Home | About | Donate

'Democracy for Some, But Not for All': Report Reveals Nearly 1,700 Polling Places Closed Since Supreme Court Weakened Voting Rights Act

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/10/democracy-some-not-all-report-reveals-nearly-1700-polling-places-closed-supreme

1 Like

Democratic state governors could INCREASE theirs just to make a point. Or are mass protests in order here as well?

1 Like

If they wanted to do something about it, they would have already. They need to keep the easily hacked voting machines and antiqued system because it enables them to cheat too. Number one: they love when republicans win, they are paid to lose. Number two: they cheated Bernie Sanders in California and New York and likely some other places. They always have a plan B.
Just Sad.


Shelby, it’s seems you have no place to call home. Politically. More and more of us are feeling the pinch.
Feel the Berne.

1 Like

Or to put it another way: if voting mattered; it would be illegal!


The US gets more like Russia every day.

The US of 2019 gets more like the US of 1819 every day.

1 Like

I have voted third party for years with the exception of Bernie in 2016 primary. Since I turned 18 I have not had a candidate to vote for in the democrat party. I will never vote for my own oppression. I always recommend Howard Zinn’s, A Peoples history of the United States. First, you must see the lies and then the truth is revealed. Most people are afraid of the truth about our so called Democracy. Critical thinking by the populace is sorely lacking. BERNIE 2020


Since ‘The Supreme Court Weakened Voting Rights Act’ will be a minor condition if one of these voter restrictions by states gets to the Supreme Court. In the decision to uphold Indiana’s voter restricting ID law, the court said this was a states right even if there was no evidence it was needed.

More troublesome is Scalia, Alito and Roberts personal side opinion when voting with the majority.

Paraphrased: ‘As far as we are concerned the states should have no federal limits on deciding voter laws and regulations’.

The fascists may be one vote away …

THAT … is an illusion.
** We DESTROY DEMOCRACY in a myriad of ways here.
• There is gerrymandering, but oh, so much more.
• unknowable electronic voting machines
• blocking of independent, differing or 3rd party candidates in media & debates
• money to candidates of course
• “elected” officials actin not as representatives of the population, but of donors
• “winning” with merely a plurality, instead of using a voting system like IRV to get a winner with Majority Support every time
• Differing candidacy and voter registration “rules” for each state — RIDICULOUS
• Selectively closed voting stations
• the list goes on …
— BOTH major parties support rules that LIMIT democracy!


There will only ever be one group of the Supremes.

And it ain’t the ones in Washington DC wearing black robes.

I noticed the other day while parked at a store and watching through my rear view mirror, people walking by and seeing my Bernie sticker on the back of the car. They mostly had puzzled looks.I’m not sure why .
I will try my old mini van next. I’m going put this on: " HONK if we should dump Trump"

Democracy for some but not for all - so what exactly is “democracy”? The definition I like involves a government that is responsive to public opinion. So the notion of a democracy that is responsive to some but not for all is quite simply a contradiction in terms. It seems that what we have is not a democracy for some but not a democracy at all.

Congress and the president are responsive to the rich and powerful and not so much to the public will; that is pretty clear. And what about the third branch of government? The courts seem to be a law onto themselves but at present with a strong leaning toward the rich and powerful.

The courts generally are surely responsible to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will claim to be responsive to the Constitution, but it is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution means. Despite the claim by the Supreme Court to follow the original intent of the Constitution, it pretty clearly not the case that the original intent was not that the Supreme Court would have such a great power. No, the Constitution is written in very plain language and the original intent was that it would be understood in layman terms, not as distorted by expert wordsmiths.

No, the Supreme Court itself simply declared its power to interpret the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case that it decided in 1803. And that raises a number of issues, not the least of which is the obvious self-dealing.

The Constitution made its amendments possible, but very difficult and they have been hard fought and quite rare, generally requiring the assent not only of a super-majority in both houses of Congress but also by a super-majority of the states. On the other hand, as a consequence of the Marbury v. Madison decision, the Constitution can also, in practice, be amended by a simple majority vote of the Supreme Court. The Court may not change the words but they are free to dramatically alter the meaning of the words. Who can argue that this was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution?