For starters, what MAGA calls "free-speech" seems to be more hatred towards others and violence-provoking speech.

As far as I can tell it is not a violation of the Constitution.

Another one that proudly demonstrates his utter ignorance of all things legal. As the Judge succinctly stated

No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists" be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere"it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less ... .

I think this judge's actions are now bordering on treason for aiding/abetting a foreign invasion of the US. Probably should throw him in Gitmo while it is determined whether his actions rise to this crime.

I think you should continue to irrefutably demonstrate your ignorance about all things law related.

just show'em that real ID?
problem?
#2 | Posted by itchyp

Yes, there is a problem with using Real ID.

The embodiment of the clash between the rule of law and I can do whatever I want. The Buffoon is a disgrace.

Texas tried that tens of thousandsen masse crap last year. They very quickly back tracked when it was found their list included numerous citizens. A more through review identified numbers in the hundreds. Less than about twenty may have voted over the years. If done carefully, it's not a problem.

Thanks, Second Amendment!

Still a dumba** about all things Constitutional.

F'in' POS Troll.

#311 | Posted by ScottS

Compare and contrast eludes you.

Not surprised. Pos trolls exhibit such.

Good boy!

I missed this - what post number?

We just need rational judges with common sense to state that requiring an ID is not a tax.

G*d D****t the abject stupidity just can't be ignored. The Supreme Court said exactly that, "requiring ID is not a tax." I posted the quote. Linked the opinion. Your dumb**s just pretends it doesn't exist. Jfc, if there were an IQ requirement for voting you'd fail.

Let's say, the Trump admin just says, "no."

The Buffoon won't say "no." He'll shuck, jive, obfuscate and play obvious silly games until the case end up in the SC again.

Bookmark this post.

I do not consider it a tax when I am required to own one to buy alcohol or fly on a plane so I would not consider it a tax when it comes to voting.

Sorry, I missed this one. So, not only are you a failed textualist you're a failed constitutionalist by comparing rights with privileges. Mucking Forons. Out.

#238 | Posted by ScottS

Jfc, my Juris Doctorate and political science degrees just exploded. I can't even imagine a more anti democratic view. Just G*d D**m. That's it, I'm out.

Is the Democrat view on gun right restrictions contradictory to their view on voter ID?

I don't do "Democrat" or "Republican." I don't do partisanship. I previously answered your question directly, they are "judicially completely different animals."

Mental capacity is not linked to IQ? Really?

In some contexts yes but generally, and under the CA elections code section you cited, no. You seem to advocate an IQ standard to vote at 110. Average IQ is 90 to low 100's. IQ affecting capacity approaches 70's and less.

Is that not a tax?

I advised you how court's define tax in context of voting, payment of money.

I'm not going to inject my gun right views into a voting rights thread beyond what I said. I'll just say that I have spent many more hundreds of hours defending gun rights and voter ID here than I even want to contemplate. That makes me a rabid Republican to many here. My abortion and other civil rights views make me a Democrat to many here. I'm neither.

As I already stated, the overreach is stating any requirement that the States place on voting is considered a 'tax'. That is what needs to be challenged in court.

You may think you stated something but it certainly was not self evident. What state imposed requirements that are not a "tax" are considered a "tax?"

Court's consider the payment of money to exercise a right a tax. That's why I opposed mandatory training and insurance obligations to own a gun. You can't tax Constitutional rights.

But the reality is that gun rights are clearly enshrined in the Bill of Rights while prohibitions on poll taxes - where every requirement is stated to be a form of a poll tax was invented from whole cloth by misuse of the 24th amendment.

So, you want to play textualism. Seems to me the text of the Twenty Fourth Amendment Section 1 is perfectly clear.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Let me ask, are you also an original meaning textualist?

If $1.50 is considered a poll tax and illegal, then the same should be applied on all the gun ownership restrictions. Like I said, I think this will finally be challenged in court and tossed because it does not follow the precedents on any other rights.

Seems you know very little about the Court and even less about law. Voting regulations and gun regulations are judicially completely different animals. Guess you haven't noticed the ruling favorable to gun rights which I wholeheartedly support.

#115

I think this will likely go to the USSC and this 'poll tax' nonsense will be tossed.

I wouldn't call it nonsense and I wouldn't be so certain.

In 2008 when the SC upheld voter ID it specifically noted that Indiana provided free ID because of that so does every state that requires ID. The absence of a fee avoided 1966 precedent that $1.50 to register is a "poll tax."

#66

It just no longer seems to me like this bill is nearly as disenfranchising as some would have us believe if I will still be able to vote with my current ID card.

Nope.

...why is that?

The potential for disenfranchising legal voters far outweighs the actual number of illegal voters.