Eight[h] Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment.

No, that amendment does not apply here. It applies to the government not private actors.

The amendment has been used to prevent the death penalty in crimes not resulting in death.

#12

Corporate by-laws provide for directors meetings by phone, so they don't have to be in the same room much less the same country.

Every time scientific evidence is offered the predicate for admissibility must be laid, including general acceptance and reliability. That includes finger prints, breathalyzers, DNA, medical testing and on and on. All of it, every time.

I can tell you are not a lawyer because of your unrelenting ignorance of law, evidence procedure.

See PA. Evidence Rule 702. Pay particular attention to section (c) and the second comment.

Then f**k off, troll.

#5

May take a while to establish the test is scientifically reliable enough to be admissible in evidence. Also, at what level of measurement is presumptive impairment and who and how that is established.

Ex felons who have served their time.

That's not the question. The question is whether the amendment's use of the term "completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation" includes payment of fines, fees and restitution. As this court notes but does not decide, the answer could go either way. That question is currently before the FL Supreme Court. Assuming the term includes payment, this case makes it crystal clear that those with a genuine inability to pay cannot be denied the vote.

This preliminary injunction is far more narrow than the headline implies. It only applies to 17 named plaintiffs in 8 counties. The ruling is based on those plaintiffs' inability to pay the fines, etc because the franchise cannot be conditioned on ability to pay. Other registrars should certainly take note lest they deny the franchise to another even though the person cannot pay and risk being sued.

The court intentionally avoided the larger issue of whether Amendment 4 and the enabling legislation impermissibly require payment of the fines, etc because that issue is currently pending in the FL Supreme Court.

That said, I like the way this judge writes. It's almost as if he's talking rather than writing.

#20

Rain

#49

I remember a case of mine, in about 2005, where there were only two Texas cases that approached the obscure but controlling issue. One from the late 1800's and one from the 1950's citing the prior case. The Texas Supreme Court just ignored both of them, like they didn't exist.

So, my anecdote cancels yours. Any more side roads you wish to travel?

Under Et_al's "logic," if i have the deed and keys to my summer home but i never go there, i no longer have a summer home.
#37 | POSTED BY JOE

No, Joe, my logic says your eighty years of neglect renders your summer home useless.

Of course, you can resurrect it but sticking a key in the door and expecting usefulness is useless.

Let me know when something useful along these lines starts happening. We can talk then.

And the cheering section roars.

Then, reality is the uselessness.

Do you think a majority party in congress should be allowed to bypass due process safeguards just because they don't like the President?
#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Back to the Juice Box up 3-1.

No. I don't think anyone should be denied due process if, as and when it is due. Having followed the Lawfare link to the actual rules, I think the Buffoon is given more due process rights than any other accused before a grand jury.

#22

I'm watching the Astros. I'll read it later.

The Buffoon's civil rights are not being violated. He has no civil rights vis a vis the impeachment investigation, no different than any other accused facing a grand jury.

Do you think the Buffoon should be afforded rights no one else has?

"In other words, basic due process".

People are buying into the crap written in that letter?

The target of the grand jury investigation has no right to participate in the process. The target has no right to counsel to participate, no right to cross examine witnesses, no right to subpoena documents or witnesses, no right to present evidence. In fact, the target has no right to even know of the existence of the proceeding.

Due process kicks in at trial not before.

#2 As soon as you can prove you have been personally harmed by their "BS."

#3 This is a state court judgment there is no procedure to reach a federal court of appeals.

#30

Lookee here, Joe erected another straw man. Isn't that cute. He's such a good boy.

One day he'll learn to entertain more than thought in his head at a time, something they teach in law school.

Like, Congress has a power.

Like, Congress has not used that power in the last eighty years.

Like, that Congressional power is useless.

Hang in there, Joe.

#28

Nice straw man you erected to humor yourself. Enjoy!

#25

A power unused is no power at all. It is but an "unseemly" vestige of a long foregone era.

Robert Randall about 1795

William Duane about 1800

John Anderson about 1821

Patrick Wood about 1870

Got anything in the last 80 years or so?

"Preclearance?" Is that what she said? She's nuckin' futs, fails federalism.