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

[Scott Downey]

How is such a thing legal? It seems in politics anything goes.

11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

How is such a thing legal? It seems in politics anything goes.

11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Joe Biden up to his dirty tricks again ! this so called Judge has to be called out and kicked out !

Trump needs to kick ass with such people on TV ! Put such cunning criminal dogs in Jail ! To save the USA from such criminal intent, and that's what Kamala is all about, spinning lies and deceptions.
I remember i seen the Show That is called The Sliver Chair. by C, S, Lewis The Chronicals of Narnia. The Green Witch - the Queen of the Deap Realm. She could cast such delusions over everyone bar Puddleglum who even he was under such a spell but he put his hand in the Fire so as to snap out of it, or they all would of been lost in the Delusions that the Witch cast on them !

Good old Puddleglum ! he is played by the best Dr Who of all time by far Tom Baker, he is fantastic in this show as well. but i think it's hard to get this on CD.

 

[RedFan]

The National Voter Registration Act prohibits any systematic program intended to remove the names of ineligible voters from registration lists less than 90 days before the General Election. Yet that is what Virginia was doing. Judge Giles simply enforced the law. (You don't have problem with judges enforcing the law, do you?) How about you actually read the Judge's Order instead of listening to what people say about it?

 

[Wrangler]

The National Voter Registration Act prohibits any systematic program intended to remove the names of ineligible voters from registration lists less than 90 days before the General Election.

What a stupid law. Why are Demonrats against voter ID and protect ineligible “voters” from being removed from registration lists? Fraud.

You don't have problem with judges enforcing the law, do you?

“I was only following orders” is an insufficient defense.

 

[Scott Downey]

What a stupid law. Why are Demonrats against voter ID and protect ineligible “voters” from being removed from registration lists? Fraud.


“I was only following orders” is an insufficient defense.

Since it is not legal for them to vote, then if they do charge them with the crime.

 

[RedFan]

“I was only following orders” is an insufficient defense.

"I was only following the law" is the oath every Judge takes.

 

[St. SteVen]

[

 

[RedFan]

[

Trump says that "Kamala Harris is behind it. Very much." I wonder if he means she influenced the Judge's decision, or just supports the ruling. (She isn't on record saying she supports it.)

I do think the decision was correct. The statute -- ill-advised though it may be -- is very clear that the deadline for efforts such as those mounted in Virginia against non-citizen registrations is 90 days before the General Election. Virginia waited too long. Judges are not free to impose their views on whether a statute is wise or unwise when they are asked to enforce it. They can only decide whether the statute is constitutional or unconstitutional. If constitutional, they MUST enforce it.

Trump's beef should be with the statute, not the Judge. So why is he attacking the Judge?

 

[St. SteVen]

Trump says that "Kamala Harris is behind it. Very much." I wonder if he means she influenced the Judge's decision, or just supports the ruling. (She isn't on record saying she supports it.)

I do think the decision was correct. The statute -- ill-advised though it may be -- is very clear that the deadline for efforts such as those mounted in Virginia against non-citizen registrations is 90 days before the General Election. Virginia waited too long. Judges are not free to impose their views on whether a statute is wise or unwise when they are asked to enforce it. They can only decide whether the statute is constitutional or unconstitutional. If constitutional, they MUST enforce it.

Trump's beef should be with the statute, not the Judge. So why is he attacking the Judge?

Why should there be any question about whether a non-citizen can vote in a national election? The answer is, No.
That's where this falls apart for me. Virginia is being blamed for acting too late to stop an unconstitutional act?
Why should they have had to act at all? Democrat voter fraud. IMO

The open borders were to gain voters for the Democrats. The Virginia thing is just a continuation of their fraud.

They use the term "undocumented immigrants" for illegal aliens.

[

 

[RedFan]

Why should there be any question about whether a non-citizen can vote in a national election? The answer is, No.
That's where this falls apart for me. Virginia is being blamed for acting too late to stop an unconstitutional act?
Why should they have had to act at all? Democrat voter fraud. IMO

The open borders were to gain voters for the Democrats. The Virginia thing is just a continuation of their fraud.

They use the term "undocumented immigrants" for illegal aliens.

[

Two things:

First, everyone agrees that non-citizens can't vote in a national election. The Judge's Order (click the link in Post #3) requires the State to send a letter to those purged from the rolls "Advising registrants who are not U.S. citizens that they remain ineligible to cast a ballot in Virginia elections." And they can be prosecuted for trying to vote if they ignore this warning.

Second, nobody in this lawsuit is challenging the National Voter Registration Act as unconstitutional, so it is presumed to be constitutional. The problem sought to be addressed by the statute is well-described by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which observed that “individualized removals” that arise from “rigorous individualized inquiry” may still occur during the quiet period because such rigorous inquiry 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." Arcia v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1346 (11th Cir. 2014).

In 1993 when the statute was enacted, Congress thought the risk of disenfranchising citizens was serious enough to risk the possibility that some ineligible voters would be able to vote illegally. That balance was for Congress to strike, and it did so -- well before there was an illegal immigration crisis. To assume that in 2024 the Democrats encouraged Virginia's non-citizens to risk prosecution by registering to vote just has no basis. I won't indulge any such assumption. (But I'm not a Democrat.)

 

[Wrangler]

Since it is not legal for them to vote, then if they do charge them with the crime.

Charging individuals with a crime is secondary. Of primary importance is the sanctity of elections, preventing election fraud.

This is analogous to the divergent role of the CIA compared to the FBI. The FBI focuses on prosecuting crime; the CIA focuses on preventing foreign powers from effecting our national sovereignty. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The idea that every fraudulent voter is prosecuted AFTER they unduly influenced the election is naive. Obviously, the Deep State wants fraudulent elections and will not prosecute their allies in installing the regime they prefer. And this is seen in the fact that few have been prosecuted over the years despite "voting irregularities" for decades.

 

[Wrangler]

"I was only following the law" is the oath every Judge takes.

Yet, few judges do so and make their own law. See so-called case law.

 

[RedFan]

Yet, few judges do so and make their own law. See so-called case law.

"Case law" is simply a name for decisions rendered by courts. Those decisions may be on statutory or constitutional interpretation, or on procedural or evidentiary issues, or they may be on "common law" issues (torts, contracts and property) -- what we generally know as "judge-made" law.

I disagree that few judges honor their oaths to apply the law, particularly as found in statutes (such as the National Voter Registration Act under consideration here). We might quibble with how to interpret "systematic" in that statute, but disagreements on that interpretation are a far cry from deliberately misapplying the law in order to reach a particular result. Is that what you are accusing this Judge of doing?

 

[Wrangler]

"Case law" is simply a name for decisions rendered by courts.

I know what “case law” is and how it is used to subvert law passed by the legislature. See Roe v Wade.

Point is, what is this judge doing to protect the integrity of elections in allowing ineligible people (not voters) on registration lists? Hiding behind “I was only following order” is not going to cut it.

 

[RedFan]

I know what “case law” is and how it is used to subvert law passed by the legislature. See Roe v Wade.

Point is, what is this judge doing to protect the integrity of elections in allowing ineligible people (not voters) on registration lists?

What would you have her do, consistently with the statute?

 

[Wrangler]

What would you have her do, consistently with the statute?

Let’s examine the statute. What exactly does it say that one could reasonably construe it is meant to maximize voter fraud?

 

[RedFan]

Let’s examine the statute. What exactly does it say that one could reasonably construe it is meant to maximize voter fraud?

The statute says nothing that could reasonably be construed as an intent to maximize voter fraud. You might profit from reading what the Eleventh Circuit understands to be the statute's design.

 

[Wrangler]

The statute says nothing that could reasonably be construed as an intent to maximize voter fraud.

Oh? Seems that is the very purpose of the statute.

You might profit from reading what the Eleventh Circuit understands to be the statute's design.

This is how case law works, to invoke circular, tortured logic. A court’s decision is used to undercut rational discourse.

First, you hid behind the law. Now, you are hiding behind case law to invoke “I was only following orders.” By what Constitutional authority does the ‘National Voter Registration Act’ assert the power to dictate to States when they may remove people ineligible to vote? And what purpose - other than voter fraud - does it serve to keep people ineligible to vote on registration lists?

 

[RedFan]

Oh? Seems that is the very purpose of the statute.

This is how case law works, to invoke circular, tortured logic. A court’s decision is used to undercut rational discourse.

First, you hid behind the law. Now, you are hiding behind case law to invoke “I was only following orders.” By what Constitutional authority does the ‘National Voter Registration Act’ assert the power to dictate to States when they may remove people ineligible to vote? And what purpose - other than voter fraud - does it serve to keep people ineligible to vote on registration lists?

So much to unpack here . . .

First, to attribute to Congress a purpose to maximize voter fraud is ridiculous. If it "seems [to you] that this is the very purpose of the statute," kindly point out a clause or two from which you divine this sinister Congressional intent.

Second, I see no "circular, tortured logic" in the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. If you do, show us where. I can send you the briefs, and a transript of the oral argument, if you'd like.

Third, I have never invoked "I was only following orders" as a basis for enforcing the statute -- unless your word "orders" includes the oath that federal judges take to enforce federal statutes. The NVRA says what it says.

Fourth, you ask "By what Constitutional authority does the ‘National Voter Registration Act’ assert the power to dictate to States when they may remove people ineligible to vote?" That's an easy one. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona has already put that issue to bed, when it held that the NVRA preempted state law documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.

Lastly, you ask "And what purpose - other than voter fraud - does it serve to keep people ineligible to vote on registration lists?" The 90-day time limit on systematic purging of voter rolls was the balance Congress struck between eliminating ineligible voters and risking striking eligible voters. To quote Justice Alito's majority opinion in another NVRA case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U. S. 756, 779 (2018), "this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress."

If you want to call that hiding behind the law, take it up with Alito.

 

[Scott Downey]

No voter ID required, but ID required for all other things, means gaming the system.