Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rejects attempt to revive Kansas voter ID laws
Washington Examiner ^ | 12/14/2020 | Nicholas Rowan

Posted on 12/15/2020 6:27:14 PM PST by JoSixChip

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by Kansas Republicans to revive laws that require people to prove their citizenship before voting.


TOPICS: Local News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: corruption; elections; kansas; kansasrepublicans; safeguards; surpremecourt; voterfraud; voterid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
It's like they want the system in place to cheat.
1 posted on 12/15/2020 6:27:14 PM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

They do. They are not on the side of the people who pay their salaries.


2 posted on 12/15/2020 6:28:54 PM PST by McGavin999 (Justice delayed is justice denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Pass the laws, SCOTUS has no say in state election laws, as they claimed last Friday.


3 posted on 12/15/2020 6:30:14 PM PST by Hypo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Bizzaro world.


4 posted on 12/15/2020 6:31:39 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

They can force you to bake a gay wedding cake, outside state discrimination laws, but can not judge on state election law.


5 posted on 12/15/2020 6:32:28 PM PST by Hypo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

So much for the constitutional Oath crap chit talk... I’m afraid that Trump nominated nothing but a bunch of lying asses! These asses are rapidly becoming a Roberts mirror image! I don’t know why the hell the demoKKKrat were up in arms about these assholes being Nominated and confirmed when they benefit from them more then we do. Ugh!


6 posted on 12/15/2020 6:33:55 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

I don’t recognize this country anymore.


7 posted on 12/15/2020 6:34:16 PM PST by Aria (- )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

That’s it
We now have a Banana Republic with a Supreme Court that supports illegals voting so that commies can be elected at will.

Our 2 Nd amendment I will be short lived

And abortion will continue to be the law of the land. We are finished.


8 posted on 12/15/2020 6:34:47 PM PST by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hypo2

They did pass a law. The courts invalidated it.


9 posted on 12/15/2020 6:35:31 PM PST by Trumpisourlastchance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hypo2

No kidding - the SC has rejected their own rulings.

Write a new and more restrictive law and pass that.l then tell the SC to pound sand.


10 posted on 12/15/2020 6:35:42 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

So much for court packing the court in now 7-2 after these three pieces of work are on it


11 posted on 12/15/2020 6:37:24 PM PST by Lod881019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

I thought States could manage their own election laws?

That’s why the Texas case against PA, WI, MI supposedly had “no standing.”


12 posted on 12/15/2020 6:38:33 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Being cynical, not being force to be constructionists gives judges unchecked power that they want, that legislatures have a hard time taking back.


13 posted on 12/15/2020 6:39:06 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

This battle should have been openly fought at least one year ago. Everyone could see the rising tides of illegal voting.


14 posted on 12/15/2020 6:39:53 PM PST by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Its blatantly obvious the system will not check itself.

When your top court rejects a law that ensures a voter is who theynsay they are in order to improve election validity and reduce potential avenues of fraud and abuse

They are not interested in preserving fair and valid elections anymore

Its time for them all to go, including the new ones that failed this most important question


15 posted on 12/15/2020 6:41:23 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

Wisconsin has very strict voting laws in place they broke them anyway, you can’t fight something BEFORE it happens!!


16 posted on 12/15/2020 6:41:45 PM PST by Trump Girl Kit Cat (Yosemite Sam raising hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Its because you didnt grow up in a country run by alinksy libtard socialists partnered with the russians, chines and soros


17 posted on 12/15/2020 6:42:32 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Skywise
"Write a new and more restrictive law and pass that.l then tell the SC to pound sand."

Agree. Today there are so many bizarro court rulings at all levels of government, that it's coming time to simply ignore their conflicting edicts and lawlessness, and to do the will of the people.

A court overrules sensible legislation of the local citizens and their legislature? Just f*** 'em. Do what's needed.

In this case, will SCOTUS call out its SCOTUS Army or SCOTUS PD? Just override them.

18 posted on 12/15/2020 6:44:20 PM PST by Jeepers43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
Disfranchisement only applies to a very sly, hypocritical, and shallow economic “reasoning” under the judicial overlords who one day will have to answer to a higher power including of course, the newly appointed Barrett.
19 posted on 12/15/2020 6:46:21 PM PST by rollo tomasi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lod881019

Rush floated a theory that the SC judges are acting in this manner to appease the dems in order to curtail the court-packing talk as not necessary because the existing justices have not sided with any republican election-related lawsuits.
IE, they are protecting their precious court at the expense of the Constitution and their responsibilities to the Constitution.


20 posted on 12/15/2020 7:00:23 PM PST by ocrp1982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson