Texas, Wisconsin ID Laws Blocked by Court Actions

The strict North Carolina laws have already been allowed by the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin's laws are less strict than North Carolina's, and the only reason they didn't go through is that the absentee ballots were already sent out. If the democrats don't steal the next election and repeal, then the law will probably go through for the next election.

The hispanic, Obama appointed judge in Tx made a truly asinine ruling calling the voter id a poll tax, when you can get an id for free there. He also made other arguments that were as ridiculous as anything sharpton or jackson would say. I assume the Supreme Court will at some time reverse his decision.

Yes, the ruling of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (from last week) regarding the N.C. provisions about same-day registration and wrong precinct were halted by the Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court did rule on their legality but simply stated that it was to close to the current election to enforce a change back from the new rules for this November's election.

The actual trial on the North Carolina Voter ID law is set for next summer.

http://www.wral.com/us-supreme-court-sides-with-nc-on-voting-rules/14058875/
 
It's called feudalism, the wet dream of Repubs.

I have an image of FC, Ricter, and yourself as serfs on Lucrum's plantation. :)

That is a figment of the rino imagination.

The article stated "The majority provided no explanation of its ruling"

They ruled on HALTING the implementation of the 4th court decision regarding the two provisions for the November 4th election. They did not rule on the LEGALITY of the North Carolina Voter ID law.
 
Last edited:
I have an image of FC, Ricter, and yourself as serfs on Lucrum


They ruled on HALTING the implementation of the 4th court decision regarding the two provisions for the November 4th election. They did not rule on the LEGALITY of the North Carolina Voter ID law.


They didn't say what you said they said.
PERIOD, DOUCHBAG
 
They didn't say what you said they said.
PERIOD, DOUCHBAG

Maybe you need to go read the ruling... it is available on line. Explain to me how they ruled on the legality of the provisions of North Carolina's Voter Id law... please point to the exact paragraph in the ruling summary.

Let's quote the articles - "The order stayed the appeals court’s decision pending the filing of a petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case." The case is being heard in the lower court next summer.

Here is the Supreme Court's decision for your reference - it is merely a stay.
North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina (14A358)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/14A358.pdf
 
Last edited:
This got po


Maybe you need to go read the ruling... it is available on line. Explain to me how they ruled on the legality of the provisions of North Carolina's Voter Id law... please point to the exact paragraph in the ruling summary.

I wasn't commenting on the legality of anything. I was commenting on Ricter's post.
 
I have an image of FC, Ricter, and yourself as serfs on Lucrum's plantation. :)



They ruled on HALTING the implementation of the 4th court decision regarding the two provisions for the November 4th election. They did not rule on the LEGALITY of the North Carolina Voter ID law.
Suddenly I'm recalling the movie Django Unchained. : )
 
By-4WeWCAAAZzLo.jpg
 
Back
Top