Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules Texas Can Enforce Voter ID Law
texas tribune ^ | 12:45 p.m. EDT October 18, 2014 | Richard Wolf, USA

Posted on 10/21/2015 12:22:24 PM PDT by Mr. K

The U.S. Supreme Court early Saturday denied a last-ditch effort to block the enforcement of Texas' controversial voter ID law in the upcoming elections.

The ruling comes two days before the start of early voting. Election Day is Nov. 4.

Six of the nine justices agreed to deny a request to vacate Tuesday’s judgment from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state could enforce the law. The opinion removes the last traces of uncertainty over whether the law — which supporters say prevents voter fraud — would be in effect for the start of early voting.

(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2014; 2016election; election2016; electionfraud; oldnews; tedcruz; texas; votefraud; voterfraud; voterid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: SoFloFreeper

Now just guess who?????


41 posted on 10/21/2015 12:49:03 PM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Sorry, I was counting Roberts...


42 posted on 10/21/2015 12:49:31 PM PDT by Alas Babylon! (As we say in the Air Force, "You know you're over the target when you start getting flak!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

.
>> “Why is this one year old article (2014) being posted now?” <<

.
To scare the poopie out of Trump supporters :o)
.


43 posted on 10/21/2015 12:49:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
I'm posting for the hearing impaired!

... and the reading impaired as well.

44 posted on 10/21/2015 12:53:15 PM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is libertye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Bump!


45 posted on 10/21/2015 12:53:47 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented with the majority, arguing that the law’s impact would be to disenfranchise “more than 600,000 registered Texas voters” due to their lack of having a photo ID that complies with the law.

Almost predictable. Karan and Sotomayer are no way qualified to be on the Court.

46 posted on 10/21/2015 12:53:51 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Please Read This Before Posting Further.

" Uhhhh.... this is OLD News, Oct 2014 Please be careful. This news isn't even relevant any more since the 5th Circuit has since negated much of the law."

47 posted on 10/21/2015 12:54:28 PM PDT by NohSpinZone (First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Kagan and Sotomayer are no way qualified to be on the Court.

Ginsberg isn't qualified to tie her own shoelaces ...

48 posted on 10/21/2015 12:54:38 PM PDT by NorthMountain ("The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

There’s been several cases where lower court lefty judges allow this crap in their courts after SCOTUS has decided that voter ID is constitutionally legal. The last one that I recall that reached the Supreme Court they turned away with no hearing or comment because they already opined in 2008.


49 posted on 10/21/2015 1:01:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Finally, a win for our side.


50 posted on 10/21/2015 1:02:16 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

Can you say LAME DUCK? :)

That is what I am thinking. Do Six Supreme Court justices now think they are beyond the grasp of the Obama regime?


51 posted on 10/21/2015 1:02:28 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

3 justices think it is wrong to have an ID

Just try to get into the USSC building without an ID.


52 posted on 10/21/2015 1:03:14 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (Rick Chollett for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I’d hazard a guess: Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan


53 posted on 10/21/2015 1:03:35 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Nope. Case law is clear that refusing to hear a case is in no way a ruling on the merits nor can it be cited as such in any legal brief.

Kinda, yes it does. It can be cited as precedent (see #2)

SCOTUS refusal to take a case has two implications:

(1) Legally, the highest lower-court decision stands. I.e., if a man is convicted in trial court, the conviction is reversed in appeals court, and SCOTUS denies cert., the appeals court decision stands and the man goes free.

(2) The decision not to grant certiorari is a legal nullity. I.e., it does not rule on the lower court's decision -- it doesn't affirm it, it certainly doesn't reverse it. It merely says that there aren't sufficient grounds to review it again, in the opinion of at least six SCOTUS justices (it only takes four to grant cert.). It therefore is not precedent except insofar as it was before SCOTUS took up the question of granting cert. -- i.e., the ruling of the high state court stands as precedent for that state; the Federal Circuit Court ruling stands as precedent in that circuit -- but neither is applicable as binding precedent (though certainly citeable as supportive precedent) anywhere else than in that state or circuit.

54 posted on 10/21/2015 1:06:05 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

“Ginsberg isn’t qualified to tie her own shoelaces ... “

While that’s certainly true, just pray that the old commie bitch stays above room temperature for another 15 months.


55 posted on 10/21/2015 1:06:48 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
The problem: 3 justices think it is wrong to have an ID. Who are they?

The same ones who think it is okay to be president without an ID?


56 posted on 10/21/2015 1:07:11 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The wise have stores of choice food and oil but a foolish man devours all he has. Proverbs 21:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
The ruling comes two days before the start of early voting. Election Day is Nov. 4.

My calendar indicates that November 3 is election day, not the 4th.

57 posted on 10/21/2015 1:07:29 PM PDT by Ron H.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This article is a year old. See 2014 date at link.


58 posted on 10/21/2015 1:07:46 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; God;s promise to Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
YES all 57 STATES.

Finally SCOTUS gets one correct.
59 posted on 10/21/2015 1:08:20 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Since 1836. ;-)


60 posted on 10/21/2015 1:09:07 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson