A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[nebrady]

If he isn't being bias, then explain to me why in the madison paper they say the judge should know better! "He's supposed to be impartial, not actively involved in the issues that come before him." "Judges are similarly supposed to strive hard to stay and appear impartial and independent in every case they rule on. And if they can't, they're supposed to disclose any conflicts and, if warranted, recuse themselves." This is from the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. You tell me now how he isn't being bias? Check it out in todays paper. My favorite quote is there last sentence in the editorial, "Judge Flanagan should have known better." Just like you getting involved in wisconsin politics!

[dellinger63]

My concern is those 200,000 are being disenfranchised from playing cornhole as most places require an ID to get a set of bags.

[Riot]

The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.

Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.

Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

And if you had only spelled "argument" correctly during your lecture on spelling, you might have had a point

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

And if you had only spelled "argument" correctly during your lecture on spelling, you might have had a point

Got me.

Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Got me.

Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go

Guns laws have nothing to do with this. That's merely an argument for why the proposed new law was written.

What is pertinent now is Wisconsin's Voting Laws, which are very well-written and one of the most detailed and inclusive of all the fifty states, regarding outlining Wisconsin citizens freedom to vote.

Again: the judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this newly proposed law is objectively measurably restrictive to certain groups, disenfranchising them, and thus goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law regarding maintaining Wisconsin voters rights.

The only way the new law gets implemented is if that changes.

So if I were you, I would quote sections out of the PDF detail of the Judge's decision - the actual reasons why the new law does not comply with the lawful standards Wisconsin has established - and show why the judge is incorrect in interpreting the law in that specific way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

i have tried to get a lot spelled correctly, so good luck with that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i have tried to get a lot spelled correctly, so good luck with that.

Yes. Correcting other people's spelling is as important as ... well, as worrying about other people's capitalization flaws!

[nebrady]

What are you just ignoring what the paper quoted! It isn't lawyers saying hes bias, its the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. Yet you just ignore it. Your amazing, even when the answer is in front of you, you ignore the truth. The truth is the judge was BIAS and should have not heard the case. But no you go off on some other tangent. I think you know he was bias and you think ignoring it will make it go away. Your just like these recall idiots a sore loser!