Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (729182)	7/26/2013 12:03:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

Why do you keep posting this garbage? It just makes you look like an idiot for sucking up to this MSNBC whore. You could at least TRY to post objective stuff now and then. There have been protests every Monday since March in front of the state capitol bldg in Raleigh. Poll after poll is showing a growing hate for the Rs in NC. The equivalent of what is happening in NC would be the Taliban taking over Pakistan. Rs like you would love to impose censorship so you can do your dirty work in private. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

To: i-node who wrote (729182)	7/26/2013 12:07:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Justice Department to challenge states’ voting laws By Sari Horwitz, Published: July 25 The Justice Department is preparing to take fresh legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the nation, U.S. officials said, part of a new attempt to blunt the effect of a Supreme Court ruling that the Obama administration has warned will imperil minority representation. The decision to challenge state officials marks an aggressive effort to continue policing voting issues and is likely to spark a new round of politically contentious litigation that could return consideration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to the high court. Only 28 percent say the war has been worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. “There is only a political solution,” he tells reporters during his first U.N. visit as top U.S. diplomat. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision Thursday to intervene in a Texas redistricting case follows a ruling by the court last month that invalidated a critical section of the historic legislation. The justices threw out the part of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states with a history of discrimination had to be granted Justice Department or court approval before changing their voting laws. Holder’s action was praised by civil rights groups but criticized by Republicans on Capitol Hill and in Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry said it demonstrated the Obama administration’s “utter contempt” for the U.S. Constitution. “This end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process,” Perry said in a statement. The Justice Department’s intervention in Texas will focus on those sections of the Voting Rights Act that were untouched by the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Shelby County v. Holder, a case out of Alabama, election-law experts said. “This is a big deal,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California at Irvine. “It shows that the Department of Justice is going to use whatever tools it has remaining in its arsenal to protect minority voting rights. But the issue could well end up back before the Supreme Court, perhaps even this coming term.” In the next few weeks, Holder is expected to use Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present particular types of identification to vote. As with Texas, the department also is expected to try to force certain states to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” before they can change their election laws. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to ensure the voting rights of all American citizens are protected,” Holder said in a speech Thursday at the National Urban League conference in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found.” Holder announced that the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan. Holder is asking the court to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a 10-year period because of its history of discrimination. read more........... washingtonpost.com

To: i-node who wrote (729182)	7/26/2013 1:09:39 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

ACA gets AOK from CVS By Steve Benen - Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:45 AM EDT The Obama administration is looking for allies when it comes to implementing the Affordable Care Act, and yesterday, it picked up a pretty important one. It's not a sports league or a celebrity, but it is a powerhouse retailer. CVS Caremark is joining the effort to encourage Americans to sign up for Obamacare insurance programs, company executives announced Thursday. CVS officials told POLITICO that they're planning to use pharmacies at their 7,400 North American stores as a gateway for the uninsured to learn about new coverage options -- especially subsidized insurance coverage available to low-income people on state-based insurance exchanges. Helena Foulkes, chief health care strategy and marketing officer at CVS Caremark, told Politico, "Half of people who are eligible for a subsidy don't know they're eligible." And with that in mind, CVS pharmacies intend to help customers navigate the available benefits and enroll eligible people in exchanges. When it comes to raising public awareness, this is an important step for the national system. When it comes to politics, it's a reminder of just how strange some political players can be -- Fox News' Erick Erickson said yesterday CVS Caremark's "support" for "Obamacare" means he intends to shop at Walgreens. Except, when Erickson probably doesn't know is that Walgreens recently announced a partnership with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to promote the health law, too. In fact, I'll be eager to see how the right deals with this trouble in the coming months -- because their hysterical opposition to the law may make their lives a little ... tricky. Private businesses like CVS and Walgreen want to make money, of course, and see a growing pool of customers who'll be eligible for new benefits. To that end, they want to help those customers, probably because it'll help their bottom line. For folks like Erickson, the proper response is to launch an informal boycott, which is certainly his right. But exactly how far will far-right activists go in this endeavor? Drugstores that want more customers are apparently going to make conservatives' do-not-shop-there list, but what about doctors' offices who see patients who take advantage of Affordable Care Act benefits? Or hospitals? Or private insurers? Or manufacturers of medical equipment? For Erickson and those who share his odd worldview, how far are they prepared to retreat from the nation's health care marketplace because their contempt for the new federal law has spiraled well past the point of reason?