|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-07-2012, 04:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#2
03-07-2012, 04:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disenfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.
It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license. What was not estimated was how many people of those 220,000 are actually registered to vote or how many of those people didn't have the ability to find a way to get a state issued ID (since the government is willing to pay for the IDs for those who can't afford it). The constitution says that you have the right to vote, but it also states the right to bear arms. Try getting a gun without a ID. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
|
|
#3
03-07-2012, 04:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wow - guess the Founding Fathers blew that one! Can you demonstrate how that is so? Is that based upon his previous performance as a judge? Or how you act? The trial is April 16th. The legal team can come up with arguments against what the judge has outlined in his reasoning for the injunction. Or, they can try for a different judge. I wonder why they didn't ask for a different judge immediately, when his name was announced to hear the case? No reason? Quote:
Quote:
Potential disinfranchisees are not required, by law, to attempt to fulfill the law, as proof that the law is discriminatory. That's absurd <g> You are saying that the victims of the discrimination have no choice.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
03-07-2012, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Are you serious the judge was bias!
Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case. He signed the recall the first day and is clearly bias to walker. Another attorney in the article said the judge should have excused himself. You tell me if that isn't being bias. What is really sad, is showing an id is not a bad thing. Every person does it everyday. I've worked at a bar, and no matter what your age you have to show a picture id to get in the bar! Its not that big of a deal and it is the right thing! I can't wait til the recall vote and walker wins by a landslide! Then all you train lovers can shut up!
|
|
#5
03-07-2012, 06:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And further, that the demonstrable non-adherence to Wisconsin Voting Law was based upon bias? What ridiculous, non-reality based accusations. This isn't a effing joke. These are serious accusations against a judge, his life, his work. The laughable thing is that, for people to make those accusations, reveals that that is the way they, themselves, would probably act. The trial is April 16th. A recusal may be asked for at that time.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#6
03-08-2012, 08:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed I don't see where it says that we need an ID to bear arms, but yet we do. In today's world nothing can be done without an ID. You can't buy cigarettes, cough medicine, go to a bar, drive a car, obtain a bank account, fly on a plane, etc without an ID, but you can vote for the politicians without an ID that are spending your hard earn tax dollars. As far as voting the constitution says: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Couldn't you argue that you need an ID to prove that you are 18
|
|
#7
03-08-2012, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Editorial in madison paper saying judge should have known better!
If he isn't being bias, then explain to me why in the madison paper they say the judge should know better! "He's supposed to be impartial, not actively involved in the issues that come before him." "Judges are similarly supposed to strive hard to stay and appear impartial and independent in every case they rule on. And if they can't, they're supposed to disclose any conflicts and, if warranted, recuse themselves." This is from the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. You tell me now how he isn't being bias? Check it out in todays paper. My favorite quote is there last sentence in the editorial, "Judge Flanagan should have known better." Just like you getting involved in wisconsin politics!
|
|
#8
03-08-2012, 10:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My concern is those 200,000 are being disenfranchised from playing cornhole as most places require an ID to get a set of bags.
|
|
#9
03-08-2012, 12:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.
Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#10
03-08-2012, 01:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it
|
Hybrid Mode
