Judge upholds tough Pa. voter ID law

[g5000]

A Republican judge refuses to halt a law for which he did not admit to any merits of the law, and which even the proponents of the law say there is no in person fraud to warrant such a law. They just want one for...no reason. Just because. It has nothing to do with keeping certain people from voting. No, sir. We want it because...well, we have no explanation, really.

Gee, there's a surprise.

The ruling will be appealed. The state Supreme Court is made of three Democratic judges, and four Republican judges. Oops. I mean three Republican judges. There were four, but one of them has been suspended and is fighting criminal corruption charges.

Update: Pa. high court wants review of voter ID access

Instead of a 3-3 vote along party lines, the vote was 4-2. So some "RINO" defected, I guess.

Pennsylvania's highest court on Tuesday told a lower court judge to stop a tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect in this year's presidential election if he finds voters cannot get easy access to ID cards or if he thinks voters will be disenfranchised.

The 4-2 decision by the state Supreme Court sends the case back to a Commonwealth Court judge who initially rejected a request to stop the divisive law from going forward. The high court asked the judge, Robert Simpson, for his opinion by Oct. 2.

What a weasel decision. They are asking the same Republican judge who refused to halt the law in the first place to review the law and halt it if he thinks it will disenfranchise anyone.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion this Republican judge will reach! Will it be different from the first time he decided, you think?



.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A Republican judge refuses to halt a law for which he did not admit to any merits of the law, and which even the proponents of the law say there is no in person fraud to warrant such a law. They just want one for...no reason. Just because. It has nothing to do with keeping certain people from voting. No, sir. We want it because...well, we have no explanation, really.

Gee, there's a surprise.

The ruling will be appealed. The state Supreme Court is made of three Democratic judges, and four Republican judges. Oops. I mean three Republican judges. There were four, but one of them has been suspended and is fighting criminal corruption charges.

Update: Pa. high court wants review of voter ID access

Instead of a 3-3 vote along party lines, the vote was 4-2. So some "RINO" defected, I guess.

Pennsylvania's highest court on Tuesday told a lower court judge to stop a tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect in this year's presidential election if he finds voters cannot get easy access to ID cards or if he thinks voters will be disenfranchised.

The 4-2 decision by the state Supreme Court sends the case back to a Commonwealth Court judge who initially rejected a request to stop the divisive law from going forward. The high court asked the judge, Robert Simpson, for his opinion by Oct. 2.

What a weasel decision. They are asking the same Republican judge who refused to halt the law in the first place to review the law and halt it if he thinks it will disenfranchise anyone.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion this Republican judge will reach! Will it be different from the first time he decided, you think?



.

It's "weasel" to you because it didn't go the way you wanted.
Newsflash, voter ID laws disenfranchise NO ONE except people too fucking lazy to go and get a FREE ID....
This is unbelievable. Just to live, we require ID for just about everything.
Voting should be no different.

 

[Salt Jones]

A Republican judge refuses to halt a law for which he did not admit to any merits of the law, and which even the proponents of the law say there is no in person fraud to warrant such a law. They just want one for...no reason. Just because. It has nothing to do with keeping certain people from voting. No, sir. We want it because...well, we have no explanation, really.

Gee, there's a surprise.

The ruling will be appealed. The state Supreme Court is made of three Democratic judges, and four Republican judges. Oops. I mean three Republican judges. There were four, but one of them has been suspended and is fighting criminal corruption charges.

Update: Pa. high court wants review of voter ID access

Instead of a 3-3 vote along party lines, the vote was 4-2. So some "RINO" defected, I guess.

Pennsylvania's highest court on Tuesday told a lower court judge to stop a tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect in this year's presidential election if he finds voters cannot get easy access to ID cards or if he thinks voters will be disenfranchised.

The 4-2 decision by the state Supreme Court sends the case back to a Commonwealth Court judge who initially rejected a request to stop the divisive law from going forward. The high court asked the judge, Robert Simpson, for his opinion by Oct. 2.

What a weasel decision. They are asking the same Republican judge who refused to halt the law in the first place to review the law and halt it if he thinks it will disenfranchise anyone.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion this Republican judge will reach! Will it be different from the first time he decided, you think?



.

It's "weasel" to you because it didn't go the way you wanted.
Newsflash, voter ID laws disenfranchise NO ONE except people too fucking lazy to go and get a FREE ID....
This is unbelievable. Just to live, we require ID for just about everything.
Voting should be no different.

So you are for a national ID run by the Feds?

 

[g5000]

Absolutely. Everyone should be required to have a RFID implanted US Department of State passport to vote. If you can't afford one, it should be free. If you are against this idea, you don't believe voter fraud exists and you want illegal Mexicans to elect Obama. I have to produce an RFID implanted US Department of State passport to travel, therefore I should have to produce an RFID implanted US Department of State passport to vote!

I don't understand why anyone would be against an additional layer of government bureaucracy between them and their Constitutional rights. Srsly.

Demand Voter RFID today or you are a liberal weiner.



.

 

[ducks102]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

 

[ducks102]

this is the same thing the white trash did in civil rights movement with voter tax and random tests.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Absolutely. Everyone should be required to have a RFID implanted US Department of State passport to vote. If you can't afford one, it should be free. If you are against this idea, you don't believe voter fraud exists and you want illegal Mexicans to elect Obama. I have to produce an RFID implanted US Department of State passport to travel, therefore I should have to produce an RFID implanted US Department of State passport to vote!

I don't understand why anyone would be against an additional layer of government bureaucracy between them and their Constitutional rights. Srsly.

Demand Voter RFID today or you are a liberal weiner.

Hell, in that case, you may as well argue that a permit be required to vote. I mean, you need one to drive, right?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

October 2, 2012

Teabaggers Get
SUPER-SMACKED !!​

"A state Commonwealth Court judge on Tuesday determined that the requirement that Pennsylvania voters show a valid photo ID will not be in place for the Nov. 6 presidential election, a victory for opponents of the law.

Here are the major provisions of Judge Robert Simpson’s 16-page ruling."

. . . . . .


​

 

[g5000]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

 

[Liability]

The judge referenced in the OP was reversed by the PA Supremes. They sent the case BACK to him WITH "instructions." HE dutifully deferred to the higher Court.

It is not the judge who screwed up.

It was a deliberate hatchet job by the libs on the PA Supreme Court.

However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

-- Judge halts Pennsylvania’s tough new voter ID law - Nation - The Boston Globe

EDIT:

I am walking back the third sentence of my post. I went back and read J. Simpson's actual ruling which adhered to some instructions from the Supreme Court of PA.

Based on the not exactly irrational instructions of the Supreme Court of PA, which in turn paid attention to the legislatively described INTENTIONS of the law for liberal access to voting, and based on the testimony which J. Simpson had to consider as well as some concessions from both sides, the latest ruling by J. Simpson is pretty fair and reasonable.

Thus, I think I was wrong. Not only is it still true that J. Simpson made a reasonable ruling, frankly, I kind of get why the Supreme Court of PA ruled as it did. And that doesn't require that the Supreme Court of PA justices be labeled as either libs or conservatives.

 

[Newby]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

The man was forced, bribed, or threatened.

 

[g5000]

The instructions the judge was given were to make a determination whether or not the law was so restrictive that it would disenfranchise voters. If that turned out to be the case, then he was to halt it.

They did not order him to halt it. They ordered him to make a determination himself.

He did, it does, he made the call.

That takes integrity and courage to reverse himself. He could easily have decided it does not disenfranchise voters and uphold the law. But he proved to be an honest man.

Finally, some sanity. From a Republican judge!

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

The man was forced, bribed, or threatened.

. . . . . .


​

 

[Newby]

The instructions the judge was given was to make a determination whether or not the law was so restrictive that it would disenfranchise voters. If that turned out to be the case, then he was to halt it.

They did not order him to halt it. They ordered him to make a determination himself.

He did, it does, he made the call.

That takes integrity and courage to reverse himself. He could easily have decided it does not disenfranchise voters and uphold the law. But he proved to be an honest man.

.

Right, cause he completely looked over that determination the first time around. Politics in play, ya gotta love it. And that's why it's going to start next year, right? Once the presidential election is over.

 

[g5000]

anyone wanna make a bet this judge was white

Guess what?

The judge in the OP just reversed himself!

Judge halts Pennsylvania's tough new voter ID law

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

It's the same guy.

As you can see from a few posts back I was not optimistic he would.

The man has integrity.


.

The man was forced, bribed, or threatened.

Evidence?

.

 

[g5000]

The instructions the judge was given was to make a determination whether or not the law was so restrictive that it would disenfranchise voters. If that turned out to be the case, then he was to halt it.

They did not order him to halt it. They ordered him to make a determination himself.

He did, it does, he made the call.

That takes integrity and courage to reverse himself. He could easily have decided it does not disenfranchise voters and uphold the law. But he proved to be an honest man.

.

Right, cause he completely looked over that determination the first time around. Politics in play, ya gotta love it. And that's why it's going to start next year, right? Once the presidential election is over.

Since the higher court sent it back to him, people have been coming foward who have testified as to the effects it has been having on their ability to vote, specifically their ability to get an approved ID.

I know people like you who don't follow the case like to just make shit up as you go, and feed into your biases with imaginary threats and whatnot. That's easier than actually looking into what REALLY happened.

But you let us know the second you have that evidence he was bullied or threatened.

He's a Republican judge. What, you think the GOP told him to overturn Voter ID? Really?

You believe Republican judges are wimps who cave to threats? Really?




.

 

[Newby]

The instructions the judge was given was to make a determination whether or not the law was so restrictive that it would disenfranchise voters. If that turned out to be the case, then he was to halt it.

They did not order him to halt it. They ordered him to make a determination himself.

He did, it does, he made the call.

That takes integrity and courage to reverse himself. He could easily have decided it does not disenfranchise voters and uphold the law. But he proved to be an honest man.

.

Right, cause he completely looked over that determination the first time around. Politics in play, ya gotta love it. And that's why it's going to start next year, right? Once the presidential election is over.

Since the higher court sent it back to him, people have been coming foward who have testified as to the effects it has on their ability to vote.

I know people like you who don't follow the case like to just make shit up as you go, and feed into your biases with imaginary threats and whatnot. That's easier than actually looking into what REALLY happened.

.

I do follow it, I live here, your assumptions make you look stupid. Most of those testimonies are bullshit and bogus, all a show put on. Why are they disenfranchised this year, but not next? The law has been in effect long enough for everyone who needed ID to get it, it's a horse and pony show, but by all means, celebrate fraud, it's what you guys are best at.

 

[g5000]

Right, cause he completely looked over that determination the first time around. Politics in play, ya gotta love it. And that's why it's going to start next year, right? Once the presidential election is over.

Since the higher court sent it back to him, people have been coming foward who have testified as to the effects it has on their ability to vote.

I know people like you who don't follow the case like to just make shit up as you go, and feed into your biases with imaginary threats and whatnot. That's easier than actually looking into what REALLY happened.

.

I do follow it, I live here, your assumptions make you look stupid. Most of those testimonies are bullshit and bogus, all a show put on. Why are they disenfranchised this year, but not next? The law has been in effect long enough for everyone who needed ID to get it, it's a horse and pony show, but by all means, celebrate fraud, it's what you guys are best at.

By "bullshit and bogus", you mean your feelings are hurt that Voter ID was proven to be an unjustifiable hurdle to citizen voters. You were walking around in a haze believing everyone had the necessary approved ID and any evidence to the contrary could not penetrate that haze.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Right, cause he completely looked over that determination the first time around. Politics in play, ya gotta love it. And that's why it's going to start next year, right? Once the presidential election is over.

Since the higher court sent it back to him, people have been coming foward who have testified as to the effects it has on their ability to vote.

I know people like you who don't follow the case like to just make shit up as you go, and feed into your biases with imaginary threats and whatnot. That's easier than actually looking into what REALLY happened.

.

I do follow it, I live here.....

....And, I live in
NORTHERN CENTRAL PA!!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[g5000]

I guess this Republican judge who found PA's Voter ID law to be too restrictive will now join the swelling ranks of RINOs, eh? Disown and smear. "Oh, he's a wimp who was bullied into reversing himself."


.