Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
4. I object, Your Honoring ...
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 03:33 PM
Jun 2012
Although "questioning someone's citizenship" is not a trivial matter, Hinkle also said that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote.


... assuming fact, not in evidence.


'Hinkle in ruling from the bench said federal laws are designed to block states from removing eligible voters close to an election. He said they are not designed to block voters who should have never been allowed to cast ballots in the first place.


"Further, Your Honor, and recognizing the risk of a contempt order, I beg that you repeat what you have just ruled ... out loud and ask yourself whether your argument makes since. You have upheld a practice that has been shown to remove eligible voters in contradiction to federal laws, in order to prevent prevent ineligible voters that are not voting from voting? Come on ... Your Richard is showing!"

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

And hopefully election supers will continue to ignore the purge nonsense...n/t monmouth Jun 2012 #1
Scott is a weasel. lpbk2713 Jun 2012 #2
Everyone but republicans can see this is voter suppression. I just hope and pray dems southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #3
Not here in Florida: Freddie Stubbs Jun 2012 #5
Of course, the wording of the poll questions are CRITICAL! elleng Jun 2012 #7
That's what I mean. Republicans think its great idea. Dems think is voter suppression. southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #9
The difference is, Dems can point to instances of qualified voters EFerrari Jun 2012 #13
I object, Your Honoring ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #4
Appears to have assumed NO fact not in evidence. elleng Jun 2012 #6
What is the evidence that non-citizens are voting? EFerrari Jun 2012 #8
I know it is state-sponsored racism, elleng Jun 2012 #10
Maybe I don't understand. Doesn't that pre-suppose EFerrari Jun 2012 #11
And that IS ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #12
I hope that judge at least got dinner out of it. n/t EFerrari Jun 2012 #14
The CASE was brought by the Federal government: elleng Jun 2012 #16
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #24
It assumes they MAY exist, elleng Jun 2012 #15
Then that assumption is faulty and should be challenged. EFerrari Jun 2012 #17
I agree that there is no voter fraud problem in this country, elleng Jun 2012 #18
So, is the problem in the way the Feds wrote the complaint? EFerrari Jun 2012 #19
Don't know; have to check. elleng Jun 2012 #20
I appreciate that, elleng, because it never would have occurred to me. n/t EFerrari Jun 2012 #21
FUNNIEST THING, EF! elleng Jun 2012 #22
LOL! EFerrari Jun 2012 #23
We all are, prolly! elleng Jun 2012 #26
Maybe the Judge should re-read the law in question ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #25
I keep looking in my mailbox for mine. HockeyMom Jun 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»More info: Judge refuses ...»Reply #4