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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
To: SoFloFreeper
41
posted on
10/21/2015 12:49:03 PM PDT
by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower)
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!")
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)
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)
To: Mr. K
45
posted on
10/21/2015 12:53:47 PM PDT
by
smokingfrog
( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
To: Mr. K
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented with the majority, arguing that the laws 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
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)
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")
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.
To: Mr. K
Finally, a win for our side.
50
posted on
10/21/2015 1:02:16 PM PDT
by
fhayek
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?
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!)
To: SoFloFreeper
I’d hazard a guess: Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
To: jospehm20
60
posted on
10/21/2015 1:09:07 PM PDT
by
Jedidah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson