I don't agree with the push to remove Justice Department Voting Section Chief, John Tanner. What I understood him to say was that, since minority voters' life expectancy is less than that of whites, their voting rights are disproportionately less affected than those of elderly whites. Since black people die first, who cares if they can vote after they're dead? He has the right to say it, and as long as he discharges his duties, he should be able to speak. That is what "free speech" means to me.

If Tanner is to be removed, it should be for something he has done, rather than something he has said. For instance, if his insistence on voter identification cards was illegal or unconstitutional years ago, why has it taken until now (when the forces of political correctness squawk) for anyone to call for his ouster? I do not think the people who now attack Tanner are correct in their approach, and rushing to pillory someone for his opinion is the hallmark of a closed society, not one where there can be a free exchange of ideas. Inflammatory and unfair ideas are the hallmark of a democracy, in my opinion.

I call your attention to an interesting and paradoxical set of recent circumstance: it was at a John Kerry speech that a guy was tasered. Kerry did not jump off the stage to stand between the speaker and the taser. Kerry did not say, "If you wish to arrest him, you'll have to arrest me, also." Instead, he stood at the lectern and asked the storm troopers to play nicely. They did not listen.

And Bill Maher recently had a dissenter / heckler thrown out of his auditorium. Bill does not feel it appropriate for someone who disagrees with him to interrupt his act, which consists of pretending to care about free speech. At least the Republicans are open about their disdain for free speech. I think we should hear all the vile and hidden thoughts so that we can have a sound basis for forming opinions and judging the character of our would-be leaders.

I disagree with the previous comment. When a public offical makes a statement about policy which he is supposed to enforce/regulate that does not constitute "Free Speech". My understanding of free speech was always that your right to free speech ends where another persons rights begin. In this case, his statement was regarding African Americans right to vote under certain circumstances. How does he account for those who unfortunately don't die as soon as he's planned as a defense to this insane policy? Is it okay for them to be stripped of their rihgts because they lived too long for his taste? I think not.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines a sterotype as: A too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.”

The fact is that black people do not "die first" the same as they are not in jail or on welfare. Stereotypes lead to prejudice and prejudice leads to racism. If we have public officials making legislative decisions based on stereotypes rather than our hallowed constitution, they should be reprimanded and/or replaced.

The material question regarding Tanner's comments is not freedom of speech. It is whether or not he was acting in his official capacity as the voting section chief of the Department of Justice?

If Tanner was acting in his official capacity as the chief or was appearing and speaking while using his title, then there is a great likelihood that his words will be considered as representative of his agency. As an agent of the Department of Justice voting issues he has a duty to represent the agency fairly and accurately.

If his statements are in fact different then that of the agency than this could be considered a breach of his duty owed to the organization..It is the duty owed to the department of justice that he violated...it is on this grounds, not his speech itself that he could be fired.

As an interesting comparison, recall the events that occurred last February regarding Charles Scully Stimson who was representing detainee right. He went on a talk show and requested that businesses not solicit firms that represented detainees. This statement was in direct violation of his duty to work to protect detainee rights. Not only was scully forced to resign as a result he was also brought up on charges of professional misconduct in the California State Bar.

The interesting parallel is that very similar facts are present in this scenario. The speaker who is charged with the responsibility of protecting voters' rights was making statements against those to whom he owed a duty of representation. I also wouldn't be surprised if Tanner was a lawyer as well.

Tanner is probably a lawyer as well

There is no way this guy can seem even-handed in his duties if he publicly makes statements like this. All of these rules that have been added to the process must be only for people of color. I have registered to vote in several new precincts because I have often moved. Not once has anyone questioned me or my identification. Of course I am white and that no doubt explains a lot with this crew in the Executive part of our government now.

i will not vote for obama without hillary