Holder: State Laws That Bar Felons From Voting Are ‘Too Unjust to Tolerate’

(CNSNews.com) – Three days after announcing that the U.S. Justice Department will recognize same-sex marriages in all legal matters, even in states that forbid it, Attorney General Eric Holder took a swipe at states that don’t allow felons to vote. -

Holder said WHAT ?

“In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore -- it is also too unjust to tolerate,” Holder told a criminal justice forum at Georgetown University Law Center.

www.cnsnews.com...

Wait what ?

In many states 'felony disenfranchisement' laws are still on the books ?

Really ?

Like how them laws say 'felon's' can't own guns, that makes NO distinction between 'violent', and non violent 'felons'.

Hey Holder how about putting your money where your mouth is and RESTORE all their rights?

Voting is more dangerous than gun ownership.

reply to post by neo96


Well said! If rights are to be restored, lets not be selective.

Lets restore ALL rights!

Perhaps they're worried they are going to be caught for all the crap they've been pulling over the years...and want to be able to vote etc when they eventually get out of pokey.

reply to post by neo96


I am sure someone whom might be labeled a "FELON" might appreciate this administration doing something more in the line of helping them find employment than vote don't you think?

The way the laws have been written, it seems real easy to do something non harmful to anyone and be labeled felon!

Why does the word treason come to mind every time he opens his mouth

reply to post by seeker1963

I am sure someone whom might be labeled a "FELON" might appreciate this administration doing something more in the line of helping them find employment than vote don't you think?

One would think, woundn't ya ?

reply to post by neo96


I think it is fitting if felons could vote!

Felons voting in Felons......Birds of a felon flock together....Right?

reply to post by neo96


Holder talking about “injustices” is absolutely comical. This is the guy that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. He’s also failed to prosecute Wall Street because they’re too big to jail.

F-this clown and the administration he so faithfully carries water for!!

reply to post by seabag

Holder talking about “injustices” is absolutely comical.

I have to agree since he runs the countries largest Department of Injustice.

beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

Well said! If rights are to be restored, lets not be selective.

Lets restore ALL rights!

That is exactly what it is.

Selective right 'enforcement'.

reply to post by neo96


It is beyond me why should convicted men be removed the right to vote. That does not happen in my nation (nor do we have death penalty) and in comparison our political spectrum is less corrupt that that of the US (there is almost no nation with a political system as corrupt as the US, at least no pseudo-democracy).

And comparing the dangers of voting to those of holding guns... that is just absurd (and I am pro-gun)... I could see only a crime that would warrant being removed the possibility for voting , that would be treason. (but would have the significance as a gesture)

Now where is the "not taxation without representation" in this discussion ? I hope people clearly understand that the voting rights removal is intended to disenfranchise minorities it serves no other purpose...

reply to post by neo96


Isn't allowing felons to vote a step towards those very same felons owning guns? For now, they don't have their own voice therefore it's not easy to change things regarding their lives.

reply to post by Panic2k11

And comparing the dangers of voting to those of holding guns... that is just absurd (and I am pro-gun)

Not absurd not paying attention to the last 2 American presidents ?

Yeah voting is more dangerous.

It is.

Now how where is the "not taxation without representation" in this discussion ? I hope people clearly understand that the voting rights removal is intended to disenfranchise minorities it serves no other purpose...

Nope .

That applies to ALL felons.

As that word has jack snip to do with skin color.

Cuervo
reply to post by neo96

 

Isn't allowing felons to vote a step towards those very same felons owning guns? For now, they don't have their own voice therefore it's not easy to change things regarding their lives.

Nope because of Holder, and his boss's and parties WELL KNOWN stance on gun ownership.

A step in the right direction would be, 'Felons deserve all of their rights to be restored'.

I'm for restoring all rights to any felon who's served their time and made restoration to any victims EXCEPT the violent ones.

The cynical part of me wonders if this is to boost some particular parties voting block.

reply to post by Cuervo


Do you actually think Felons do not own guns? They own plenty of them, mostly stolen as they can not buy a legal one. IMO the best guns to own are not on the books. Why? Because if they have to kill someone to avoid being killed it is a lot easier to get away with it. Where I live there is one neighbor about a mile away. If I have to shoot someone on the property they will NEVER find the body, we have a back hoes.

Now were I The feds I would give non violent felons all their rights back. Then they will own legal guns that ballistics can trace should a body be found.

reply to post by Bassago

The cynical part of me wonders if this is to boost some particular parties voting block.

The cynical part of you is right.

That is the only thing it is about.

And we know which party.

Bassago
I'm for restoring all rights to any felon who's served their time and made restoration to any victims EXCEPT the violent ones.

The cynical part of me wonders if this is to boost some particular parties voting block.

More truth to that statement than than most things I have seen here lately.

What is a good reason for a felon to lose their right to vote? Could some politicians not want them to vote is because they would be able to spot a crook easier than the average voter?

seabag
reply to post by neo96

 

Holder talking about “injustices” is absolutely comical. This is the guy that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. He’s also failed to prosecute Wall Street because they’re too big to jail.

F-this clown and the administration he so faithfully carries water for!!

Wall Street happened before Holder became AG so you are blaming the wrong person. Michael Mukasey is the AG that stood by and did nothing while they crashed the economy.