More Abject Nonsense

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is no general Constitutional right to vote, so how can removing the ability of felons to vote be unconstitutional?

Interestingly, felons also lose the right to possess firearms, which IS a constitutional right, but we're not hearing too many complaints about that one from the judicial peanut gallery, eh?

Federal judge knocks down Florida's voting ban for ex-felons

 

[Moonglow]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

 

[miketx]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

You ever notice how most of the hard core regressives here always use deflection to try and sabotage anything they even remotely disagree with? Word play, lol.

 

[Moonglow]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

 

[Moonglow]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

You ever notice how most of the hard core regressives here always use deflection to try and sabotage anything they even remotely disagree with? Word play, lol.

Notice how low brow ignorant fucks do not even mention the topic to deflect from the none deflection...

 

[miketx]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

You ever notice how most of the hard core regressives here always use deflection to try and sabotage anything they even remotely disagree with? Word play, lol.

Notice how low brow ignorant fucks do not even mention the topic to deflect from the none deflection...

And then they always attack the persons intelligence. What right is there to vote?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

 

[Moonglow]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

Yes there is. Have you never heard of the 24th amendment and the 1965 voting rights act? Along with the equal protection act in the 14th amendment?

Then there is state laws over the issue..

 

[miketx]

Fake news.

 

[Moonglow]

Fake news.

Fake existence...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

Yes there is. Have you never heard of the 24th amendment and the 1965 voting rights act? Along with the equal protection act in the 14th amendment?

Yes. They restrict the reasons that government may deny any right to vote. They do not confer a right to vote.

 

[bullwinkle]

Ever tired reading the article?

Walker said in his ruling that the automatic ban is legal, but added the process can’t be arbitrary, or swayed by partisan politics. He noted for example that Scott and the Cabinet restored voting rights to a white man who had voted illegally but told Scott that he had voted for him. Walker also pointed out that others who acknowledged voting illegally — but were black — had their applications turned down.

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

Yes there is. Have you never heard of the 24th amendment and the 1965 voting rights act? Along with the equal protection act in the 14th amendment?

Yes. They restrict the reasons that government may deny any right to vote. They do not confer a right to vote.

Billy, if government can restrict the right to vote, is it unreasonable to believe the right is assumed. It is not written that if I buy a used vehicle it is assumed to be 'as is', but if I cannot prove a scam, it is 'caveat emptor'. If you can restrict a right..it is there, a right. No?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Irrelevant. The question is in the first place one of constitutionality, not process. The judge based his ruling on non-existent constitutionality, ergo, the ruling has no legal basis.

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

Yes there is. Have you never heard of the 24th amendment and the 1965 voting rights act? Along with the equal protection act in the 14th amendment?

Yes. They restrict the reasons that government may deny any right to vote. They do not confer a right to vote.

Billy, if government can restrict the right to vote, is it unreasonable to believe the right is assumed. It is not written that if I buy a used vehicle it is assumed to be 'as is', but if I cannot prove a scam, it is 'caveat emptor'. If you can restrict a right..it is there, a right. No?

A constitutionally mandated right? No. One must exist to be considered extant.

Again, the judge ruled on the constitutionality of a non-existent Constitutional right.

 

[Moonglow]

It's irrelevant in your head, but you are not sitting on the bench...

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long — that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

Again, there is no general right to vote, so the court is ruling in favor of a right that simply does not constitutionally exist.

Yes there is. Have you never heard of the 24th amendment and the 1965 voting rights act? Along with the equal protection act in the 14th amendment?

Yes. They restrict the reasons that government may deny any right to vote. They do not confer a right to vote.

Billy, if government can restrict the right to vote, is it unreasonable to believe the right is assumed. It is not written that if I buy a used vehicle it is assumed to be 'as is', but if I cannot prove a scam, it is 'caveat emptor'. If you can restrict a right..it is there, a right. No?

A constitutionally mandated right? No. One must exist to be considered extant.

Again, the judge ruled on the constitutionality of a non-existent Constitutional right.

The Constitutional right she is extolling is from a practice of discrimination in restoring voting rights....Hence the 24th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution apply...