greenhearts16 reblogged
1983?
greenhearts16 reblogged
& TMZ has the goods on even more of his story.
His abrupt quitting wasn’t for nothing. Waiting for this shoe to drop. We’ll see
A real life S2 HoC situation?! Wow.
Indeed.
You’ll be surprised just how many in the GOP are part of it.
As I said, watch them let Trump get away with everything because if a true investigation is done, many of them will be implicated too. They’ll do everything to ‘normalize’ what he’s doing or when it gets close and they are being ‘blackmailed light’ like Jason & TMZ goods, they’ll run out of office quickly.
Crazy times for your country
Does this surprise anyone?
greenhearts16 reblogged
NBC is now literally paying Trump himself, Joe Scarborough, Greta Van Susteren, and Megyn Kelly. Not to mention Matt Lauer, who has let Trump get away with massive lies.
greenhearts16 reblogged
the-movemnt-deactivated20170912
State Troopers accidentally filmed themselves fabricating charges against a lawful protestor. Oops. (x)
follow @the-movemnt
greenhearts16 reblogged
tpfnewsdesk-deactivated20181216
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court struck down several voting restrictions passed by North Carolina’s lawmakers in 2013, finding that the provisions were enacted with “racially discriminatory intent” in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Among the provisions at issue in the North Carolina law were limits on the type of photo ID required for voting; reductions to the amount of early voting in the state; and elimination of same-day registration, out-of-precinct provisional voting, and preregistration that allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to indicate an intent to register when they turned 18.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” with the effect of taking away their “opportunity [to vote] because [they] were about to exercise it.”
In particular, the court looked to the fact that “the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law” before passing the law.
Looking at the facts underlying the enactment of the law, Judge Diana Motz wrote for the court, “[W]e can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”
The ruling follows a decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last week in which that court — in a divided, en banc decision — held that Texas’ voter ID law had a discriminatory effect. The appeals court there sent the case back down to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy.
In Friday’s decision, the 4th Circuit went further, finding that the law was motivated by a discriminatory intent — not just that it had a discriminatory effect. Motz’s decision for the court took particular and repeated aim at the district court judge’s findings in the case.
“[T]he district court apparently considered [the law] simply an appropriate means for one party to counter recent success by another party,” the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote of the Republican-led legislature. “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.”