increased turnout was most likely related to Barrack Obama being on the ticket. It looks like those making this decision were looking to affirm a preconceived notion of racism. This should be appealed to a more higher (less biased) court.
Click to expand...

If only you'd been there to argue on behalf of the appellees. "May it please the court: the darkies got out and voted because a Barrack [sic] "Barry" Obama is a darkie - and this otherwise won't be an issue when they go back to not voting."

And that "more higher [sic]" court you're referring to is the United States Supreme Court. And you'll hardly find that it's less biased irrespective of the makeup of the court at any given moment.
 
And just like that. the Dice Game gets robbed. Stay classy, J2C.
 
Jamison2Carter said:
If only you'd been there to argue on behalf of the appellees. "May it please the court: the darkies got out and voted because a Barrack [sic] "Barry" Obama is a darkie - and this otherwise won't be an issue when they go back to not voting."

And that "more higher [sic]" court you're referring to is the United States Supreme Court. And you'll hardly find that it's less biased irrespective of the makeup of the court at any given moment.
Click to expand...

Why you gotta act so racist?
 
knowell said:
Seems like complete BS to me. The increased turnout was most likely related to Barrack Obama being on the ticket. It looks like those making this decision were looking to affirm a preconceived notion of racism. This should be appealed to a more higher (less biased) court.
Click to expand...

I am sure you know how to spell the name of the POTUS.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Go see my edit. Again, we don't have any way to measure fraud for in person voting. "Excuse my Sir, but you don't look like FYC. I'm going to need you to step over here."
Click to expand...

Well fine, but we apparently have been able to measure absentee fraud. So we know that's a problem. We don't know if in-person is a problem. Yet NC addresses in person voter fraud (which it doesn't know if it exists) and doesn't address absentee fraud (which it knows exists).

Are you really not seeing funny business here?
 
jhmd2000 said:
I would say "we" (not you and I, we, but North Carolina-we) are better served by having facially-neutral, common sense safeguards like IDs AND early voting. What I can't figure out is why we can't agree on that.
Click to expand...

You realize that almost all laws these days are facially neutral. Because legislatures aren't dumb enough to pass facially discriminatory laws any more.

That doesn't mean that there are no more discriminatory laws
 
Yep I'm a thread about a judicial decision on race while arguing the legislatures action is not racist, it's always helpful to misspell the president's name who happens to be African American. Big coincidence [sic] there.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yep I'm a thread about a judicial decision on race while arguing the legislatures action is not racist, it's always helpful to misspell the president's name who happens to be African American. Big coincidence [sic] there.
Click to expand...

You got me. I try to keep my racism in check but sometimes it slips out in subliminal ways like misspelling the name of the POTUS.

Otherwise my spelling and syntax has been perfect on these boards.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Using the term "common sense" is really pointless as it's completely subjective.

I think it's "common sense" that gay people should be allowed to be married and have all the same rights as straight people---a lot of people disagree with that.

I think evolution is "common sense", but 49% of Republicans don't believe in it.

I think climate change is "common sense", but a lot of people don't.
Click to expand...

No ruling required.

 
Last edited:
The biggest mystery is why you all continue to engage with JHMD. He's clearly here exclusively to ruffle your feathers. No one can actually be that clueless.
 
What court is that for? Ive only had to show ID to get into one courthouse ever and it's the federal courthouse in Boston. Been to a solid number in NC and almost every state courthouse in the eastern half of Massachusetts and never had to show ID once.

Also theres no constitutional issue about ID for security purposes as far as I can think of one but there are certainly constitutional issues at play surrounding voting.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What court is that for? Ive only had to show ID to get into one courthouse ever and it's the federal courthouse in Boston. Been to a solid number in NC and almost every state courthouse in the eastern half of Massachusetts and never had to show ID once.

Also theres no constitutional issue about ID for security purposes as far as I can think of one but there are certainly constitutional issues at play surrounding voting.
Click to expand...

None other than the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/visiting-the-court

As I said, no ruling required.
 
I have to think that if the ID requirement for a federal courthouse was challenged that it would likely be struck down. Denying the public (and potentially the media) access to the courts and all that.

Also completely missing the point because this case was all about intent. Nobody suggests the federal courthouse ID requirement was put in place with the intent to keep black people out of the courts.

But keep spinning your wheels
 
While I certainly wouldn't except Berger to know the difference between the two situations I know that you're smart enough to identify the difference - especially with a law degree JHMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top