blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Haha so I'm not stupid, instead I'm a liar. That's depressingly common on this board - 'you disagree with me therefore you must be lying'. I don't think I've questioned your motives so I don't see why you would do that for me. As to why you keep bringing up that Democrats wrote the law we are talking about Ohio's implementation, which is Republican written. There's no point in ever mentioning that Democrats wrote the federal law again as it is not relevant to anyone's argument here.
The issue that Breyer raises that the majority opinion is unable to answer is that federal law clearly prohibits removing registration for a failure to vote. Considering that is literally the only reason someone is targeted for potential removal that either 1) violates federal law or 2) means that protection in federal law is effectively meaningless.
Republicans will fight against this tooth and nail.
No no no. I dont think youre a liar. I think you, along with the dissenting judges, interprate the law different than the majority (and me).
Quotes taken from here
The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law.
“The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress,”
The Court also said that the system is, legally, reasonable. “Ohio’s process cannot be unreasonable because it uses the change-of-residence evidence that Congress said it could: the failure to send back a notice coupled with the failure to vote for the requisite period. Ohio’s process is accordingly lawful,” the Court found.
So it goes back to what Alito said: Breyer is interpreting it wrong. *shrug*
As far as the larger voting picture, Im in the middle, as Ive previously explained. Ive never claimed voter fraud is a big deal (its not). With that said, with less strict rules in place, the potential is certainly there. I dont think a person should just be able to show up and say hey there Im John Doe...then vote. On the other hand, what many Republicans want to is far too extreme. There IS a middle ground here. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, moderation is non existent on both sides.
