A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

So? You say the judge cannot follow the law and enjoy his legal rights as a citizen? And do something that is not disqualifying from the case under our legal system?

Wow, you guys really have zero respect for the law, don't you?

Please, go ahead and show how that affected the rule of law. Do you not realize the trial is April 16?

Let me get some popcorn while the Walkerites and their acolytes twist themselves into pretzels in an effort to decry "judicial activism" and institute personal smears, with their massively hypocritical history of Judge Prosser

Actually, the utter disrespect shown for the law in Wisconsin isn't funny at all. It's pathetic and sad. Face it: the voter ID law is under injunction -meaning it cannot be used in the April election - until the trial.

I have to go check Intrade, see the current odds on "recall vs perp walk" happening first for Scott Walker.

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision? Did you miss the fact that his campaign manager is a long time advisor to Kathleen Falk? If it is strictly as black and white as you say it is why did this specific judge do the injunction? and why not one who didn't have a specific obvious political agenda?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision?

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way? Sorry, no: judges do not give up their private rights as citizens when they become judges.

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th. But it's pretty apparent from the injunction decision that the law appears to be readily overturnable on broad, basic legal issues. Which has zero to do with a judges allegedly private, legal voting record.

The injunction lists the multiple legal reasons the judge feels the case will not proceed on it's merits April 16th. It is a roadmap to the opposition about what the judge will rule based upon the law.

Apparently, those in favor of the law can't come up with any legal responses to that, and are left with trying to disqualify the judge. So, get another judge. Have the case delayed even longer. The same decision will most likely be rendered. This isn't rocket science, or complicated. It's voting law, it's very clear and simple. The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disinfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.

Attacking the judge and attempting to get a different judge is certainly a valid lawyer tactic, but it's rather indicative that those wanting the law implemented have zero legal argument to support the law.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way?

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th.

Did the judge vote for one person over another in an election? No he signed a recall petition trying to overturn the decision of a prior election. What about his obvious ties to the chosen one of the unions Kathleen Falk?

[wiphan]

The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disenfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.



It was estimated that 220,000 people do not have a drivers license. 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). The constitution says that you have the right to vote, but it also states the right to bear arms. Try getting a gun without a ID.

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


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

[Riot]

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?

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.

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.

[nebrady]

Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case. He signed the recall the first day and is clearly bias to walker. Another attorney in the article said the judge should have excused himself. You tell me if that isn't being bias. What is really sad, is showing an id is not a bad thing. Every person does it everyday. I've worked at a bar, and no matter what your age you have to show a picture id to get in the bar! Its not that big of a deal and it is the right thing! I can't wait til the recall vote and walker wins by a landslide! Then all you train lovers can shut up!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by nebrady

Are you serious the judge was bias and should have excused himself from the case.

Really? The judge has issued a detailed legal preliminary injunction for all to see. What part of that legal detail is so out of expected for a judicial ruling, in keeping with current, detailed Wisconsin Voting Law, that makes one think the judge ruled weirdly?

And further, that the demonstrable non-adherence to Wisconsin Voting Law was based upon bias?

What ridiculous, non-reality based accusations.

This isn't a effing joke. These are serious accusations against a judge, his life, his work.

The laughable thing is that, for people to make those accusations, reveals that that is the way they, themselves, would probably act.

The trial is April 16th. A recusal may be asked for at that time.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?



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.



???? 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.

If there are 220,000 people that are disenfranchised by this voter ID required than doesn't current gun legislation disenfranchise that same segment then? I don't own a gun nor do I even like guns but if that is the basis for your argument the constitution has already been violated with the current gun laws. Those so called 220,000+ people that do not have an ID or can't reasonable obtain one can not legally own a gun even though the constitution provides:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I don't see where it says that we need an ID to bear arms, but yet we do.

In today's world nothing can be done without an ID. You can't buy cigarettes, cough medicine, go to a bar, drive a car, obtain a bank account, fly on a plane, etc without an ID, but you can vote for the politicians without an ID that are spending your hard earn tax dollars.

As far as voting the constitution says:

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


Couldn't you argue that you need an ID to prove that you are 18

[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.