It wasn't thrown out, they just disregarded the request for (proper legal term escapes me) an emergency stoppage of election certification. It is still on the docket and will most likely get referenced from the Texas case.
largely owed to accepting the stronger case of Texas vs the swing states.
This is absolutely not true. The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions like that. The PA case just didn't have any merit, so it was thrown out as far as I see.
I rather look something up, then to accept the answer of a random on a forum that the SCOTUS already accepted the Texas case. They didn't even have a hearing yet on it. It can be thrown out like the PA case.
yeah, how about fuck em? Too many people get to vote as it is. Voting is a responsibility, not a fucking fashion statement. Christ, there are efforts to decrease the voting age to 16 because we all know how those morons would vote, the same way I would when I was 16, like an young, unwise, inexperienced, idiot.
I mean say what you want about it, there was a time in history where there were restrictions on voting, and there were reasons for those restrictions. At one point in time you had to own property in order to vote, and that is one of the reasons why women did not have the vote, the deeds were not in their names.
Age restrictions make sense, I would say the voting age should increased, but I am partial to the argument that men that can join the army and fight in a war at least ought to have the right to vote. I don't think prisoners should vote, I don't think ex-convicts should vote, but I see the need for being specific here.
You're probably right to be concerned about convictions for bogus crimes disenfranchising the vote among a targeted group, we all see how left wing some of the courts are, both in the US and in Canada. Perhaps loss of the vote should be dependent on the crime?
I'm not keeping up with all these lawsuits, but did any of them get any further? Seems like they all die in the first round.
I think so, SCOTUS is seeming to accept the lawsuits and have them continue further. I'll keep you posted.
Didn't SCOTUS just throw out a case yesterday?
It wasn't thrown out, they just disregarded the request for (proper legal term escapes me) an emergency stoppage of election certification. It is still on the docket and will most likely get referenced from the Texas case.
This is absolutely not true. The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions like that. The PA case just didn't have any merit, so it was thrown out as far as I see.
Also, it didn't accept the Texas case yet.
I rather look something up, then to accept the answer of a random on a forum that the SCOTUS already accepted the Texas case. They didn't even have a hearing yet on it. It can be thrown out like the PA case.
Oh no, god forbid a former felon be allowed to vote! They must forever be a wage slave to the state!
People who also served their time.
Why even let them out if you want to hand them a life sentence?
yeah, how about fuck em? Too many people get to vote as it is. Voting is a responsibility, not a fucking fashion statement. Christ, there are efforts to decrease the voting age to 16 because we all know how those morons would vote, the same way I would when I was 16, like an young, unwise, inexperienced, idiot.
"What are things a Fascist would say?"
I'll take Butthurt Conservatives for $500, Alex
I mean say what you want about it, there was a time in history where there were restrictions on voting, and there were reasons for those restrictions. At one point in time you had to own property in order to vote, and that is one of the reasons why women did not have the vote, the deeds were not in their names.
Age restrictions make sense, I would say the voting age should increased, but I am partial to the argument that men that can join the army and fight in a war at least ought to have the right to vote. I don't think prisoners should vote, I don't think ex-convicts should vote, but I see the need for being specific here.
You're probably right to be concerned about convictions for bogus crimes disenfranchising the vote among a targeted group, we all see how left wing some of the courts are, both in the US and in Canada. Perhaps loss of the vote should be dependent on the crime?
Do you not see how dystopic this is?
What if the Dems didn't want Trump supporters voting in the next election? Just charge them with a crime!