Posted on 08/25/2017 5:50:37 AM PDT by davikkm
A Texas Federal Judge has ruled against actions to implement voter ID laws in the state of Texas. Judge Ramos decreed that “The court has found that the SB 5 [Declaration of Reasonable Impediment] process does not fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory features of the law.” Quite simply this is a farce! It all but ensures that illegal voting will continue to take place.
In America, a photographic ID is required for so many different things that if you don’t own one, you are not able to access the full range of services available to most citizens. There are some states that already require strict ID laws for voting: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
You can’t enter the courtroom where this judge sits without photo ID.
“Judge Ramos.” What a joke. This left-wing activist has no business being anywhere near a bench.
With a last name like Ramos she should have recused herself.
Probably another feminazi that wanted to ‘make a difference’.
The law set aside by the “Judge” alternatively provided for a substitute to voter photo ID ( drivers license, gun license etc.), a sworn affidavit together with a residential proof ( power co receipt,or fed ex bill, phone bill) The judge ruled that having to sign an affidavit under off at the polling p[lace would intimidate potential voters who did not have a photo ID of some sort.
The left is so full of hate, they will not even allow its citizens to secure our voting procewss AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, who they say keep influencing our own elections?
BUahahahahahahaha!
Thet judge needs to be run out on a rail by a Committee of Safety, just like was done in 1776 to British Judges appointed by King George III, to make Americans into serfs.
Ordinary Americans took their places on behalf of The People.
This liberal fascist judge seeks to make a free people into a nation of serfs. And we are just not going to put up with it.
Another black-robed oligarch making law from the bench.
This is another prime example of the death of the rule of law in this country.
This is collusion of the judiciary with the Democrat Party. Voter I.D. guarantees the registration of illegals and voter fraud where another person votes for someone else (dead voters, voters that never vote and false voters who don’t even exist by voter registration scams). Democrats are playing all these games and are making sure they are not exposed.
If I bring a dollars worth of aluminum cans to the recycler I can’t get paid unless I show ID.
Texas already complied with Fifth Circuit Court requirements.
Abbott should tell the Court we are done here.
You made your illegal ruling and we will ignore it.
appointed by
drum roll.......
BARAK limp wristed jihadi traitor OBAMA
This will be tossed upon appeal. Texas has bent over backwards in allowing almost any sort of verifiable ID to allow one to vote. Not to mention that the current law is virtually the same one used in several other states.
If there are any Texans that do not have any type of verifiable ID, it means that they are too lazy to go get the free ID from the state or their family is too lazy to assist the in so doing. If that is the case, I have no use for either of them and do not care if they get to vote.
We need to all storm our local court houses and government offices and refuse to show ID.
Unbelievable. . .I take that back. . .believable in this day and age of anti-American sentiment.
The communist “democrats” and their phonyass “judges” with “compelling life stories” are scared to death that Americans are going to DEMAND that voter I.D.s become the law of the land. The commies will never win another “election” if they do.
Oh for a Tantalus Device.
What a joke. This left-wing activist has no business being anywhere near a bench.
*************
This was clearly a political decision, not a legal one. Leftist judges have made the courts a total farce.
“Texas already complied with Fifth Circuit Court requirements.
Abbott should tell the Court we are done here.
You made your illegal ruling and we will ignore it.”
Absolutely. The states have to stop the imperial federal judiciary since Congress will not do its job which is to impeach black robed tyrants exceeding their authority and violating the Constitution.
The power to overturn state laws was one the Supreme Court took, the Constitution does not give the federal court system the authority to review or overturn state legislation or state court decisions.
This despicable judge wants to make it easy to steal elections.
Ignore him.
What will happen? Bring the confrontation to a head. The little dictator will be out of a job.
From Judge Roy Moore who is about to whoop ass on the Establishment Candidate in Alabama.:
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that an Alabama probate judge may deliver his own considered opinion, subject to review, on the issues raised in Searcy and Strawser and is not required to defer to federal district and circuit court rulings on the same questions.
TELL THE INFERIOR COURT TO POUND SAND!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.