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.
it holds more relevance to some research postings that you copied and posted since this thread is discussing court rulings.
Actually, no. It is about a court ruling, specifically one that is likely to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit and clarify the very specific prior ruling which (oh, look at that) this court asserted provided no precedent.
Damn that real universe. Nuanced as always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Then why do you keep copying and pasting researches that have nothing to do with the thread?
Those capable of following the discussion without confusing different questions and answers don't have to ask that particular question.
There you go again, not understanding the meaning behind a public forum, thus somehow thinking this is some private conversation between you and someone else.
Your hopeless confusion has nothing to do with whether or not this is a public forum.
Of course, since you haven't a clue what that ruling was or what any of this research says you couldn't possibly realize that.
It very well might reach SCOTUS because some courts have ruled almost the direct opposite, as in the case of our voter ID law is South Carolina. Should be interesting because based on previous SCOTUS decisions with respect to voter ID, it seems they would come out on the side of approving voter ID laws as long as they offered accommodations.
"An Arkansas judge declared the state’s new voter identification law unconstitutional on Thursday since it stipulates that voters must meet an additional requirement before casting a ballot.
Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox called the law, which calls for voters to show photo identification cards, “void and unenforceable.â€
Maybe instead of working so hard to disenfranchise voters that might vote for their opposition, the GOP could work on offering some ideas that would attract those voters to their side?
Apples and oranges. One has NOTHING to do with the other.
Since it is an objective fact that it applies, you have just passed judgment on whether or not Voter ID laws are reasonable.
You make my argument for me.
No I didn't
I have stated fact.
If the law stated they had to recite what was on their ID then you might
have a point. But the mere act of producing the photo ID is
just a customary practice of everyday life.
Voter ID laws are unconstitutional according to the 24th Amendment, because they require the purchase of a photo ID, or purchase of relevent government documentation required to receive a free photo ID. That constitutes a tax.
Voter ID laws are 100% unconstitutional. They are simply unacceptable.
The funny thing is, the 24th Amendment exists because southern states used poll taxes, literacy tests, and other Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black voters.
Are we moving back in time, Republicans?
Your own citing says it best, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote"
So it IS the goverments duty to make sure ONLY citizens vote.
Actually, no. It is about a court ruling, specifically one that is likely to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit and clarify the very specific prior ruling which (oh, look at that) this court asserted provided no precedent.
Damn that real universe. Nuanced as always.
Those capable of following the discussion without confusing different questions and answers don't have to ask that particular question.
Then why do you keep copying and pasting some research which holds NOTHING to the discussion?
Your hopeless confusion has nothing to do with whether or not this is a public forum.
That type of distraction might work if you're on the playground in 4th grade, but here its not going to fly. YOU are the one that asked a question, and now you are arguing with me simply because I provided the answer..
Pulaski County brought the suit because it wasn't clear on the issue of ID for absentee ballots. The judge hearing the case decided to sit down and read through the law, and upon reading, decided the whole darn thing was unconstitutional and threw it out.
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.
