« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Nadler on DoJ Supreme Court Brief
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) responding to today's news that the Justice Department had weighed in with an amicus brief in support of Indiana's voter ID law:
“Once again the Bush Justice Department has gone to court to disenfranchise the poor, the elderly, and minorities. Voter I.D. laws have rightly been struck down in the past. The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which I chair, recently held a hearing on this very subject. The evidence we obtained clearly demonstrates that these laws do nothing to protect the integrity of elections, but do a great deal to erect a needless barrier to voter participation. The Justice Department is charged under the law with the duty to protect the right to vote. Sadly, the Bush administration has chosen to oppose voting rights.”
Advertisement
Comments (16)
Sean Eric Fagan wrote on December 11, 2007 4:50 PM:Snippy has been attempting to suppress the vote since November, 2000. He's been extremely consistent about that, at least.
chisholm wrote on December 11, 2007 5:34 PM:The Republicans have brought the nation down into the gutter with them.
judyinnm wrote on December 11, 2007 5:42 PM:No surprise here.
Lookingforhome wrote on December 11, 2007 6:27 PM:It's too bad that something even this fundamental to our rights is probably too abstract to motivate voters...and certainly won't be a major story in the MSM.
It's also notable that even on this august site, there are precious few comments on the two related posts vs. the normal intra-partisan tussle over the primaries.
Timewatcher wrote on December 11, 2007 6:47 PM:When will this end?
Jin and Tonic wrote on December 11, 2007 7:55 PM:John Tanner, the Voting Section Chief, was instrumental no doubt in this decision. Nadler should hold another hearing, if he had any courage, on what role John Tanner in the Voting Section continues to play in disenfranchising people of color. Conyers mentioned that they have instances in the Voting Section where anti-gay and anti-black comments are said with regularity by an attorney. When will this end? When will the Congressional majority say, enough is enough???
Timewatch wrote on December 11, 2007 8:29 PM:No doubt this is another John Tanner Disenfrancisement Special.
IceJustIce wrote on December 11, 2007 9:19 PM:Jin,
It's worse. Tanner himself has made anti-black comments, and not just the ones that have been reported in the media.
But, yes, there is one attorney who has made anti-black, anti-gay comments with some frequency, and in one instance made BOTH anti-black AND anti-gay comments while in the course of sexually harassing a female employee.
You could say he hit the bigot trifecta, all within the space of about a minute and a half.
Bobby Seals wrote on December 11, 2007 9:25 PM:*Runs into a dark corner, curls up into a fetal position and gently weeps for the outcome of the next election*
Tyrone Biggums wrote on December 11, 2007 9:50 PM:If they can do that in GA, FL, and IN, what's stopping them from passing bogus Voter ID laws in the other 47 states?? Why is the majority Democratic Congress just sitting by and watching the Republicans stack the deck, on their way to rigging another election?!? Why Nixon?!? Why?!?
Savage Nation wrote on December 11, 2007 9:55 PM:Why does the Voting Section Chief call Nadler "the Blob"???
2turk wrote on December 11, 2007 10:16 PM:Tyrone Biggums wrote on December 11, 2007 9:50 PM:
:::::
Astute observation.
The Republicans can't win elections, they can only steal them to stay in power. And steal them again and again they have done - but the Democrats don't do a damn thing to stop them.
GMFORD wrote on December 12, 2007 4:06 AM:The way Nadler worded that totally rubbed me the wrong way: 'Sadly the Bush administration has chosen to oppose voting rights'.
He worded it like he is someone from another country commenting on what a sorry excuse America has for a government. Damn it, Nadler is part of the government! He's part of the House of Representatives, the 110th Congress who refuse to do their constitutional duty and impeach.
Here's an analogy - my ex-husband was a complete jerk. I used to complain to my family about him. One day my brother said 'Either divorce him or quit complaining about him.' That's how I feel about the 110th Congress -- they have long since lost the right to complain about Bush if they refuse to divorce him.
djcrow22 wrote on December 12, 2007 1:47 PM:Congratulations are in order for Schumer, Feinstein and Pelosi for supporting the new AG for confirmation. Mukasey is a stoic,spineless foot soldier whose sole purpose is to delay,obstruct and protect the current war criminals running our failed democratic experiment. Any American who at this point still thinks we are a nation of laws,morality and freedom is blind. For impeachment to be off the table at this crucial point in our short history is indicative of the colossal failure of leadership, incredible selfishness and fear by the American people to stand up and say enough.
moondancer wrote on December 12, 2007 3:11 PM:Of all the crimes committed by this cabal, the cynical attempt to regain parity with the democrats by stealing votes is easily the worst. It is a throwback to Jim Crow laws in the South.
Tis the day wrote on December 14, 2007 11:41 AM:I expect the banking lobby, in cahoots with big agra-corps, to move hard for indentured servitude to fill the lack of cheap labor.
Tanner quit!!!! Finally, JUSTICE!