Libs, why do you always have to cheat?

[STODR]

@tnt

it was shown that there were many citizens who are eligible to vote in the cache they wiped out.

Can you link to that?

[tnt]

@STODR

@tnt

it was shown that there were many citizens who are eligible to vote in the cache they wiped out.

Can you link to that?

Supreme Court allows Virginia to remove suspected non-citizens from voter...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked an order by a federal judge that would have required Virginia to return more than 1,600 people to the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles found that since early August the state had canceled the registration of more than 1,600 voters – at least some of whom were U.S. citizens eligible to vote – under a program intended to remove suspected noncitizens from the voting rolls.

[STODR]

Thanks

[Guilds]

@Samm

So do you think the law was passed so that non-citizens would have an opportunity to be able to vote?

No. It was to ensure that eligible voters were removed, had time to remedy the mistake.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@Guilds

@gooddad409

SC just allowed Virginia to remove them from the rolls.

Yup…SCOTUS allowing Virginia to break the law. In other words, cheating.

Removing non-citizens from the voter registration rolls is not cheating, it’s crime prevention.

Nullifying federal law is legislating from the bench.

That’s the job of the SCOTUS … to nullify bad law.

[Guilds]

@Samm

That’s the job of the SCOTUS … to nullify bad law.

Did they strike the law down? Is there a decision with comments?
This is similar to their 2000 BS decision on the election…handing it to Bush.
Also a one time gift to pubs.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@Guilds

A law was passed in 1994 (or so) that limited the purging/cleaning up of voter rolls close to an election, which is 90 days. The corrupt SCOTUS crapped on that law…to help their #1 client.

So do you think the law was passed so that non-citizens would have an opportunity to be able to vote?

No. It was passed to prevent citizens from losing their registration too close to election day.

it was shown that there were many citizens who are eligible to vote in the cache they wiped out.

And it was also shown that non-citizens who are ineligible to vote, were being protected by this law. The intent of the law and the effect of the law are two different things. The SCOTUS remedied that error.

[Samm]

@tnt

@STODR

@tnt

it was shown that there were many citizens who are eligible to vote in the cache they wiped out.

Can you link to that?

Supreme Court allows Virginia to remove suspected non-citizens from voter rolls - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked an order by a federal judge that would have required Virginia to return more than 1,600 people to the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles found that since early August the state had canceled the registration of more than 1,600 voters – at least some of whom were U.S. citizens eligible to vote – under a program intended to remove suspected noncitizens from the voting rolls.

That (the full explanation in the link) all sounds perfectly rational to me. Where is the “activism”?

[tnt]

I’ve heard “legislating from the bench” decried here and on the radio for decades. Most memorably for the ACA.

I guess it’s cool now!

[Samm]

@Guilds

@Samm

So do you think the law was passed so that non-citizens would have an opportunity to be able to vote?

No. It was to ensure that eligible voters were removed, had time to remedy the mistake.

And it also gives ineligible voters a 90-day window in which to register which in turn would allow them to vote illegally.

[tnt]

He began the purge on the very day that they ban on purges went into effect by law. All he had to do was start it earlier.

And per the law they could still have purged individuals. They just could do systemic purges.

[Samm]

@tnt

He began the purge on the very day that they ban on purges went into effect by law. All he had to do was start it earlier.

And per the law they could still have purged individuals. They just could do systemic purges.

You are right. But that in no way has anything to do with the fact that ineligible voters were on the rolls. The SCOTUS ruling fixed that.

[tnt]

By legislating from the bench.

[Samm]

@tnt

By legislating from the bench.

I repeat. When the law results in unconstitutional actions, it’s their job to nullify it. Hopefully, when Congress addresses it, they will fix the errors.

[WuWei]

Locking down the country.
Closing down businesses.
Shooting at people on their porches.
Immigration checkpoints 100 miles from the border.
Jailing business owners for hiring people you let into the country.
Demanding ID in a country with no ID requirement.
Taking fruits of labor to give to people who didn’t earn it.
Using public schools to produce illiterate drones to pay taxes.
Putting people in prison for lying to cops and government officials.
Bowing to 9 unelected lawyers in bathrobes. Especially when they don’t have to tell us “why.”
Requiring permission to exercise rights.
Financing foreign wars.
“Forgiving” college debt.
Taxing every single dollar multiple times.

Shall I continue?

[WuWei]

It’s my issue. If you can put them on, you can take them off.

[WuWei]

@Guilds

The corrupt SCOTUS

Oh how things change.

[WuWei]

Final Arbiters!

[WuWei]

Non-issue. Statistical zero. Wouldn’t change the election.

[WuWei]

@Guilds

This is similar to their 2000 BS decision on the election…handing it to Bush.

Rejecting a free and fair election? Tsk, tsk.