Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Wisconsin judge issued a permanent injunction on Monday blocking the state from implementing a new law requiring voters to present identification at polling stations
Hopefully, after we re-call Walker, we will be able to get rid of all the other damage he has tried to do to our state.
The issue of states requiring voter ID was settled in 2008 when the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law that required voter ID. Yet, we see judges--even Obama's DOJ--ignoring the Supreme Court and trying to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
What's going on in this country? Are we descending into anarchy? When state judges and even the President ignore Supreme Court decisions, we are in deep dodo.
A Wisconsin judge issued a permanent injunction on Monday blocking the state from implementing a new law requiring voters to present identification at polling stations
Hopefully, after we re-call Walker, we will be able to get rid of all the other damage he has tried to do to our state.
Perfect! Allow unrestricted voting by students and union goons imported from out of state to recall a sitting governor so that the inmates can then run the asylum.
The issue of states requiring voter ID was settled in 2008 when the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law that required voter ID. Yet, we see judges--even Obama's DOJ--ignoring the Supreme Court and trying to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
What's going on in this country? Are we descending into anarchy? When state judges and even the President ignore Supreme Court decisions, we are in deep dodo.
Obama doesn't give a toss about the Constitution or Separation of Powers.
Liberals know illegals and criminals will vote for them more so than any other party. So they have to strike down these laws. They dont hold dear the right to vote legally in this country or else they would make sure that our right to vote is not easily able to be minimized due to fraud.
If you are a citizen of this country you have a RIGHT to vote. But why the hell should you not have to PROVE it? Only in liberal la la corruption land is proving who you are before voting in our elections a bad thing.
Funny, I seem to remember hearing something about Union members having to show ID when voting. Cant have fraud in Union votes now can we? We have to know for certain who dares go against the Union bosses so we can "take care of them"...
The issue of states requiring voter ID was settled in 2008 when the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law that required voter ID. Yet, we see judges--even Obama's DOJ--ignoring the Supreme Court and trying to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
What's going on in this country? Are we descending into anarchy? When state judges and even the President ignore Supreme Court decisions, we are in deep dodo.
I'm confused how a mere state judge can overrule a SCOTUS ruling maybe I'm missing something.
The DOJ can only step in with states under the Voting Rights Act so I understand the DOJ's moves. I'm baffled by this state judge's ruling. He is interjecting things that have already been settled by the SCOTUS and frankly have little to do with Voter ID.
He is the epitome of an activist judge his ruling will be overturned quite easily.
Perfect! Allow unrestricted voting by students and union goons imported from out of state to recall a sitting governor so that the inmates can then run the asylum.
There is NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of this happening in Wisconsin. In point of fact the ONLY instance of voting problem was at the counting level, not the voting level and voter ID has no impact on that issue. In point of fact our assembly is also under investigation for breaking the open meeting law in the way they did redistricting in an attempt to control election results and the redistricting they did may also soon be legally over turned.
One must wonder just how much confidence the Republicans have in their positions when they feel they must prevent the people from actually voting in order to win.
Judge's 'conflict of interest' re: voter ID law (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1553356 - broken link)
Republicans want the state judicial commission to investigate why Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan "failed to maintain the appearance of impartiality" in the voter ID case.
...
But his group has learned that prior to Flanagan issuing his ruling, the judge had signed a petition advocating for the recall of Governor Walker, "essentially making public his political opposition to Governor Walker. Now, what he should have done is recuse himself, given that this is a clear conflict of interest," Sparks suggests.
Judge's 'conflict of interest' re: voter ID law (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1553356 - broken link)
Republicans want the state judicial commission to investigate why Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan "failed to maintain the appearance of impartiality" in the voter ID case.
...
But his group has learned that prior to Flanagan issuing his ruling, the judge had signed a petition advocating for the recall of Governor Walker, "essentially making public his political opposition to Governor Walker. Now, what he should have done is recuse himself, given that this is a clear conflict of interest," Sparks suggests.
I'm confused how a mere state judge can overrule a SCOTUS ruling maybe I'm missing something.
The DOJ can only step in with states under the Voting Rights Act so I understand the DOJ's moves. I'm baffled by this state judge's ruling. He is interjecting things that have already been settled by the SCOTUS and frankly have little to do with Voter ID.
He is the epitome of an activist judge his ruling will be overturned quite easily.
Ok here is how state judges can do that. In America there are 2 sets of laws state and federal. Also each state has its own constitution. Now state constitutions cannot violate the federal constitution, but they can be different from the federal constitution. State judges work with state laws/state constitutions and federal judges work with federal laws/the federal constitution. Therefore when dealing with state law just because some state restriction on a person's ability to engage in an activity is allowed under the federal constitution doesn't mean that same restriction will be allowed under state constitutions.
Normally I figure that GOPers would understand federalism and the 10th amendment but obviously not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
