Judge sides with ACLU in voter registration fight, orders Kobach to go to school

cjOnlinec.om ^ | 06/18/2018 | Sherman Smith

[aimhigh]

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson on Monday ruled a Kansas law that requires new voters to prove citizenship is unconstitutional and ordered Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to return to school as punishment for repeated violations of court rules.

Her 118-page ruling sides with the American Civil Liberties Union in a two-year legal battle over the law’s burden and effect on elections. She provided a damning assessment of Kobach’s witnesses, calling their evidence flawed, invalid, biased, irrelevant, unreliable and untrustworthy.

[Skywise]

The ruling is nonsensical. If the, so-called, judge is claiming that proving citizenship is too much of a burden to infringing civil rights then requiring a background check to purchase a gun is just as much, if not more a violation of infringing civil rights.

If the judge is claiming that there’s no need for a law because there’s no provable instance of the crime cocuring - that’s facetious on its face. Might as well say there’s no need for a law against murder because no one’s been killed in the county this year.

Worse - you MUST PROVE RESIDENCY to vote which is tantamount to citizenship. Where’s the excessive burden?

I demand the judge go back to school to learn basic logic skills.

[lee martell]

Can Kobach appeal this ‘judges’ goofy decision?

[alexandriagreen]

Hopefully they appeal and this goes up to the Supreme Court if need be

[pepsionice]

Then she won’t mind allowing the same list of registered voters (with potential illegals) be jurors in trials. Watch how quick that gets knocked down.

[a fool in paradise]

So is it unconstitutional to require proof of citizenship to receive welfare? To appear on a jury?

If the non-citizen can vote then why is it still illegal for non-citizens to donate money to campaigns?

[Pollster1]

Step 1 is new federal legislation to fix this. Step 2 is for the US Senate to streamline judicial confirmations so that we can fill the courts with judges who believe in the rule of law.

[Spacetrucker]

Something about needing watered with the blood of Patriots from time to time.

[mewzilla]

WTH don’t we just issue every citizen a passport at birth, at no out of pocket cost to the citizen, update it periodically at no out of pocket cost, and require voters to bring their dang passport with them to the polls.

Freaking probkem solved.

[cashless]

Roll over Kansas. Roll over. Good boy. Now fetch Kansas, fetch. Good boy. Now lay down and have your state laws subject to the whim of an activist judge, Kansas. Lay down. Good boy.

Until states meet in convention and amend the constitution to elect judges based on party, we will continue to be assaulted by overt and covert Progressive Socialists who think “ for the people, by the people” is just a quaint quote of another old dead guy.

[Robert DeLong]

"Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased as appointed "for life"). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash, and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment

In English law, a writ of scire facias (Latin, meaning literally "make known") was a writ founded upon some judicial record directing the sheriff to make the record known to a specified party, and requiring the defendant to show cause why the party bringing the writ should not be able to cite that record in his own interest, or why, in the case of letters patent and grants, the patent or grant should not be annulled and vacated. In the United States, the writ has been abolished under federal law but may still be available in some state legal systems.

The actual writ of scire facias has been suspended in the Federal district courts by Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the rule still allows for granting relief formerly available through scire facias by prosecuting a civil action.

SOURCE

[bgill]

Hey, Kim and Vlad should have the right to vote in US elections.

[kiryandil]

Look!

A federal judge-president who has a hemp deficiency!

[kiryandil]

The ruling is nonsensical.

It's not a ruling - it's a "Feelz".

[kiryandil]

Hey, Kim and Vlad should have the right to vote in US elections.

The federal judge-presidents had best be careful of Russians voting in the next election...

Wolf Russian steel cases...

[FLT-bird]

She needs to be overruled - with prejudice. The USSC needs to step up and issue a ruling here.

[centurion316]

I recently went to the Kansas DMV to renew my drivers license. I went on the day that my license expired (hadn’t noticed that it was expiring. Knowing about the RealID Law, I grabbed my birth certificate because I knew that it was required for RealID. RealID is the Federal Law to improve airline security. Without RealID, you can’t board an airplane. To get that logo on your driver’s license, you must present your birth certificate or passport (unexpired). I grabbed a photocopy certificate, not the original. I didn’t get my RealID license, rather a generic license not eligible for TSA. I have to go back to the DMV with the right documentation to get my RealID.

This is the same requirement for voting registration, identical. No one is challenging the RealID Federal requirements and you can bet that recent immigrants certainly have a RealID for those frequent trips back to the old country. This is part of the Democrat scheme to undermine the integrity of our elections.

[Georgia Girl 2]

This one is likely headed for SCOTUS.

[gdzla]

The dims have a system in place to that promises government handouts to those who vote for them.

Now that voters do not have to show proof of citizenship to vote what is to stop the dims to have the people of poor countries to show up just for a day or two to vote for dims to ensure the continuation of foreign aid?

Imagine fleets of buses from Mexico filled with democrat voters waving Mexican flags showing up to vote.

Democrats will congratulate themselves and brag of their ability to control the influx of immigrants when they show all these buses returning to Mexico at the end of the day.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article aimhigh. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Patriots are reminded that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified that, regardless of the 14th Amendment which the judge has referenced, citizenship doesn't automatically guarantee the right to vote.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

Next, note that the feds are limited to protecting voting rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, evidenced by the voting rights amendments.

• 15th Amendment:

  "Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

  Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”

• 19th Amendment:

  "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."

• 24th Amendment:

  "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

  Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]".

• 26th Amendment:

  Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

  Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."

But since the states haven’t also constitutionally prohibited themselves from requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, the federal judge is unconstitutionally interfering with state sovereignty on this voting issue imo, unthinkingly unconstitutionally expanding the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers by doing so.

In fact, this institutionally indoctrinated judge is not only legislating from the bench on this voting issue imo, thus helping career lawmakers to keep their voting records clean, but is breaching the Founding States' division of federal and state powers, stealing 10th Amendment-protected state powers to do so.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Patriots... and TYRANTS. Preferably, more the latter than the former.