Hollywood superstar Barbra Streisand has called on lawmakers to allow illegal immigrants to vote, slamming voter ID laws as outdated and racist. 

Barbra Streisand demands illegal aliens be given right to vote

“Is it any surprise the Trump Administration and Jeff Sessions are protecting states that are resisting court orders to stop?”

 Streisand, an outspoken critic of Trump and major Hillary Clinton supporter, linked to a New York Times article that criticized the Trump administration for cracking down on new voter ID laws.

Nytimes.com reports: A new voter ID law could shut out many Native Americans from the polls in North Dakota. A strict rule on the collection of absentee ballots in Arizona is being challenged as a form of voter suppression. And officials in Georgia are scrubbing voters from registration rolls if their details do not exactly match other records, a practice that voting rights groups say unfairly targets minority voters.

 During the Obama administration, the Justice Department would often go to court to stop states from taking steps like those. But 18 months into President Trump’s term, there are signs of change: The department has launched no new efforts to roll back state restrictions on the ability to vote, and instead often sides with them.

 Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the department has filed legal briefs in support of states that are resisting court orders to rein in voter ID requirements, stop aggressive purges of voter rolls and redraw political boundaries that have unfairly diluted minority voting power — all practices that were opposed under President Obama’s attorneys general.

 The Sessions department’s most prominent voting-rights lawsuit so far forced Kentucky state officials last month to step up the culling from registration rolls of voters who have moved.

 In the national battle over voting rights, the fighting is done in court, state by state, over rules that can seem arcane but have the potential to sway the outcome of elections. The Justice Department’s recent actions point to a decided shift in policy at the federal level: toward an agenda embraced by conservatives who say they want to prevent voter fraud.

“They’re showing deference to the states when it comes to issues like voter ID,” said Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the conservative Public Interest Legal Foundation, which advocates tighter restrictions on voter registration. “If a state sees the need for a prophylactic capability to prevent fraud, then it can.”

 The Justice Department declined to comment on the record about its overall approach, though it said that in at least one case in Texas, it was not fair to say the administration reversed its predecessor’s stance.

 Mr. Sessions, during his confirmation hearing, was asked about Mr. Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 2016. Mr. Sessions said he did not know what Mr. Trump meant by that statement, and then added, “I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely, and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during election cycles.”

 Critics see in the Justice Department’s moves the ascendance of a longtime Republican political agenda that will increase barriers to the ballot.

“The Trump administration wants to make it harder to vote, and they’ve thrown the weight of the federal government behind that,” said Lisa M. Manheim, an associate professor and election-law scholar at the University of Washington School of Law. “It’s hard to justify some of these measures as anything but an attempt to entrench Republicans in office.”

 Almost all researchers who have studied the issue have concluded that voter fraud is rare in the United States. A Trump-appointed commission investigating the issue disbanded in January without presenting any evidence of widespread impropriety.

 Instead, according to critics of the administration and even some Republicans, the principal aim of laws adding requirements like photo IDs is to discourage certain voters and empower the G.O.P.

 The change under Mr. Trump is a stark one from the state of play before the 2016 presidential election, when voting rights advocates and Democrats appeared to be gaining the upper hand in the courts.

 With support from the Justice Department under Mr. Obama, lawyers were steadily persuading federal courts to invalidate district boundaries in states like Alabama, Texas and Virginia that were drawn to reduce minority voters’ influence. Voter ID laws and other restrictions in North Carolina, Texas and other states were struck down with the department’s help.

Some of those legal victories have already been undone.

 A federal court in Texas had found that the state intentionally crippled minority voting power when it drew new state legislative and congressional districts in 2011. The same court found that replacement maps the state drew also were discriminatory. But in the Supreme Court this year, the Justice Department argued that the new districts were legal, and the justices largely agreed.

 Texas also had a strict voter ID law, which had been successfully challenged by the department’s lawyers under President Obama, on the ground that the law unfairly — and intentionally — restricted access for black and Hispanic voters.

 In February, Mr. Sessions’s Justice Department came to the assistance of Republican lawmakers who were fighting to restore the ID requirement by adding some revisions. After a lower court struck down the new version as discriminatory, the department argued that the court was mistaken — and in April, an appeals court adopted that position.

 Critics have called the department’s involvement a reversal of its previous position on the Texas voter ID law. But the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, John Gore, said the state’s revised law, which was passed after Mr. Trump became president, was substantially different from the one the department’s lawyers had previously assessed.

“The United States never changed its position in the Texas voter ID case,” he said. “The state of Texas changed its position in the Texas voter ID case.” He added: “Now you have a legal and appropriate voter ID law in place in Texas.”

 In Ohio, the Obama Justice Department argued that a state policy of scrubbing infrequent voters from its rolls if they failed to reply to a single mailed warning violated federal law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, striking down the Ohio law.

But when the case reached the Supreme Court last year, Mr. Trump’s Justice Department reversed course, saying Ohio’s aggressive purges of nonvoters met federal standards even if voters who mistook the notices for junk mail — as many did — were disenfranchised as a result. The Supreme Court agreed in June, overturning the Sixth Circuit ruling.

 The Texas ID and Ohio voter-roll cases stand out for a little-noted reason: The career lawyers in the department’s civil rights division who perform the bulk of legal work on voting cases do not appear in their normal roles in the government’s latest briefs. Instead, Trump administration political appointees were the ones who took responsibility for the new positions.

 That is not unprecedented in this administration. In the past, it has been a signal of disagreement within the department over the legal arguments in the briefs. In June, career lawyers not only refused to sign a brief in which the department declined to defend part of the Affordable Care Act, but also asked a judge to release them from the case.

 The department’s future position on voting issues depends in part on when the civil rights division gets a permanent leader. Decisions about voting rights cases are typically made by the division, which was created in 1957 to battle discrimination against African Americans.

 The administration’s nominee for assistant attorney general overseeing the division, Eric Dreiband, has been awaiting confirmation for more than a year; if and when he takes office, the division will be freer to act with more authority.

 The nomination of Mr. Dreiband, a Washington labor lawyer who worked for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr during his lengthy investigation of President Clinton, has been widely opposed by civil-rights advocacy groups. His confirmation appears to have taken a back seat to Senate Republicans’ efforts to approve new federal judges.

 Under more permanent leadership, the department could step up pressure on states to purge ineligible voters from their rolls under opaque standards set out in the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the “motor-voter” law. Conservative experts say the lists need to be more aggressively pruned of dead or departed voters to discourage fraud and weed out noncitizens. And they say that under Mr. Obama, the department took no action against states whose registration lists were laden with ineligible voters.

 Voting rights advocates said that aggressive culling of the rolls often delists legitimate voters, and members of minorities in particular.

 Whatever the Justice Department does next, conservatives said they were heartened by the new direction it has taken under Mr. Sessions.

“We’re happy with what we’ve seen done,” said Mr. Churchwell of the Public Interest Legal Foundat


Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion




We can try, but, you know how the media is???????




Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert


OMG!! -> Government Now Wants To Seize Your Car For Going 5MPH Over The Limit

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year – hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service