Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

[blackangst1]

The god damn Supreme Court decision this thread is about.

Try to keep up.

Where does the SCOTUS decision say they want less people to vote?

 

[brycejones]

Where does the SCOTUS decision say they want less people to vote?

Being deliberately obtuse is a lame debating technique.

 

[dank69]

But its not quite as nice as the fact you ignored the rest of what I posted. You know. About polling stations getting updated.

I didn't ignore it. It makes no sense like the rest of your gibberish. How would someone know to reregister if they don't even know they've been removed?

 

[umbrella39]

When the shoe is back on the other foot it is going to be so glorious watching it kick the shit out of these America hating Conservaterorists fucks...

 

[blackangst1]

Being deliberately obtuse is a lame debating technique.

Interesting. Not agreeing with someone's opinion is obtuse. And Im not debating anything. Just simply disagreeing with the faith leaps many people are making in this thread. Theres really nothing to debate. The SCOTUS decision is what it is.

I dont think obtuse means what you think it means 🙂

 

[blackangst1]

I didn't ignore it. It makes no sense like the rest of your gibberish. How would someone know to reregister if they don't even know they've been removed?

Google Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[brycejones]

Interesting. Not agreeing with someone's opinion is obtuse. And Im not debating anything. Just simply disagreeing with the faith leaps many people are making in this thread. Theres really nothing to debate. The SCOTUS decision is what it is.

I dont think obtuse means what you think it means 🙂

Oh you are being quite obtuse about the true intent of the law.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh you are being quite obtuse about the true intent of the law.

WTF are you blathering about? I raised two points in this thread. One, the incorrect fact that voting rights are being taken away. Having one's voting right taken away is like what happens to felons. Thats not whats happening here.
The second was for citation that "they" (meaning, the government) want less people to vote. An opinion of the law is NOT citation.

I dont see the issue here lol

 

[dank69]

Google Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Why? I already knew you didn't care about the people fucked over by this law.

 

[blackangst1]

Why? I already knew you didn't care about the people fucked over by this law.

Good Lord. Drama queen much? Do you feel this passionately about people who dont re-register when they move? I would be willing to bet that affects FAR more people than what we're talking about here (falling off the voter roll due to inactivity). Ive read statistics that 90 million people move in the US every five years.

Thankfully, more and more states are adopting same-day registration which will solve both of these issues. There are 16 states with these provisions in place currently.

Oh, and to answer your dumbass comment of why, because it applies to this discussion.

 

[K1052]

It appears somebody explained to our dumbass president what the decision means:

 

[fskimospy]

WTF are you blathering about? I raised two points in this thread. One, the incorrect fact that voting rights are being taken away. Having one's voting right taken away is like what happens to felons. Thats not whats happening here.
The second was for citation that "they" (meaning, the government) want less people to vote. An opinion of the law is NOT citation.

I dont see the issue here lol

You know as well as I do that the purpose of this law was to reduce voting.

 

[IJTSSG]

SC got this one exactly right. Don't like it, win some elections, change the laws.

Added benefit was the creation of more pearl dust.

Good job!

 

[blackangst1]

You know as well as I do that the purpose of this law was to reduce voting.

I dunno...I dont buy into that theory. The interesting thing is notices are sent out ahead of time to confirm registration before people are dropped off the rolls so its not like people shouldnt know. I guess people dont read their mail.

 

[K1052]

SC got this one exactly right. Don't like it, win some elections, change the laws.

Added benefit was the creation of more pearl dust.

Good job!

This is basically all of your posts. I mean why are you even here?

 

[fskimospy]

I dunno...I dont buy into that theory. The interesting thing is notices are sent out ahead of time to confirm registration before people are dropped off the rolls so its not like people shouldnt know. I guess people dont read their mail.

So in other words you think Republicans passed this law and furiously battled it all the way to the Supreme Court because they wanted to have cleaner voter rolls? You can’t be serious.

There is a reason why when Republicans get control of a state’s government they immediately start passing laws making it harder to be registered and to vote. They’ve even come out repeatedly and said they are doing it for partisan advantage.

Why pretend otherwise?

 

[blackangst1]

So in other words you think Republicans passed this law and furiously battled it all the way to the Supreme Court because they wanted to have cleaner voter rolls? You can’t be serious.

There is a reason why when Republicans get control of a state’s government they immediately start passing laws making it harder to be registered and to vote. They’ve even come out repeatedly and said they are doing it for partisan advantage.

Why pretend otherwise?

Wait a minute here. Youre forgetting the FEDERAL law that started all of this was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was not only written by and supported by Democrats, but signed into law by Clinton. That federal act clearly states:

Removal of Names From Voting Rolls.--(1) A State shall not
remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible
voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant
has changed residence unless the registrant--
(A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed
residence to a place outside the registrar's jurisdiction in which
the registrant is registered; or
(B)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph
(2); and
(ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary,
correct the registrar's record of the registrant's address) in an
election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and
ending on the day after the date of the second general election for
Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.
(2) A notice is described in this paragraph if it is a postage
prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on
which the registrant may state his or her current address, together with
a notice to the following effect:
(A) If the registrant did not change his or her residence, or
changed residence but remained in the registrar's jurisdiction, the
registrant should return the card not later than the time provided
for mail registration under subsection (a)(1)(B). If the card is not
returned, affirmation or confirmation of the registrant's address
may be required before the registrant is permitted to vote in a
Federal election during the period beginning on the date of the
notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general
election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the
notice, and if the registrant does not vote in an election during
that period the registrant's name will be removed from the list of
eligible voters.

But now this is the Republicans fault? Whatchu smoking man?

edit: In fact, not ONE Democrat voted against this. Not one.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait a minute here. Youre forgetting the FEDERAL law that started all of this was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was not only mostly written by and supported by Democrats, but signed into law by Clinton. That federal act clearly states:

But now this is the Republicans fault? Whatchu smoking man?

Uhmmm yes, that law actually made it much harder for states to purge their voter rolls, that’s why democrats supported it. Ohio Republicans have taken the most radically aggressive way to do this possible because their goal is to restrict voting as much as possible as I said before. This radical approach is why it ended up at SCOTUS, so of course it’s Republicans’ fault. Whose else would it be?

I mean this is all public record.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean why else do you think that law had been on the books for so long without reaching SCOTUS? Because nobody else was trying to be so super aggressive for partisan advantage.

 

[glenn1]

Wait a minute here. Youre forgetting the FEDERAL law that started all of this was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which was not only written by and supported by Democrats, but signed into law by Clinton. That federal act clearly states:



But now this is the Republicans fault? Whatchu smoking man?

They don’t care. The law is to be followed without deviation or disregarded entirely depending on what serves their preferred outcome.

 

[blackangst1]

Uhmmm yes, that law actually made it much harder for states to purge their voter rolls, that’s why democrats supported it. Ohio Republicans have taken the most radically aggressive way to do this possible because their goal is to restrict voting as much as possible as I said before. This radical approach is why it ended up at SCOTUS, so of course it’s Republicans’ fault. Whose else would it be?

I mean this is all public record.

Dude. Seriously. The federal law explicitly says a voter can be removed from rolls if they havent voted in 2 elections, and have not responded to notices. Exactly what the Ohio case is about, and what the Democrats supported. Dont know if you saw my edit, but not ONE Democrat voted against this.

Stop revising history.

 

[glenn1]

I mean why else do you think that law had been on the books for so long without reaching SCOTUS? Because nobody else was trying to be so super aggressive for partisan advantage.

That’s an excuse which a 2nd grader would make. “I didn’t *really* mean what I said, you should instead interpret it the way I would want you to interpret it now that will benefit me most.”

Admit the Dems wrote a shitty law that led to consequences you don’t like and thus want to change the law to get the result you want since SCOTUS didn’t bail you out.

 

[sao123]

Here's how you can tell that (many of) the government(s) of the US are corrupt.

They want the least amount of people to vote as possible.

Full stop.

Actually, you know they are corrupt when they pay bounties to Chartered Organizations who register illegal aliens to vote: "CaDem"

You know as well as I do that the purpose of this law was to reduce voting by Dead or Relocated individuals.

You missed the rest of your sentence.

Uhmmm yes, that law actually made it much harder for states to purge their voter rolls, that’s why democrats supported it. Ohio Republicans have taken the most radically aggressive way to do this possible because their goal is to restrict voting as much as possible as I said before. This radical approach is why it ended up at SCOTUS, so of course it’s Republicans’ fault. Whose else would it be?

I mean this is all public record.

You meant the law which made it mandatory to purge the voter roll?
Voting is restricted... to legal citizens. Not Aliens. Not Dead people. And not for people to vote twice in 2 separate states. ALL of which has been proven true to have happened. Every single illegal vote waters down every other legal vote.

Illegal votes are equally as bad as voter suppression. A single instance of either one is a failure of democracy. We need a federally mandated ID, and a voting privilege tied to it.

 

[fskimospy]

Dude. Seriously. The federal law explicitly says a voter can be removed from rolls if they havent voted in 2 elections, and have not responded to notices. Exactly what the Ohio case is about, and what the Democrats supported. Dont know if you saw my edit, but not ONE Democrat voted against this.

Stop revising history.

Dude you are losing it, the exact reason it came before the court is that Ohio’s interpretation is really extreme. I mean I’m not aware of literally anyone other than you arguing this.

Edit: we both agree that a significant goal of the Republican Party is to suppress voting, right? At least want to be sure we are at least living on the same planet.

 

[fskimospy]

That’s an excuse which a 2nd grader would make. “I didn’t *really* mean what I said, you should instead interpret it the way I would want you to interpret it now that will benefit me most.”

Admit the Dems wrote a shitty law that led to consequences you don’t like and thus want to change the law to get the result you want since SCOTUS didn’t bail you out.

Nah, the law is just fine, the conservative majority just decided to wordsmith the protections of it out of existence.