Vermin would have come to his senses eventually then claimed a typo and we'd get free peonies instead. They're easier to ship.
Advertisement
by Jerzylvania » Sun May 24, 2020 12:23 pm
by Cisairse » Sun May 24, 2020 1:50 pm
by South Odreria 2 » Sun May 24, 2020 1:52 pm
by Cisairse » Sun May 24, 2020 1:54 pm
by New haven america » Sun May 24, 2020 1:57 pm
by Shrillland » Sun May 24, 2020 2:26 pm
by Aureumterra » Sun May 24, 2020 2:36 pm
by Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio » Sun May 24, 2020 3:26 pm
Sundiata wrote:Honestly, I can't vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump in good conscience.
I don't feel adequately represented by either of the two parties and desire serious change to our economy and way of life. We shouldn't have homeless people, the opioid epidemic, regular school shootings, violence. Something drastic needs to be done in the face of all of these disturbing issues. I'm also not a fan of our wars in recent history which occured without the permission of Congress.
by San Lumen » Sun May 24, 2020 4:21 pm
by Zurkerx » Sun May 24, 2020 5:06 pm
by San Lumen » Sun May 24, 2020 5:09 pm
Zurkerx wrote:A federal judge decisively rules Florida's ex-felons can’t be denied the right to vote. Some context here:
Back in 2018, Florida voted for Amendment 4, which restored the right (and help reverse some Jim Crow Laws) to vote to nearly all felons (excluding murderers and sex crimes) who completed “all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” However, these "terms" were never defined. Thus, Republicans, under the guidance of current Governor DeSantis, passed a law defining these terms, taking a hard-line stance for felons: court fees, fines and restitution associated with a case. This denied many felons the right to vote and it made it hard (almost impossible) for these felons to pay these fees, especially when the State failed to tell ex-felons how much they owed. The judge cited the 24th Amendment as his reasoning and found there was no discrimination despite the plaintiffs arguing that African Americans were disproportionally effected:
“The Twenty-Fourth Amendment precludes Florida from conditioning voting in federal elections on payment of these fees and costs,” wrote Hinkle, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, referring to the constitutional amendment that bans poll taxes.
Hinkle did not find, however, that the law intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, as the plaintiffs had argued, because of the disproportionate number of African Americans among the state’s population of felons.
Hinkle’s order requires the state to tell felons whether they are eligible to vote and what they owe. It also requires the state to allow any felon to register if they are not given an answer within 21 days. No one will face perjury charges for registering and voting through this process, he ordered.
This has led to the judge to question a possible partisan motivate as well:
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not show that race “was a motivating factor” in the law. Neither was gender, he ruled.
During the trial, Judge Hinkle did agree with lawyers for the state when they said that there was no evidence to show that legislators intended to cause a racial disparity when they adopted the fee payback requirement. But the judge also noted there was nonetheless a clear “racial impact,” because so many Florida felons are black or Latino.
The judge during the trial had pressed Mohammad O. Jazil, a lawyer for the Florida secretary of state, the official who oversees elections, about possible partisan motives.
“Why is it that all the Republicans voted ‘yes’ and all the Democrats voted ‘no’?” Judge Hinkle said. “That is not a coincidence. It would be stunning if somebody told me that they did not realize that African-Americans tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.”
The nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimates that as many 1.5 million felons previously barred from voting would be able to do so in this crucial battleground state if the judge overturned the law made by Republicans; only 50,000 ex-felons had been able to register before the judge overturned this law. Suffice to say, there will be a mass movement to get people registered to vote and given a majority are either Latino or Black, that could be devastating to Republicans (and possibly could have led to a different election results in 2018).
by Zurkerx » Sun May 24, 2020 6:36 pm
by The Andromeda Island Group » Sun May 24, 2020 6:50 pm
Zurkerx wrote:A federal judge decisively rules Florida's ex-felons can’t be denied the right to vote. Some context here:
Back in 2018, Florida voted for Amendment 4, which restored the right (and help reverse some Jim Crow Laws) to vote to nearly all felons (excluding murderers and sex crimes) who completed “all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” However, these "terms" were never defined. Thus, Republicans, under the guidance of current Governor DeSantis, passed a law defining these terms, taking a hard-line stance for felons: court fees, fines and restitution associated with a case. This denied many felons the right to vote and it made it hard (almost impossible) for these felons to pay these fees, especially when the State failed to tell ex-felons how much they owed. The judge cited the 24th Amendment as his reasoning and found there was no discrimination despite the plaintiffs arguing that African Americans were disproportionally effected:
“The Twenty-Fourth Amendment precludes Florida from conditioning voting in federal elections on payment of these fees and costs,” wrote Hinkle, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, referring to the constitutional amendment that bans poll taxes.
Hinkle did not find, however, that the law intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, as the plaintiffs had argued, because of the disproportionate number of African Americans among the state’s population of felons.
Hinkle’s order requires the state to tell felons whether they are eligible to vote and what they owe. It also requires the state to allow any felon to register if they are not given an answer within 21 days. No one will face perjury charges for registering and voting through this process, he ordered.
This has led to the judge to question a possible partisan motivate as well:
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not show that race “was a motivating factor” in the law. Neither was gender, he ruled.
During the trial, Judge Hinkle did agree with lawyers for the state when they said that there was no evidence to show that legislators intended to cause a racial disparity when they adopted the fee payback requirement. But the judge also noted there was nonetheless a clear “racial impact,” because so many Florida felons are black or Latino.
The judge during the trial had pressed Mohammad O. Jazil, a lawyer for the Florida secretary of state, the official who oversees elections, about possible partisan motives.
“Why is it that all the Republicans voted ‘yes’ and all the Democrats voted ‘no’?” Judge Hinkle said. “That is not a coincidence. It would be stunning if somebody told me that they did not realize that African-Americans tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.”
The nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimates that as many 1.5 million felons previously barred from voting would be able to do so in this crucial battleground state if the judge overturned the law made by Republicans; only 50,000 ex-felons had been able to register before the judge overturned this law. Suffice to say, there will be a mass movement to get people registered to vote and given a majority are either Latino or Black, that could be devastating to Republicans (and possibly could have led to a different election results in 2018).
by Aureumterra » Sun May 24, 2020 6:55 pm
by Cisairse » Sun May 24, 2020 6:56 pm
Zurkerx wrote:A federal judge decisively rules Florida's ex-felons can’t be denied the right to vote. Some context here:
Back in 2018, Florida voted for Amendment 4, which restored the right (and help reverse some Jim Crow Laws) to vote to nearly all felons (excluding murderers and sex crimes) who completed “all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” However, these "terms" were never defined. Thus, Republicans, under the guidance of current Governor DeSantis, passed a law defining these terms, taking a hard-line stance for felons: court fees, fines and restitution associated with a case. This denied many felons the right to vote and it made it hard (almost impossible) for these felons to pay these fees, especially when the State failed to tell ex-felons how much they owed. The judge cited the 24th Amendment as his reasoning and found there was no discrimination despite the plaintiffs arguing that African Americans were disproportionally effected:
“The Twenty-Fourth Amendment precludes Florida from conditioning voting in federal elections on payment of these fees and costs,” wrote Hinkle, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, referring to the constitutional amendment that bans poll taxes.
Hinkle did not find, however, that the law intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, as the plaintiffs had argued, because of the disproportionate number of African Americans among the state’s population of felons.
Hinkle’s order requires the state to tell felons whether they are eligible to vote and what they owe. It also requires the state to allow any felon to register if they are not given an answer within 21 days. No one will face perjury charges for registering and voting through this process, he ordered.
This has led to the judge to question a possible partisan motivate as well:
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not show that race “was a motivating factor” in the law. Neither was gender, he ruled.
During the trial, Judge Hinkle did agree with lawyers for the state when they said that there was no evidence to show that legislators intended to cause a racial disparity when they adopted the fee payback requirement. But the judge also noted there was nonetheless a clear “racial impact,” because so many Florida felons are black or Latino.
The judge during the trial had pressed Mohammad O. Jazil, a lawyer for the Florida secretary of state, the official who oversees elections, about possible partisan motives.
“Why is it that all the Republicans voted ‘yes’ and all the Democrats voted ‘no’?” Judge Hinkle said. “That is not a coincidence. It would be stunning if somebody told me that they did not realize that African-Americans tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.”
The nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimates that as many 1.5 million felons previously barred from voting would be able to do so in this crucial battleground state if the judge overturned the law made by Republicans; only 50,000 ex-felons had been able to register before the judge overturned this law. Suffice to say, there will be a mass movement to get people registered to vote and given a majority are either Latino or Black, that could be devastating to Republicans (and possibly could have led to a different election results in 2018).
by Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana » Sun May 24, 2020 7:00 pm
Zurkerx wrote:The Presidency is about a lot more than tweeting from your golf cart.
~Biden
Shots fired.
by Cisairse » Sun May 24, 2020 7:01 pm
Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:Zurkerx wrote:The Presidency is about a lot more than tweeting from your golf cart.
~Biden
Shots fired.
Joe Biden DESTROYS Trump like civilians in warzones under Bush and Obama!
by Gormwood » Sun May 24, 2020 7:04 pm
Zurkerx wrote:The Presidency is about a lot more than tweeting from your golf cart.
~Biden
Shots fired.
by Valrifell » Sun May 24, 2020 7:24 pm
Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:Zurkerx wrote:The Presidency is about a lot more than tweeting from your golf cart.
~Biden
Shots fired.
Joe Biden DESTROYS Trump like civilians in warzones under Bush and Obama!
by South Odreria 2 » Sun May 24, 2020 7:46 pm
Valrifell wrote:Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:Joe Biden DESTROYS Trump like civilians in warzones under Bush and Obama!
We get it, you're so enlightened you can't take a smidge of brevity and have to remind us that every single US politician is a war criminal. That's a fact, but it doesn't make you fun.
by Northern Davincia » Sun May 24, 2020 7:55 pm
The Andromeda Island Group wrote:Zurkerx wrote:A federal judge decisively rules Florida's ex-felons can’t be denied the right to vote. Some context here:
Back in 2018, Florida voted for Amendment 4, which restored the right (and help reverse some Jim Crow Laws) to vote to nearly all felons (excluding murderers and sex crimes) who completed “all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” However, these "terms" were never defined. Thus, Republicans, under the guidance of current Governor DeSantis, passed a law defining these terms, taking a hard-line stance for felons: court fees, fines and restitution associated with a case. This denied many felons the right to vote and it made it hard (almost impossible) for these felons to pay these fees, especially when the State failed to tell ex-felons how much they owed. The judge cited the 24th Amendment as his reasoning and found there was no discrimination despite the plaintiffs arguing that African Americans were disproportionally effected:
“The Twenty-Fourth Amendment precludes Florida from conditioning voting in federal elections on payment of these fees and costs,” wrote Hinkle, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, referring to the constitutional amendment that bans poll taxes.
Hinkle did not find, however, that the law intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, as the plaintiffs had argued, because of the disproportionate number of African Americans among the state’s population of felons.
Hinkle’s order requires the state to tell felons whether they are eligible to vote and what they owe. It also requires the state to allow any felon to register if they are not given an answer within 21 days. No one will face perjury charges for registering and voting through this process, he ordered.
This has led to the judge to question a possible partisan motivate as well:
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not show that race “was a motivating factor” in the law. Neither was gender, he ruled.
During the trial, Judge Hinkle did agree with lawyers for the state when they said that there was no evidence to show that legislators intended to cause a racial disparity when they adopted the fee payback requirement. But the judge also noted there was nonetheless a clear “racial impact,” because so many Florida felons are black or Latino.
The judge during the trial had pressed Mohammad O. Jazil, a lawyer for the Florida secretary of state, the official who oversees elections, about possible partisan motives.
“Why is it that all the Republicans voted ‘yes’ and all the Democrats voted ‘no’?” Judge Hinkle said. “That is not a coincidence. It would be stunning if somebody told me that they did not realize that African-Americans tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.”
The nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimates that as many 1.5 million felons previously barred from voting would be able to do so in this crucial battleground state if the judge overturned the law made by Republicans; only 50,000 ex-felons had been able to register before the judge overturned this law. Suffice to say, there will be a mass movement to get people registered to vote and given a majority are either Latino or Black, that could be devastating to Republicans (and possibly could have led to a different election results in 2018).
It's oh so telling that the party of so-called Christian conservatives don't believe that extending forgiveness for sins applies when it's to their partisan disadvantage at the ballot box.
The fact that the franchise was restored to those who paid their debt to society is evidence that the United States of America being a truly Christian nation, in so far as how the people there treat their fellow man.
I doubt that Jesus would care much about who those people would likely help elect in November. His people shouldn't care so much either.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
Users browsing this forum: Allhome, Angsussia, Bombadil, Borkmaster, DutchFormosa, Eieryn, Fractalnavel, Kewelsburg, Kurgao, Might Delete Later, Namante, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Ocianic states, Orcuo, Ostroeuropa, Outer Armatonisdaristan, Rubicon Democratic States, Ruszian, Sycozet Productions Incorporated, Tyramon, Urine Town, Valrifell, Valyxias, Vassenor, Zantalio
