Georgia woman hadn't even voted when she was informed her vote was being challenged

As my first words, I have no clue what when on here. I don't know how the law was written. But for as much as the right cries about fake votes, the left cries about voter suppression. Yes, it should be easy to vote, but on the same token it should be easy to guarantee the right to vote and validity of the vote cast. I don't comprehend why the left and right are so far apart on this.

 

Does everything need to be explained to you?

 

Do they do this for every single voter?

 

My guess is that they focus on certain voters based on their skin complexion and facial features.

 

I googled her name, college, what supposedly happened and nothing came up. Not saying it didn't happen, but I wish there was more information. We are really good at rushing to judgement without having all the facts. Remember how racist BYU volleyball was? I would love to read all sides of this story.

 

Good guess.

 

When basically the whole world called out Georgia for voter suppression, it turns out they were right. More issues due to Republican jerkoffs challenging people's voter registrations:
Eligibility challenges impede several Georgia voters at the polls

Voting is a constitutional right. This is wrong.

 

Yeah the Georgia authorities really gaslit the media and told them how unfair it was to call the statute what it was, a voter suppression tactic.

I will disagree as to whether voting is a constitutional right. I think it should be. I think it should be a fundamental right. Though not a right granted in the original constitution of the Bill of Rights, six amendments since have expressly granted the franchise to previously excluded citizens. I would say that should meet the test of a fundamental right within our current constitutional structure. But then again, John Roberts and crew decided that the 15th Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and that voting rights should be disregarded even when they are explicitly granted in the Constitution. So what do I know

 

Respectfully, it's not a "should be." It's a "it is." The Constitution protects fundamental rights. And a right that is explicitly recognized in five different amendments is undoubtedly fundamental.

 

You don't have to characterize your comments as "respectfully". I agree with you a thousand percent. But unless both of us are writing under screen names and we are justices of the supreme court, it doesn't matter. The 15th Amendment says Congress has every right to pass legislation as it chooses to enforce voting rights for African-American men, which would later be modified to include women. John Roberts says, that doesn't matter, you can't. Racism rules.

Which is the law of the land?

I wasn't making a moral argument. Those that use their power to deny that voting is a fundamental right are immoral, and will be judged.

I was making a legally positivistic argument. It is a fundamental right, but not unless they choose to act with principle and ethics. They won't.

 

The Supreme "Court" has a long history and tradition of undermining constitutional rights. The Roberts "Court" is like the Supreme "Court" of the late 1800s. That "Court" spent its days sabotaging the Reconstruction Amendments and enabling Jim Crow. The Roberts "Court" is spending its days subverting democratic rights, bastardizing the Reconstruction Amendments, and making a mockery out of the First Amendment.

 

Make that a million per cent

 

Wrong on every level if it is all as disclosed in the OP.

 

More voter fraud