Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[ConHog]

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.

So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?

Please read the thread and realize that I haven't been. I stated from my first post in this thread that I have no problem with this ruling.

 

[daveman]

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?

It's desperate deflection. Nothing more.

And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

If only Democrats sold beer, you wouldn't have to show ID.

 

[Father Time]

My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.

So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?

Please read the thread and realize that I haven't been. I stated from my first post in this thread that I have no problem with this ruling.

Ok.

 

[loosecannon]

The proof of the rights' hatred for the Constitution and the freedom it provides is the way they want to re-write it by adding, changing and deleting parts of the Constitution

Why does the right hate America?

showing what you don't know...

The court overruled this AZ law based on an amendment to the constitution, not the framer's text.

Like I said, the right hates the constitution and the amendments which grant us our freedoms.

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

 

[jillian]

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

i do think the court made the right decision. that doesn't mean the rightwingnuts of the roberts' court will uphold the decision.

my main objection is to the stupidity of talking about court decisions in terms of 'the will of the people'

'the will of the people' is an irrelevancy since the whole purpose of the court is to step in when the will of the majority tramples on the rights of the minority.

that said... if you read the o/p, it specifically said the problem is so infrequent as to be a non-sequitur.

so it's just fauxrage anyway.

 

[sangha]

I think you missed this one, Sarah.

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

 

[ConHog]

So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?

Please read the thread and realize that I haven't been. I stated from my first post in this thread that I have no problem with this ruling.

Ok.

Now, that being said, would you have a problem with a federal law which required ID to vote?

 

[sangha]

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

Suddenly, this wingnut is no longer concerned about voter intimidation. Quite a change from when he was all in a lather over the Black Panthers.

 

[daveman]

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

You sure are desperate to silence disagreement, aren't you? What a fragile, emotional little thing you are.

The rule is in place to prevent editing quoted posts. I didn't do that.

 

[ConHog]

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

you are mistaken. Altering quotes is forbidden. Making up a quote that sounds like something you might say is not.

 

[sangha]

showing what you don't know...

The court overruled this AZ law based on an amendment to the constitution, not the framer's text.

Like I said, the right hates the constitution and the amendments which grant us our freedoms.

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

So which parts of the Constitution do you hate?

 

[daveman]

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

you are mistaken. Altering quotes is forbidden. Making up a quote that sounds like something you might say is not.

And since he opposes requiring proof of voter citizenship, he DOES feel that way.

 

[Father Time]

Please read the thread and realize that I haven't been. I stated from my first post in this thread that I have no problem with this ruling.

Ok.

Now, that being said, would you have a problem with a federal law which required ID to vote?

Not really.

 

[jillian]

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

what on earth are you babbling about?

 

[Meister]

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

How does an illegal alien buy beer, if he has no ID? Does he need to even show one, or does he just have to say, "I'm illegal"?

 

[Meister]

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

Suddenly, this wingnut is no longer concerned about voter intimidation. Quite a change from when he was all in a lather over the Black Panthers.

How is proving one of citizenship somehow equated to voter initimidation?

 

[sangha]

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

you are mistaken. Altering quotes is forbidden. Making up a quote that sounds like something you might say is not.

In that case, I might be mistaken

 

[sangha]

You should be more careful. If I'm not mistaken, misquoting someone is grounds for being banned from USMB.

Funny how much concern you're claiming to have for the law, while completing ignoring the rules of this board.

you are mistaken. Altering quotes is forbidden. Making up a quote that sounds like something you might say is not.

And since he opposes requiring proof of voter citizenship, he DOES feel that way.

I have not stated any opinion on requiring proof of citizenship for voting. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

 

[Meister]

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

i do think the court made the right decision. that doesn't mean the rightwingnuts of the roberts' court will uphold the decision.

my main objection is to the stupidity of talking about court decisions in terms of 'the will of the people'

'the will of the people' is an irrelevancy since the whole purpose of the court is to step in when the will of the majority tramples on the rights of the minority.

that said... if you read the o/p, it specifically said the problem is so infrequent as to be a non-sequitur.

so it's just fauxrage anyway.

I can repsect what you say, Jillian. How does a state go about limiting voter fraud in regards to citizenship?

 

[loosecannon]

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

what on earth are you babbling about?

and you claim to be an attorney?

The ruling relied entirely on this amendment:

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Without that amendment the court would have had no authority over the AZ law whatsoever.

Since requiring documentation of citizenship doesn't deny or abridge anybody's right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude the Court abused this statute.

Ironically the statute does NOT provide the authority to Congress to pass such a law regarding NON citizens.