PDA

View Full Version : I’m Not Going To Stand By And Let The Supreme Court Take The Right To Vote Away’



Cigar
08-26-2013, 10:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4enYHpeS1ls

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) — who was the youngest speaker during the March on Washington in 1963 — delivered a passionate address about the importance of protecting voting rights at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial fifty years later, as thousands gathered to celebrate the anniversary of the historic event on Saturday.

“When I stood here 50 years ago, I said one man, one vote is the African cry. It is ours, too. it must be ours,” he began, before connecting the demands of 1963 to today’s struggles. “Almost 50 years ago, I gave a little blood on that bridge in Selma, Alabama, for the right to vote. I am not going to stand by and let the Supreme Court take the right to vote away from us!”

LEWIS: You cannot stand by. You cannot sit down. You have to stand up, speak up, speak out and get in the way. Make some noise. The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It’s the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society and we’ve got to use it. Back in 1963 we didn’t have a cellular telephone, iPad, iPod, but we used what we had to bring about a non-violent revolution. And I said to all of the young people, you must get out there and push and pull and make America what America should be for all of us. We must say to the Congress, ‘Fix the Voting Rights Act’


“So hang in there, keep the faith,” Lewis extolled. “I got arrested 40 times during the ’60s, beaten, bloodied and unconscious. I’m not tired, I’m not weary. I’m not prepared to sit down and give up. I am ready to fight and continue to fight, and you must fight.”


John Lewis At March On Washington: ‘I’m Not Going To Stand By And Let The Supreme Court Take The Right To Vote Away’ from Us
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/24/2523101/john-lewis-march-washington-going-stand-let-supreme-court-vote/


We ain't going away ...ever ... :grin:

Mister D
08-26-2013, 10:32 AM
You're being replaced. :grin:

http://memeshare.net/memes/3/2105.png

nic34
08-26-2013, 10:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4enYHpeS1ls

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) — who was the youngest speaker during the March on Washington in 1963 — delivered a passionate address about the importance of protecting voting rights at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial fifty years later, as thousands gathered to celebrate the anniversary of the historic event on Saturday.

“When I stood here 50 years ago, I said one man, one vote is the African cry. It is ours, too. it must be ours,” he began, before connecting the demands of 1963 to today’s struggles. “Almost 50 years ago, I gave a little blood on that bridge in Selma, Alabama, for the right to vote. I am not going to stand by and let the Supreme Court take the right to vote away from us!”

LEWIS: You cannot stand by. You cannot sit down. You have to stand up, speak up, speak out and get in the way. Make some noise. The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It’s the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society and we’ve got to use it. Back in 1963 we didn’t have a cellular telephone, iPad, iPod, but we used what we had to bring about a non-violent revolution. And I said to all of the young people, you must get out there and push and pull and make America what America should be for all of us. We must say to the Congress, ‘Fix the Voting Rights Act’


“So hang in there, keep the faith,” Lewis extolled. “I got arrested 40 times during the ’60s, beaten, bloodied and unconscious. I’m not tired, I’m not weary. I’m not prepared to sit down and give up. I am ready to fight and continue to fight, and you must fight.”


John Lewis At March On Washington: ‘I’m Not Going To Stand By And Let The Supreme Court Take The Right To Vote Away’ from Us
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/24/2523101/john-lewis-march-washington-going-stand-let-supreme-court-vote/


We ain't going away ...ever ... :grin:

Simply Awesome.

They have no come back on this.

BRAVO

Mister D
08-26-2013, 10:37 AM
Simply Awesome.

They have no come back on this.

BRAVO

http://blogs.suntimes.com/shinyobjects/030310gilligan.jpg

Cigar
08-26-2013, 12:15 PM
You're being replaced. :grin:

http://memeshare.net/memes/3/2105.png

... just ask any woman in your life ... if there's such a fantasy :laugh: .. aren't you the results :grin:


http://rlv.zcache.com/extinct_republican_card-p137548689776620038bh2r3_400.jpg#GOP extict 400x400

Mister D
08-26-2013, 12:20 PM
:huh:

keymanjim
08-26-2013, 12:26 PM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/normal.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/normal.jpg.html)

Agravan
08-26-2013, 01:46 PM
Ever notice how liberals love the court when the court rules in their favor? We're supposed to just shut up and take it because the Supreme Court has ruled. But when the SC makes a ruling they don't like, then it's "We're not going to stand for this!!!".
Liberals - hypocrites, one and all.

roadmaster
08-26-2013, 06:33 PM
“I got arrested 40 times during the ’60s, beaten, bloodied and unconscious. I’m not tired, I’m not weary. I’m not prepared to sit down and give up. I am ready to fight and continue to fight, and you must fight.”
If he got arrested 40 times he was doing something wrong. The black kids at my school didn't.

Captain Obvious
08-27-2013, 05:56 AM
Nobody's taking anyones right to vote away. "Look at me, I'm shitting the bed" material, nothing more.

waltky
06-28-2016, 03:22 PM
Pharmacists lose their religious rights...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_omg.gif
Supreme Court Rejects Pharmacists' Religious Rights Appeal
June 28, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from Washington state pharmacists who said they have religious objections to dispensing Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.


The justices' order leaves in place rules first adopted in 2007 following reports that some women had been denied access to emergency contraceptives that are effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex. Pharmacies must fill lawful prescriptions, but individual pharmacists with moral objections can refer patients to another pharmacist, as long as it's at the same store. Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy, sued, along with two pharmacists who said the rules required them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kristen Waggoner, the lead attorney for Stormans in the case, said Tuesday that since many pharmacists work alone, the inability to refer an emergency contraceptive prescription to another pharmacy — when other prescriptions can be referred — puts pharmacists in a position of violating their conscience. "The state needs to not make a value judgment that a religiously-motivated referral is not permissible when other referrals are," she said, saying that another lawsuit could ultimately occur if the state doesn't enforce the rules "in an even-handed manner."

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson lauded the high court's decision to not hear the case. "Patients should know that when they need medication, they won't be refused based on the personal views of a particular pharmacy owner," Ferguson added. "The appeals court ruling upheld today protects that principle." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the appeal.

Calling the court's action an "ominous sign," Alito wrote a stinging 15-page dissent for the three dissenting justices. "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern," he wrote. A trial judge twice ruled for the pharmacists in the long-running lawsuit, but was twice overturned by the federal appeals court in San Francisco. Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant. In 2006, the federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available without prescription to adults. The case is Stormans Inc. v. Wiesman, 15-862.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/supreme-court-rejects-pharmacists-religious-rights-appeal

See also:

Conservative Legal Group on SCOTUS Pharmacy Case Ruling: ‘No One Should Be Forced to Participate in the Taking of Human Life’
June 28, 2016 – Conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom expressed disappointment in Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision not to take up Stormans v. Wiesman, a case that involves rules forcing Washington state pharmacy owners and pharmacists to sell the emergency contraceptives contrary despite their religious beliefs.


“As the trial court found, the government designed its law for the ‘primary—if not sole—purpose’ of targeting religious health care providers. We are disappointed that the high court didn’t take this case and uphold the trial court’s finding,” ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. ADF is a non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith. The high court ruling leaves in place rules enacted in 2007 to address reports that some women were denied access to emergency contraceptives effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex, the Associated Press reported. According to the rules, if an individual pharmacist has moral objections to filling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, they may refer patients to another pharmacist as long as it’s at the same store.

“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life. We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles,” Waggoner said. “The state of Washington allows pharmacists to refer customers for just about any reason—except reasons of conscience. Singling out people of faith and denying them the same freedom to refer is a violation of federal law,” said Waggoner. “All 49 other states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association, the Washington Pharmacy Association, and more than 34 other pharmacy associations. Not one customer in Washington has been denied timely access to any drug due to a religious objection,” she added.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union applauded the court’s decision. “The court properly refused to take this case,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement. “When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter. “Open for business means opens for all. Refusing someone service because of who they are — whether a woman seeking birth control, a gay couple visiting a wedding catering company, or an unwed mother entering a homeless shelter — amounts to discrimination, plain and simple,” Melling said. “Religious freedom is a core American value and one that we defend, but religious freedom does not mean a free pass to impose those beliefs on others," she added.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/conservative-legal-group-scotus-pharmacy-case-ruling-no-one-should-be

Truth Detector
06-28-2016, 03:25 PM
I must have missed the part where someone's voting rights were being revoked. DERP!

Standing Wolf
06-28-2016, 03:33 PM
I must have missed the part where someone's voting rights were being revoked. DERP!

My question is, how do people even find a thread that's three years old, in order to tack an unrelated post onto it? Double-DERP.

HoneyBadger
06-28-2016, 04:06 PM
It is interesting though that this thread was resurrected. John Lewis wasn't going to "stand by and let the Supreme court take the right to vote away" but he had no problem sitting on the floor of the house to strip citizens of due process.

CreepyOldDude
06-29-2016, 11:49 AM
This is great, but what precisely does it have to do with Pets and Animals? Or is it showing up in the wrong forum because of some bug?