Quote:
Originally Posted by wiphan
Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election?
|
So you are
maintaining the judge is not a fair and impartial judge, but is strictly political. And that judges cannot be fair and impartial due to their personal political leanings?
Wow - guess the Founding Fathers blew that one!
Can you demonstrate how that is so? Is that based upon his previous performance as a judge? Or how you act?
The trial is April 16th. The legal team can come up with arguments against what the judge has outlined in his reasoning for the injunction. Or, they can try for a different judge.
I wonder why they didn't ask for a different judge immediately, when his name was announced to hear the case? No reason?
Quote:
|
It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license.
|
Well, no. It was expert testimony that currently over 220,000 people do not currently meet the new law voting requirements, and
the important part is that disinfranchised group was overwhelmingly not representative of the voting public at large. They are specific individual different groups. That makes the law discriminatory.
Quote:
|
What was not estimated was how many people of those 220,000 are actually registered to vote or how many of those people didn't have the ability to find a way to get a state issued ID (since the government is willing to pay for the IDs for those who can't afford it).
|
???? What does that have to do with the expert testimony that the law discriminates against specific groups? That is the illegal part!
Potential disinfranchisees are not required, by law, to attempt to fulfill the law, as proof that the law is discriminatory. That's absurd <g> You are saying that the victims of the discrimination have no choice.