Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to re: Oh that old thing

re: Oh that old thing
Robert — (archived)

The fact that laws about felons voting vary from state to state tells you that the subject's controversial and there's no clear consensus. My view is that some states are too harsh, taking away the vote for reasons that have nothing to do with competency to vote, and when that's the case, you often find that it looks suspiciously like a way to discriminate against minorities. I'd want the standards for disenfranchisment to be strict, for example, only a capital felony, or at loosest only what (I believe) is called a "Class I" felony. There are specific crimes that do bear on a person's competency to participate in governing and should be grounds for disenfranchisement, such as embezzling public funds, voting fraud, bribery, etc. The latter category ought to disqualify a person for holding public office, IMHO, and it's shameful that politicians who've betrayed the public trust can still manage to get reelected.

Criticizing people for using the court system is classic Republican bullshit. The courts exist for a reason, and if they didn't, the Founders wouldn't have established the judicial branch of government. Appealing a law on the grounds that it's unconstitutional is, in fact, the ultimate purpose of the Federal judiciary. Suggesting that the New Yorkers should vote on the matter--in what, a referendum?--is insane. The judiciary exists to decide questions of Constitutionality, not to measure public opinion, and your suggestion is highly improper and would amount to abuse of the system. Geez, you guys go on about "judicial activism" like you think we shouldn't have a court system at all, now you're demanding that the courts make laws? What??? Could you get your story straight?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (89 posts)