#91

I acknowledge the disparity. I question the reasons. To my knowledge there are studies that identify many. Race is but one.

Back to Colin County, I'm just guessing but I suspect 35 is low for straight up murder. I would expect life w/possible parole.

I'm not seeing the hard race questions. I'm seeing the wtf taught this kid he could occupy a sporting opponent's space and refuse to leave when asked hard question. Being a -------- ain't self defense.

#14 Absolute BS. Anybody stab anybody in Colin County Texas, you're going to jail. I think 35 is harsh. I could see the sudden passion max 20 but not the sudden passion finding. This wasn't sudden passion. It was f**k you I do what I want and you can't stop me.

Congrats to the Knicks. As a Texan I wanted a different result but Knicks did it, Congrats.

That said, last month my youngest son was married in SA. We stayed at a property on Lake Medina designed to be waterfront. The ATV trails busted that. Yet I learned something I didn't know, SA is in the hill country! The backroad was about 7 miles of left curve, right curve, 30mph, 20mph, 40mph. A blast.

Yeah well, patting yourself on the back about your voting history hardly addresses a statement about "harassment, hassled or discouraged" from voting. In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

I don't know without knowing the basis for the DOJ's opinion.

#10 | Posted by jpw

Their motive is not a basis. What is the legal rationale according to the article I can't read?

#3 | Posted by catdog

I've been registered and have voted in every federal and pert near every local election since 1972. That includes a small, a medium and the largest county (3 different precincts) in Texas. I've never waited more than about 20 minutes to vote nor have I ever been harassed, hassled or otherwise felt anyone was discouraging me from voting. Nor have I ever witnessed such against another voter.

Damn Democracy Docket, and any other website, demanding my email to view their content. However, contrary to the headline a statute governs list maintenance and the time period for removals. So, wtf is the basis for DOJ's position?

The 90-Day Quiet Period Before Federal Elections

The NVRA limits when States can conduct a general list maintenance program. Under Section 8(c)(2), States must complete any program that systematically removes the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters no later than 90 days before a primary election or general election for federal office. In other words, once an election for federal office is less than 90 days away, processing and removals based on systematic list maintenance must cease. And, if a State's federal primary election occurs less than 90 days before a federal general election, the State must complete any systematic-removal program based on change of address for the federal election cycle no later than 90 days prior to the federal primary election: no further systemic activity may take place between the primary and general elections.

This 90-day deadline applies to State list maintenance verification activities such as general mailings and door-to-door canvasses. This deadline also applies to list maintenance programs based on third-party challenges derived from any large, computerized data-matching process. However, the 90-day deadline does not preclude removal of a registrant's name at the request of that registrant, removal due to the death of the registrant, or removal due to a criminal conviction or mental incapacity of the registrant as provided by State law, nor does the deadline preclude the correction of a registrant's information. 52 U.S.C. 20507(c)(2)(B).

@78

Your post took up more than a page. Thus I just close the tab.

#11 What? I guess I'm dense, clueless, etc .. .

I don't think I've ever voted for Cornyn except possibly as a TSC justice. In this runoff I'll vote for Cornyn, Paxton is a criminal sleaze. In the general I'll vote for anyone but Cornyn or Paxton.

I paid $3.85 (card) a couple days ago at 1960 and Kenswick. I passed $3.79 (cash) as well as $4+ (card).

Not as bad as $4.50+ diesel several years back.

Biden pardoned his entire family.

A "core constitutional" power of the presidency that holds absolute immunity to him in all capacities.

I'm really not seeing a problem with this one assuming the Buffoon follows traditional protocol. A story I read is the current helicopter model has been phased out, some time ago. The replacement model's exhaust burns the grass so only the old model lands on the White House grounds. Thus a need rather than want. A helipad should be a relatively inexpensive project absent Buffoon tinkering.

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears people often do something similar with the Constitution.

I can agree with that.

Regarding ICE specifically, sometimes judicial warrants are required and sometimes they aren't, depending on the situation and the laws involved.

I can also agree with that until you hit every day Fourth Amendment stuff which is what this Buffoon stupid is about.

Where we diverge is your fundamental naive ignorance of Fourth Amendment doctrine. Regarding the topic, ICE, administrative and judicial warrants, any cop with "probable cause" can arrest anyone in any place where the cop has a right or permission to be. Period end of sentence. The problem with ICE administrative warrants, and this administrations policy, is it blatantly violates "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It does not take legal training to discern the difference between "public and and permitted" and private "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that require a judicial warrant. The Buffoon's policy is just ignore the law and do what I want.

Your naivete supports it.

So, a political scientist lawyer that has never practiced but teaches opines the sky is falling and littles run around like their heads have been cut off. (btw the meme is real, the body really does run wild)

Rather than explain the basis of his opinion he offers conclusions without substantial analysis. Weak from a supposed notable professor.

In any event, this political scientist lawyer that has practiced for a little over 40 years thinks the professor is full of s**t. I have previously explained why, regarding each of the cases he writes about, many times.

#8

870