Posted on 10/21/2015 12:22:24 PM PDT by Mr. K
The U.S. Supreme Court early Saturday denied a last-ditch effort to block the enforcement of Texas' controversial voter ID law in the upcoming elections.
The ruling comes two days before the start of early voting. Election Day is Nov. 4.
Six of the nine justices agreed to deny a request to vacate Tuesdays judgment from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state could enforce the law. The opinion removes the last traces of uncertainty over whether the law which supporters say prevents voter fraud would be in effect for the start of early voting.
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
Now just guess who?????
Sorry, I was counting Roberts...
.
>> “Why is this one year old article (2014) being posted now?” <<
.
To scare the poopie out of Trump supporters :o)
.
... and the reading impaired as well.
Bump!
Almost predictable. Karan and Sotomayer are no way qualified to be on the Court.
" Uhhhh.... this is OLD News, Oct 2014 Please be careful. This news isn't even relevant any more since the 5th Circuit has since negated much of the law."
Ginsberg isn't qualified to tie her own shoelaces ...
There’s been several cases where lower court lefty judges allow this crap in their courts after SCOTUS has decided that voter ID is constitutionally legal. The last one that I recall that reached the Supreme Court they turned away with no hearing or comment because they already opined in 2008.
Finally, a win for our side.
Can you say LAME DUCK? :)
That is what I am thinking. Do Six Supreme Court justices now think they are beyond the grasp of the Obama regime?
3 justices think it is wrong to have an ID
Just try to get into the USSC building without an ID.
I’d hazard a guess: Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan
Kinda, yes it does. It can be cited as precedent (see #2)
SCOTUS refusal to take a case has two implications:
(1) Legally, the highest lower-court decision stands. I.e., if a man is convicted in trial court, the conviction is reversed in appeals court, and SCOTUS denies cert., the appeals court decision stands and the man goes free.
(2) The decision not to grant certiorari is a legal nullity. I.e., it does not rule on the lower court's decision -- it doesn't affirm it, it certainly doesn't reverse it. It merely says that there aren't sufficient grounds to review it again, in the opinion of at least six SCOTUS justices (it only takes four to grant cert.). It therefore is not precedent except insofar as it was before SCOTUS took up the question of granting cert. -- i.e., the ruling of the high state court stands as precedent for that state; the Federal Circuit Court ruling stands as precedent in that circuit -- but neither is applicable as binding precedent (though certainly citeable as supportive precedent) anywhere else than in that state or circuit.
“Ginsberg isn’t qualified to tie her own shoelaces ... “
While that’s certainly true, just pray that the old commie bitch stays above room temperature for another 15 months.
The same ones who think it is okay to be president without an ID?
My calendar indicates that November 3 is election day, not the 4th.
This article is a year old. See 2014 date at link.
Since 1836. ;-)
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.