Biden Judge forces VA to put 1600 self attested non citizens back on the voter rolls

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Side stepping your attempt at diversion, what is your explanation for the purpose of the NVRA other than to maximize the chance for voter fraud?
The statute says that Individualized removals may still occur during the 90-day period because it will lead to a smaller chance for mistakes. However: "For programs that systematically remove voters . . . , Congress decided to be more cautious. At most times during the election cycle, the benefits of systematic programs outweigh the costs because eligible voters who are incorrectly removed have enough time to rectify any errors. In the final days before an election, however, the calculus changes. Eligible voters removed days or weeks before Election Day will likely not be able to correct the State’s errors in time to vote. This is why the 90 Day Provision strikes a careful balance: It permits systematic removal programs at any time except for the 90 days before an election because that is when the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters is the greatest."

That's the Congressional rationale. And it is not to maximize the chances of voter fraud, but rather to minimize the chances of disenfranchising legitimate voters.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,600
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The statute says that Individualized removals may still occur during the 90-day period because it will lead to a smaller chance for mistakes.
I KNEW you were going to dodge the question by invoking legalism again.

Putting aside the validity of claiming the law will lead to smaller chances for mistakes; in statistics, there are 2 types of errors. Type I and Type II.
  1. Type I is when you accept something as good that is bad.
  2. Type 2 is when you reject something as bad when it is good.
Your response merely shrouded in legalese the validity of my point. When things matter, rational people tend to be biased toward avoiding Type I errors. For instance, you're going to have a heart transplant. How sure do you want to be that there is a match; 50% or 99.9%? You are on a spaceship headed for Mars. How sure do you want to be that there will not be a catastrophic failure; 50% or 99.9%? It's not merely the magnitude of error but the consequences or direction of error.

Our corrupt politicians are biased in embracing Type I errors, aka maximizing the chance of voter fraud.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I KNEW you were going to dodge the question by invoking legalism again.

Putting aside the validity of claiming the law will lead to smaller chances for mistakes; in statistics, there are 2 types of errors. Type I and Type II.
  1. Type I is when you accept something as good that is bad.
  2. Type 2 is when you reject something as bad when it is good.
Your response merely shrouded in legalese the validity of my point. When things matter, rational people tend to be biased toward avoiding Type I errors. For instance, you're going to have a heart transplant. How sure do you want to be that there is a match; 50% or 99.9%? You are on a spaceship headed for Mars. How sure do you want to be that there will not be a catastrophic failure; 50% or 99.9%? It's not merely the magnitude of error but the consequences or direction of error.

Our corrupt politicians are biased in embracing Type I errors, aka maximizing the chance of voter fraud.
What possible reason would the 1993 Congress have had to maximize the chance of voter fraud? And if it was trying to maximize that result, why allow the statutory exceptions to the 90-day ban?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,600
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What possible reason would the 1993 Congress have had to maximize the chance of voter fraud? And if it was trying to maximize that result, why allow the statutory exceptions to the 90-day ban?
You are so obtuse, you are actually denying decades of concerted effort by TPTB to destroy America by constant invasion and opposing Voter ID. You really have to start with this observable fact. Motive is second.

Start with reality. Evil exists. Then go to psychology or ethics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are so obtuse, you are actually denying decades of concerted effort by TPTB to destroy America by constant invasion and opposing Voter ID. You really have to start with this observable fact. Motive is second.

Start with reality. Evil exists. Then go to psychology or ethics.
I'd like evidence, not speculation, on the motives of the 103rd Congress in enacting the NVRA. Got any "observable fact" to show me on that?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,600
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'd like evidence, not speculation, on the motives of the 103rd Congress in enacting the NVRA. Got any "observable fact" to show me on that?
I already did multiple times! The letter of the law AND decades of invasion and opposing Voter ID is overwhelming evidence.

Let me put it another way, if you were to craft legislation to maximize voter fraud, might you make it illegal to remove ineligible voters AND oppose Voter ID?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I already did multiple times! The letter of the law AND decades of invasion and opposing Voter ID is overwhelming evidence.
The issue in the OP is the NVRA's restrictions on REMOVAL of registered voters, NOT criteria for their registration in the first place. The Virginia Court, and the Fourth Circuit, had nothing to say about the latter. Nor does the statute prohibit states from insisting on proof of citizenship as a prerequisite to voter registration. See Section 5(c)(2)(B) and (C).

If I were to craft legislation to maximize voter fraud, I would never add those sections!
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,600
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The issue in the OP is the NVRA's restrictions on REMOVAL of registered voters, NOT criteria for their registration in the first place.
Being a lawyer, your god is capricious manmade laws. Therefore, you keeping making Appeal to Diversions and don't answer simple questions asked.

Are you even a Christian? You seem to think the Supreme Court is the Supreme Being, embrace elitism of those who wear robes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Being a lawyer, your god is capricious manmade laws. Therefore, you keeping making Appeal to Diversions and don't answer simple questions asked.

Are you even a Christian? You seem to think the Supreme Court is the Supreme Being, embrace elitism of those who wear robes, etc.
Is the faith of everyone who disagrees with you questionable? Or just mine?

I have answered your questions, but you reject them as non-answers because they don't fit your world view of a judiciary that exists to serve some ill-defined Deep State intent on making this country part of Latin America by ushering in illegal immigrants and escorting them right to the ballot box. You have little respect for democratically produced laws, and accuse those who do respect them as worshiping them. You are ready to brush the law aside in order to eradicate perceived evils. Think twice about that strategy, my friend. To quote from A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
 

mailmandan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2020
5,372
5,833
113
The Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I already did multiple times! The letter of the law AND decades of invasion and opposing Voter ID is overwhelming evidence.

Let me put it another way, if you were to craft legislation to maximize voter fraud, might you make it illegal to remove ineligible voters AND oppose Voter ID?
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,250
5,141
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Supreme Court temporarily halts lower court ruling ordering 1,600 voters back on Virginia voter rolls

Attorneys urged the court to grant Virginia’s emergency motion and "restore the status quo," noting that doing so "would comply with the law and enable Virginia to ensure that noncitizens do not vote in the upcoming election."

That is the heart of the matter, not allowing non citizens to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,250
5,141
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Right now we have a decent pretty good Supreme Court and we inherited that from Trump.
That court makes these democrats angry all the time, which is a good thing IMO.
Virginia governor Youngkin speaks well, gets the reasons correctly described regarding Trump and the others, his opponents, who have nothing to offer, as they are the ones that caused these problems. Since they have no solutions that benefit American citizens, they attack Trump on non issues and rehash all the old things they always say, how he has mean tweets and is incompetent and will start a war with Russia, etc.... I see the democrats as way more likely to start a nuclear war and also destroy the country from within.
 
Last edited:

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,250
5,141
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.

Supreme court OKS Virginia to go ahead and remove non citizens from voter rolls. Finally some common sense. Notice of course those who opposed...


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Virginia to resume its purge of voter registrations that the state says is aimed at stopping people who are not U.S. citizens from voting.

The justices, over the dissents of the three liberal justices, granted an emergency appeal from Virginia's Republican administration led by Gov. Glenn Youngkin. The court provided no rationale for its action, which is typical in emergency appeals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,600
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is the faith of everyone who disagrees with you questionable? Or just mine?

Boy, you really seem to avoid answering questions on principle. If someone asked me if I was a Christian, I would simply answer yes. I wouldn't reply with an Ad Homenim. Below is another question that evaded your keen insight.

Let me put it another way, if you were to craft legislation to maximize voter fraud, might you make it illegal to remove ineligible voters AND oppose Voter ID?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let me put it another way, if you were to craft legislation to maximize voter fraud, might you make it illegal to remove ineligible voters AND oppose Voter ID?
Sure I might. I might do a lot of things. That would include, as I said in post #47 and #43, eliminating Section 5(c)(2)(B) and (C) from the NVRA. But the NRVA did not make it illegal to remove ineligible voters. It made it illegal to implement a systematic purge within 90 days of the election (for reasons already explained). So why are we talking about what legislation that welcomes illegal voters might look like?

As to legislation opposing Voter ID, the NVRA doesn't do that either. So why are we talking about what legislation that opposes voter IDs might look like?
 

Bluemind

New Member
Oct 30, 2024
28
24
3
25
starcity
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I would hope Virginia ignores the order. It isn't legal. Maybe the judge can be brought up for review when their order is contrary to election law.