Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 90

Thread: Virginia Gov. Reinstates Felon Voting Right

  1. #1
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724

    Default Virginia Gov. Reinstates Felon Voting Right

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison

    Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison

    Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
    That's a pretty ridiculous executive order.

    Not a big surprise though, Democrats like the idea of felons voting because they tend to vote for Democrats. Pretty blatant self serving move.

  3. #3
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,777
    Felons in prison should not have the right to vote, but once time is served then there is no reason to deny them the vote for the rest of their life. If they're guilty of something that makes them incapable of voting, why are they not behind bars?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,772
    Lewks reasoning works the other way too, you could easily say the GOP is opposed because it would cost them elections, not because they think it's right.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Felons in prison should not have the right to vote, but once time is served then there is no reason to deny them the vote for the rest of their life. If they're guilty of something that makes them incapable of voting, why are they not behind bars?
    So once someone is out of prison there should be no restrictions on anything for them?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Lewks reasoning works the other way too, you could easily say the GOP is opposed because it would cost them elections, not because they think it's right.
    Oh you'll find the GOP is in favor for sticking it to felons for a lot of other reasons too.

  7. #7
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So once someone is out of prison there should be no restrictions on anything for them?
    See the second sentence in that quote for clarification on why your question is dumb.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #8
    To understand how ridiculous it is to restrict felons from having some of our basic rights, like voting, look at Lewk's other thread about the soda thief. That guy would be a felon, 18 years old and likely still in high school and no longer allowed to vote if convicted.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-24-2016 at 07:21 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    See the second sentence in that quote for clarification on why your question is dumb.
    I guess you haven't heard of probation or parole?

  10. #10
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I guess you haven't heard of probation or parole?
    What about it? The executive order under discussion doesn't touch that prohibition. It reinstates suffrage to those whose sentence is completed. That means not until any relevant probation or parole are also completed, as those are inclusive in any sentence. The article literally spelled that out for you.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #11
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I guess you haven't heard of probation or parole?
    I assumed RB was thinking of people who were no longer on probation or parole. The order doesn't reinstate voting rights for felons on parole.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #12
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I guess you haven't heard of probation or parole?
    Yes I have and that is complete under this situation, though even then if someone is to be trusted on release with probation then I'd be OK with them voting, but certainly once the probation is over and time has been served.

  13. #13
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    Voting is a right, not a privilege. I fail to see the merit of any argument that forbids people who are not actively incarcerated from being able to exercise that right. Bad people don't lose their rights. There's no moral test for suffrage. There's no mental capacity test for suffrage. There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Voting is a right, not a privilege.
    Bingo. Further, legitimacy in democracy relies on that right being exercised as broadly as possible.

    There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
    Not much point in them doing so since if they did rule otherwise, it would get taken down by the states and Congress in fairly short order. Perfect example case for trying to replicate the creation of the 11th amendment. So SCOTUS has little reason to bother.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    If the Supreme Court did rule that way, we can always condition some federal transfers on states allowing ex-felons to vote in federal elections. And one would hope that state courts would learn to read their own constitutions instead of pandering to the "think of the children" mob.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724
    What would their reasoning be for such a ruling, considering they've previously ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee felons the right to vote?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #17
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    They can reread the 14th amendment and the Federalist Papers. Along with Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Voting is a right, not a privilege. I fail to see the merit of any argument that forbids people who are not actively incarcerated from being able to exercise that right. Bad people don't lose their rights. There's no moral test for suffrage. There's no mental capacity test for suffrage. There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
    Should bad people lose the right to bear arms? How about the right to assembly near schools? (In the case of child predators).

  19. #19
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Should bad people lose the right to bear arms? How about the right to assembly near schools? (In the case of child predators).
    If you can point to a threat directly connected to their illegal behavior, then sure (I'd still want a higher standard than the indiscriminate bans we see today). Are you threatened by felons voting?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    If you can point to a threat directly connected to their illegal behavior, then sure (I'd still want a higher standard than the indiscriminate bans we see today). Are you threatened by felons voting?
    Where in the bill of rights does 'point to a threat directly connected to their illegal behavior' come in?

  21. #21
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    They can reread the 14th amendment and the Federalist Papers. Along with Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    I want to see an end to these practices as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure I see how that might actually be achieved through the SCOTUS.

    The court has previously ruled (in Richardson v Ramirez) that section 2 of the 14th amendment implicitly affirms a state's right to deny criminals the right to vote:

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    It's also declined to apply strict scrutiny to the matter of felon disenfranchisement.

    What arguments could be presented to the court that might make it rule differently today? I'm just trying to understand.

    This paper suggests that section 2 is in fact no longer valid and that if the matter of felon disenfranchisment were re-examined the SCOTUS may end up ruling differently: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=433580

    The dissent in the Richardson case seems to argue, among other things, that, even if the text of section 2 can be read as authorizing felon disenfranchisement, the court has otherwise found (albeit inconsistently) that any significant justification for disenfranchisement is or should be invalid: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...8/24/case.html

    But is the present court likely to be persuaded by such arguments?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  22. #22
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Oh you'll find the GOP is in favor for sticking it to felons for a lot of other reasons too.
    And you'll find the democratic party is in favor for abolishing it for a lot of other reasons, too.



    By the way, over here people can be barred from voting (or standing for election) as an additional sentence imposed by a judge. It's rare though, last time it was done on a large scale was against members of the national socialist party after the second world war. Recently it was asked for by the prosecutor in a terrorism trial (but the defendant was acquitted anyway so no sentence was imposed ). It is only for people convicted of serious crimes that undermine the foundation of the state, which seems okay to me.
    Last edited by Flixy; 04-28-2016 at 10:28 AM.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  23. #23
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,306
    This is beyond stupid.

    I agree paroled criminals should not lose their right to vote. However, it seems this restriction was written into the state constitution. So the executive order is arguably illegal and subject to court challenge. This should be changed by changing the law.

    Another day, another Democrat subverting the political process in the name of "fairness", free stuff and votes.

  24. #24
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,724
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #25
    Doesn't mean much. The ruling just slams how fucking stupid our current process is. Basing your rights being restored on an interview to determine your possible political religious leanings. The Rs had a pretty twisted system in place.

    On the flip side we will soon, as a state, vote to restore a felon's rights when their sentence is over. Need to be a really shitty person to be against a basic American right badly enough to vote against that measure.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Doesn't mean much. The ruling just slams how fucking stupid our current process is. Basing your rights being restored on an interview to determine your possible political religious leanings. The Rs had a pretty twisted system in place.

    On the flip side we will soon, as a state, vote to restore a felon's rights when their sentence is over. Need to be a really shitty person to be against a basic American right badly enough to vote against that measure.
    What does the polling look like for it? In general not a fan of felons voting for obvious reasons.

  27. #27
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    That being that you don't give a damn about rights provided by the Constitution when it comes to people you don't like?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That being that you don't give a damn about rights provided by the Constitution when it comes to people you don't like?
    So are you OK with felons being armed? Just wondering if you are hypocritical about this or not.

  29. #29
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,457
    Looks like that judge trolled those snowflake conservetards good, lol etc
    Last edited by Steely Glint; 02-02-2018 at 08:57 AM.
    If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

  30. #30
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,674
    In Germany a judge has to actually make "loss of the right to vote" part of the punishment, otherwise you're still allowed to vote even while being in prison. As it stands, judges do this only 1.4 times a year on average (for all of Germany).

    It hasn't led to Armageddon yet.

    And there are also demands to get rid of this possibility completely, considering how few cases there are anymore.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •