[WashingtonPost] Gov. Terry McAuliffe's decision to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 felons violates Virginia's constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday, dealing a major blow to the Democratic governor with implications for the November presidential race in the crucial swing state. Illegals and Felons - Democrat Base™
In a 4-to-3 decision, the court ruled that McAuliffe overstepped his clemency powers by issuing a sweeping order in April restoring rights to all ex-offenders who are no longer incarcerated or on probation or parole.
The court agreed with state Republicans who challenged McAuliffe's order, arguing that the governor can only restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis and not en masse.
"Never before have any of the prior 71 Virginia Governors issued a clemency order of any kind ‐ including pardons, reprieves, commutations, and restoration orders ‐ to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request," Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons wrote for the majority. "To be sure, no Governor of this Commonwealth, until now, has even suggested that such a power exists." "Have you heard of Arkancide? Puh-leeez"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/04/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Illegals and Felons - Democrat Base™
This is a bit unfair. There are plenty of felons in the mid and upper ranks of the Democratic party.
#4
In a 4-to-3 decision, the court ruled that McAuliffe overstepped his clemency powers by issuing a sweeping order in April restoring rights to all ex-offenders who are no longer incarcerated or on probation or parole.
Silly me! That does rather sound like something that the State Legislature should pass a law on first, what? That is, if said Legislature originally passed a law taking said voting rights away from felons, but, you see, I'm not a progressive so I think things like that...
#6
McAuliffe tried to restore felon's rights? Was he just trying to pave the road for himself in case of possible election fraud and money laundering charges/convictions?
#7
No JohnQC, this happened back in late April of 2016. McAuliffe was trying to ensure Virginia went for Hillary. He then was punched in the face by the Virginia Supreme court for trying that with 200,000 people. Then in August, he tried again with a modest pardon of 13,000. Then when the Courts wouldn't hold him in contempt, in November 6(OH MY!), he granted 60,000 convicted felons the right to vote. It's this last one I believe the ruling is about in this article.
I'm curious how many votes then would be invalidated by this ruling.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/04/2018 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Whenever I see a picture of that bastasd
No. We do not say things here that could be construed as a physical threat to American citizens. Fred puts in long hours to make this site for us, and we do not say things that will make his life more difficult.
#9
I think it shows how desperate the demoncrats are. They have no message other than we hate trump, wanna take your guns and make you dependent on us and raise your taxes.
[CNBC] The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.
The commission said Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. To CNBC a 7 to 2 verdict is "narrow". HAHAHAHAHA!!
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/04/2018 10:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Leaving, I guess, Ruth and Sonya with the progressive vote.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/04/2018 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It was Ruth and Sonya representing the progressive view.
#3
This is definitely headline of the day material. Bless all those who voted for Donald Trump last November, and all those who could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton despite loathing Mr. Trump. Bless Senator Mitch McConnell for refusing to consider Supreme Court nominations at the end of President Obama’s term, then prioritizing President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and bless President Trump for putting up the approvable Neil Gorsuch for the job. Finally, bless Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kennedy, for their votes.
#4
If I remember right, they were ruined and ended up having to close their business. Did someone set up a legitimate gofundme page or something? Maybe I'll donate something.
As for private business, AFAIAC, they don't have to cater to anyone they don't want to, and they should pay the price or reap the rewards for whatever their decisions are in that regard. Am I right? Do they have to install handicapped bathrooms even? Some businesses don't even have a public bathroom.
#6
Religious rights over Liberal Tolerance Boot on the throat. A victory for Americans. I wouldn't have any problem with making the cake, but apparently this guy did and his rights should've been respected as well as theirs. Like there's no other bakers available?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/04/2018 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
7-2 is a narrow victory? What's a slam-dunk?
It depends on the case at issue. If the progressive side wins 5-4 is a slam dunk.
#9
Sure, there are other bakers who would be willing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. But it was never about the cake. It's about the exercise power, the power to make people do things that violate their religious beliefs, the power to rub their noses in shit, the power to invalidate the First Amendment.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/04/2018 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
To CNBC a 7 to 2 verdict is "narrow". HAHAHAHAHA!!
Hey, when we signed up for Journalism School, they said there'd be no math.
Personally, I'm surprised the SC didn't call the cake a tax or some twisted thing.
#15
The baker actually did offer them a prepared wedding cake. They insisted in demanding submission. It was about one thing - power. Fortunately, unlike other countries, the written First Amendment thingy was and is a thorn in the apparatchiks seeking to drive the population into submission. SCOTUS could read the results of the last election and didn't want anymore of "its" power eroded by going against the text of the Constitution, yet. Now a "Dear John" letter to the Colorado commission about violating the constitutional civil rights of its citizenry and possible prosecutions.
#18
It's important to understand that what the rainbow crowd was hoping to win here was for SCOTUS to find a right for minority groups to expect government to enforce validation of their beliefs. It is all and only about favored minority groups being able to use the government as a club.
Now lets have some enterprising attorney go after the left coast administrator apparatchik who shut down a bakery for refusing to bake the rainbow. Sue him and his bosses and take it out of, er, their a$$es...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/04/2018 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#19
@ 11 and 17 - you are assuming, of course - that's they way CNBC intended it, and that they understood it.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/04/2018 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I find several leftïsts on the Supreme Court aligning with the right very unusual this day and age and possibly the bigger story.
Are they trying to score points with Trump hoping he picks more liberals to the bench instead of nothing but solid hard righters by compromises such as this? In 8 Trump years he could wipe them out.
His pardons are making them realize they have less power after all.
#21
CNBC wrote "narrow victory", not narrow decision.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/04/2018 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#22
His pardons are making them realize they have less power after all.
It's all about counting and stacking in this country. They were probably hoping to drive the nail in the coffin of democracy before their time at the wheel would have naturally run out.
#24
"Some said that my victory was narrow.
Says I, so's the tip of an arrow!"
From over the mantel,
"Hail, king of the ant-hill,"
Discanted the head of his sparrow.
#25
Shows that the writer learned from the communist propaganda school--
"Our victorious forces are retreating with unbroken discipline before an enemy who advancing total disorder!"
#26
the decision was based on the fact that the Colorado panel making the decision to penalize the baker was biased
the bias was obvious in the record and not contested
Anton K who wrote the 'gay marriage' decision was the one who wrote this decision and it turned on the need to respect sincere religious convictions
the phrase 'sincere...' was in the gay marriage decision also
the fact that RBG and the wise Latina voted against the baker anyway says a lot
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/04/2018 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I suspect that a broad, precedent-setting decision would only have been 5-4. To get a narrow, non-precedent setting ruling, the four lib-tards drew straws and two of the losers voted with the majority. Can't have religious freedom setting a precedent, now can we.
#28
Has bride ever borne such a heartbreak
As seeks in her his freezer a keepsake,
But after a year
Finds it barren and drear,
Thus to celebrate bleakly with beefcake?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
