VA Supreme Court strikes down voting rights for felons
The 4-3 ruling came a month after Republicans in the state sued McAuliffe, saying that he overstepped his authority in issuing the executive action.“The unprecedented scope, magnitude, and categorical nature of Governor McAuliffe’s Executive Order” exceeded his authority, wrote Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons in the decision.
Republicans argued that the move would also disproportionately favor Democrats like presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
55 responses to VA Supreme Court strikes down voting rights for felons
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
eyelashviper July 23rd, 2016 at 16:12
“Republicans argued that the move would also disproportionately favor Democrats like presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton.”
So that was an actual legal argument used? Unbelievable.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 16:29
The problem with voting rights is that they are only rights you have IF you are living under a state. If you live on an island with few people, that right is not obvious at all – if it even exists in that situation.
It is more of a contractual right with your government than an absolute natural right. As such it may very well be that you have obligations on your side too – like respecting the rights of others as it concerns the laws under that government – even if you strongly disagree with those laws.
As such, it is not clear to me that denying people the (contractual) right to vote who have not fulled their side of the contract is a violation of their rights
The @ACLU likes to treat voting rights as if they were natural rights that everyone has – which obviously isn’t the case as I pointed out earlier. And their view that even those found guilty of crimes have voting rights (regardless of there status) doesn’t fit in with the fact prisoners face other restrictions on their rights all the time merely by being imprisoned.
Why hasn’t the @ACLU opposed those too ?
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 16:51
convicted felons lose the right to vote. we know this. however, if a convicted felon is pardoned, he/she regains hose rights. period.
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 16:57
You are fighting a nutty battle, don’t let him rub off on you lol.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:03
which is why my response was brief. i don’t how to address all of his stupidity.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 17:42
With intelligence might help :)
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:48
again, when you speak the way that word salad sarah speaks, no one understands you howie.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 18:01
Which word is that which you don’t understand ? I can provide you a link if you wish to know :)
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 19:43
Well that is a waste of time unless you are like arc99 and do it out of the goodness of your heart. These types do not hear logic, they are immune.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 19:47
i feel so silly when you put it that way. LOL
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 17:41
Pardoned, I might agree with that. But then they are not felons anymore, right ?
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:52
how do you “might” agree with it? and legally they aren’t felons anymore for that particular crime.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 17:59
if they are not felons then of course they have the right to vote … but this not about people who are not felons (anymore).
I mean I am not sure that the mere pardoning of a crime by a political authority should change anything without a greater approval by a court or something.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 18:16
if a gov pardons a murderer, that’s it. it’s done. period. got it.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 18:26
So if a governor were to have pardoned Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of Kennedy, you would have no problems with that being done by a single person who let’s say may have been republican ?
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 18:32
who says i wouldn’t have a problem with it. besides oswald was killed. that’s not what the conversation was about now was it. i dont’ think people like (alive ok) the manson family should be pardoned. but, if they were, that would be political suicide. no matter what side you supported. the thing is it has happened, while gov. arnold (the dumb ass) pardoned a murderer because he was friends with the murderers father. the gov of LA a few years back, pardon several murderers. all were given back their rights.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 18:44
Fine, I am just questioning the belief in a sole authority pardoning people of their crimes and thereby making them non-felons.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 18:46
the president can pardon as well if a gov won’t.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 19:16
And I am not sure I support that one man authoritarian view either which is why I would prefer a court to do it – not merely oppose when someone else does it.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 19:34
persons in prison, sent to prison by the courts for pot and serving 20 years is not who i’d want to decide whether or not they should be pardoned. same with those convicted of murder and are actually innocent. thankfully we have the innocent project. when we can’t get a gov or a president to intervene. it’s much easier to convict an innocent person than to set an innocent man free. and who was it that basically pardoned afluenza boy for the murders of 4 people? a judge. surely he now has a nice house on an island bought and paid for by the murderer’s parents.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 19:39
You can decide on whether they SHOULD be pardoned, That is not the same as having the power to actually do it !.
And if there is a power to do it, do we really want one man deciding that .
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 19:48
i give up. Suzanne is right.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 19:54
Was that actually hard to understand ? The mere fact the some felons should be pardoned in no way means that anyone should have the sole power alone to do it.
A court would be far better than a sole authoritarian person. However close to god you may see him/her.
I restrict my approval of the concept of pardoning by a single person based upon that.
Again, republicans may be wrong on this – but I certainly have my doubts as to whether democrats support allowing felons to vote because they support our rights. That is a joke.
fahvel July 24th, 2016 at 03:56
federal crime dummy.
whatthe46 July 24th, 2016 at 04:00
thanks.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 08:21
? Not sure what that means. I bet you are the one that opposes drug legalization and prostitution legalization etc.
whatthe46 July 24th, 2016 at 08:35
you don’t know what a federal crime means?
arc99 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:19
Please remember your opinions are not facts. My opinion is that every person has a natural right to participate in the decision – making that affects their day to day existence. As far as I am concened, voting most certainly is as natural a right as there can be.
But the more important point here is that we are not governed by natural rights.
We are governed by a set of man-made rules with the United States Constitution as the foundation of what is allowed and what is not.
Gov. McAuliffe has made a commitment to sign and individual order for each of the tens of thousands of felons who are eligible. Good for him.
I think it is another example of the way conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. Criminals are supposed to pay for their crimes and then re-enter society as productive citizens. At the same time, it is conservatives who resist restoring this most basic of Constitutional rights to allow those felons to function as a positive part of their community.
Dwendt44 July 23rd, 2016 at 16:46
So, he pardoned all of them. Screw up Republicans.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 16:49
wouldn’t that be poetic justice?
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 16:55
The republicans only want this struck down due to because they believe it will favor democrats, they have no other feasible reason.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 17:22
Republicans have always tended to support what has been the case. That’s why they are called conservatives. And I certainly don’t believe the democrats have any great devotion to rights given their inability to support freedom of association or of choice or even of the press.
arc99 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:25
If it isn’t President Obama as the anti-Christ over at World Net Daily, it is Democrats opposed to the fundamental guarantees of the first amendment.
Honestly, where do you people get this nonsense? Do you have meetings and award prizes for the most outrageous bullsh*t of the week?
arc99 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:34
Incidentally, we got along just fine for two centuries without voter id.
But then as Republicans lost the popular vote for President in 5 of the last 6 elections, they decided they needed to find a way to implement Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich’s vision of minimizing voter turnout to maximize the chances of conservatives winning.
Republicans will support whatever gives them an advantage no different than anyone else.
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 19:48
Do not try to get in a discussion with me, I can never be a Saint, I lost that chance the 2nd day after I was born so I will not waste my time trying to help you better yourself.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 19:49
oh snap. [insert evil laugh]
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 20:04
:)
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 20:04
LOL, are you saying I am a republican ? I am a libertarian and have no intention of supporting Trump or Hillary.
Neither supports our CIVIL RIGHT to freedom of association.
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 20:05
And again I don’t give a flying dog $hit.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 20:06
About our civil rights ? I guess I will take your word on that :)
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 20:12
Do not put words in my mouth
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 20:14
And I wouldn’t have to if you actually explained what you were saying than merely making comments about not caring about crap.
fahvel July 24th, 2016 at 03:53
hey dimwit, you’re lucky they use any words as a reaction to your void mind.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 08:22
OK stupid idiot fascist dummy republocrat :D
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 21:30
There we go with the strawman arguments. Put words in her mouth so you can rant about that instead of what she actually says. Dishonest and juvenile, and apparently your go-to response when challenged. Is chickenshit rhetorical games a requirement for Libertarianism?
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 20:09
ding dong…. anyone home?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 20:12
? Sorry to disappoint you in your belief I am republican.
I don’t support fascist republocrats like Hillary or Donald
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 21:28
You don’t seem to realize that Libertarian translates as “Republican Psych Ward.”
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 08:42
Want me to define it for you and defend it ?
Libertarianism: The political belief in our social right to freedom of association – as opposed to state-mandated associations – the basis of fascism.
I support legalizing ALL drugs and oppose ALL foreign intervention not to mention the above of supporting ALL free and voluntary associations including gay marriage.
If you could do the same.
fahvel July 24th, 2016 at 03:52
your words are empty!
fahvel July 24th, 2016 at 03:52
perfect McF!!!
arc99 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:37
Agreed.
My family in DC has dealt with this for years. Full representation in Congress for the District of Columbia will guarantee two liberal US Senators and one liberal member of the House for years if not generations to come.
As a result, my hometown with a population greater than that of the state of Wyoming has no voting representation in Congress.
Suzanne McFly July 23rd, 2016 at 19:52
The one area in the entire United States with no representation, pretty pathetic. I have heard legislators speaking about creating some positions for the District, have you heard anything serious about that?
Daniellerramos July 24th, 2016 at 04:58
<<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!be593p:….,….
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 21:34
McAuliffe has stated he plans on signing 200,000 individual restorations of their rights. Definitely worth investing in a signature stamp.