On October 16, the Nebraska Supreme Court Ruled that Secretary of State must let certain felons register to vote. State ex rel Sprung v Evnen, S-24-563. Here is a link to the Supreme Court’s website, which has the opinion. Scroll down to “Supreme Court Opinions.” This opinion is at the top of the list.
I hate that Nazi John Taylor Bowles and hate all you other Nazi Trump loving retarded as*holes too. Most of the people posting in here are no better than Bowles and are fascists just like Trump is. Wait till my girl Harris wins to put you all in place. Can’t wait.
Lol, retard Nazi John Taylor Bowles . Impersonating sucks when you don’t even know that I’m a Trump supporter. Also, you’re probably the only Nazi here.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/16/jimmy-carter-votes-kamala-harris/75702049007/
CARTER PREZ VOTE –
VIOLATION OF GA LAW ???
WILL HE MAKE IT TO E DAY / PTO DAY [20 JAN 2025] ???
Sounds like vote fraud.
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/politics/elections/2024/09/25/early-voting-underway-for-2024-presidential-election-in-some-states/75382220007/
EARLY VOTING
WHERE IS LARGEST BALLOT THIS YEAR ??? — MOST POSSIBLE VOTES ???
SOME URBAN LOCAL BALLOTS HAVE *MANY* JUDGE SPOTS – DUE TO OLDE COUNTY LAWS.
There should be both lower and upper age limits on voting or serving in office.
Vote for West, all you honkeys. F*ck Trump!
Sounds like something John Taylor Bowles would say, because that is who said it.
I apologize to everyone in this blog. I’m a sick person and have voices in my head issues. That’s why I imperso0nate John Taylor Bowles so much.
Obviously 3:39 is bowles. He’s not good at this. But at least he’s telling the truth for once about being a sick person who hears voices and impersonates people. Of course his apology is fake since the retard won’t stop.
…Yes, well anyway, moving past all the BS… Good on the Nebraska Supreme Court!
Either alleged “felons” have served their sentence and are ready to return to society, including to exercise their right and responsibility to vote, or they aren’t. And if they are not ready to be released back into society, then their ability to vote should be the very least concern regarding them being on the loose again.
Whether alleged “felons” should be allowed to vote while in prison, is something I can see being debated, but that alleged “felons” who finished serving their sentence should be able to vote, should go without saying.
NO CONVICT/PRISON STUFF RE BEING A VOTER
TOO MANY INNOCENT CONVICTED VIA FALSE EVIDENCE – INTENTIONAL/NEGLIGENT
— AND CLASS PURGE LAWS — SELECTIVE PURGES OF *TROUBLE-MAKERS*
VOTER = USA CITIZEN, 18 PLUS YRS OLDE ON E DAYS – BE REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE E DAYS
@Nuña,
In Nebraska, the power of pardon is vested in a Board of Pardons consisting of the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state; so it was not totally out of left field for the AG and SOS to conclude that the legislature could not re-enfranchise felons without a pardon. Complicating this is that in 2005 a statute was passed that restored voting two years after release, that has gone unchallenged.
In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court decision was ultimately based on a requirement that the court may not declare a statute unconstitutional without a supermajority of 5 of 7 justices. Some of the justices believe that this specific case does not require them to reach the question of constitutionality of the statute.
There appears to be a lot of buck-passing that would be better resolved by amending the constitution, to let voters decide the issue of re-enfranchisement.
“the legislature could not re-enfranchise felons without a pardon. ”
Completing your sentence should automatically restore your civil rights. If those should even have been suspended in the first place, that is. Because stripping alleged “felons” – especially those accused of felonies not related to election/voter fraud – of their right to vote, seems pretty legally and constitutionally, and more importantly, morally and ethically dubious to me already.
“Complicating this is that in 2005 a statute was passed that restored voting two years after release, that has gone unchallenged.”
That in itself is ridiculous.
Would you feel comfortable and safe and trusting towards someone who is not deemed fit to vote for another two years due to a past criminal conviction?
If they are fit for release, they are certainly fit to vote. And if they are not fit to vote, then they certainly are not fit for release.
JR – HACK EXECS HAVING JUDICIAL POWER TO PARDON === MAJOR SOP VIOLATION
Felons should never be eligible for release much less voting. Death penalty should be the standard punishment for felons, carried out quickly.
@Nuña,
“Completing your sentence should automatically restore your civil rights.”
This is your (subjective) opinion. It is not an objective truth.
Here is the AG’s opinion.
https://ago.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/docs/opinions/AG%20Opinion%2024-004.pdf
@Emperor Norton II (AZ),
Is the power to pardon a judicial function in Michigan? What does the US Constitution say?
@Jim Riley
If you think about it, it really is an objective truth and not a subjective opinion.
But even if we pretend as if it is a subjective opinion, then I have given a very solid argument for why it is objectively true:
If one cannot be trusted to have ones civil rights restored, then one is not ready for release into society.
And that argument already makes the implicit assumption that the state EVER has the authority to suspend or strip citizens of their civil rights – an assumption which itself is constitutionally, legally, ethically and morally doubtful.
Meanwhile, there is no meaningful counter-argument, much less a comparably solid and objective one.
Whoever this Hilger fascist thinks he is, his “opinion” is as void of arguments, facts and reasoning, as it is devoid of honesty, morals and ethics. It serves merely as an assertion of totalitarian abuse of force, but does not even contain any real excuse or justification. That makes it unconstitutional and legally – in the true sense – null and void.
Granting rights and liberties, or taking them away, can logically be done by degrees. Human growth and decline happens gradually, there are degrees of maturity, degrees of knowledge, degrees of intelligence or rationality, degrees of good or ill health, and so on. There are degrees of violations people commit against each other, degrees of behavior requiring degrees of confinement or punishment. Why should release be unconditional or with full restoration of all rights?
“Granting rights and liberties, or taking them away, can logically be done by degrees.”
No, of course not. It cannot logically. And it should not illogically.
Even if we take it for granted that a citizen’s civil rights can be suspended by a court of law for the duration of whatever sentence they cook up – and remember that the Bill of Rights merely enumerates universal and inalienable rights given by God – then that would still only mean for the duration of that sentence. Once the sentence is complete, all rights must necessarily be restored, otherwise the sentence is not complete.
Whether a sentence can be extended, if the alleged “criminal” is not ready to have their rights restored, or whether the court messed up and should have given a longer sentence but there is nothing to do about that retroactive, is an entirely different question.
But it can never be so, that a sentence is complete but civil rights are not restored. That is impossible by definition, because unless ones rights have been restored the sentence is not over.
So then, what you are actually talking about is letting people out of prison before their sentence is over. That is logically inconsistent: even if we suspend all reason and take gradualism for granted, then certainly release into society should follow the restoration of voting rights, and not vice versa. And this is particularly true for the overwhelming majority whose alleged “crime” was not related of election/voter fraud.
If you are not yet fit to vote, then you cannot be fit for release.
And if you are fit for release, then you must certainly be fit to vote.
I don’t think it is possible to devil’s advocate ones way out of the those two conditionals without logical contradiction.
“Human growth and decline happens gradually, there are degrees of maturity, degrees of knowledge, degrees of intelligence or rationality, degrees of good or ill health, and so on. There are degrees of violations people commit against each other, degrees of behavior requiring degrees of confinement or punishment.”
Yes, but (unfortunately) that’s not how (human) law works. Human (in)justice is digital where reality is analog: to rule whether or not something is “criminal”, courts look at whether or not a certain threshold has been passed.
Judges certainly claim to take into consideration various factors when trying to make a punishment proportional to a crime. But that is mostly just a dishonest way of saying that they are abusing the wiggle-room they have been given to insert their subjectivity into their ruling. Even the most honest human will be fallible, and nobody who is honest would ever want to, much less be allowed to become a judge in the US – that is why jury trials are so much less bad.
“Why should release be unconditional or with full restoration of all rights?”
Why would you unleash someone on the public if they cannot be trusted with all their rights?
If a bank does not want to rehire a teller convicted of theft, that is the bank’s prerogative and it should not be made to do so. But equally, the teller should not be prevented from being employed in any capacity that puts them in charge of money.
But even more particularly on the right to vote, there exists no crime that would make allowing you to vote a risk to society.
@Nuña,
I use the word “objective” in the sense that different persons would come to the same conclusion. If the French and Russian judges disagree on a performance in a figure skating competition it is not an objective score even if they give a numeric score, no matter how many decimals points are used to give it the appearance of accuracy. Compare to a speed skating race where the winner is objectively determined. You and I could look at the photo finish and come to the same conclusion who one.
When you write, “Completing your sentence should automatically restore your civil rights,” you are expressing your opinion.
Can the State of Nebraska through their Constitution grant voting rights to some persons and not others?
If you believe strongly in your opinion, you might urge the People of Nebraska to amend the Nebraska Constitution.
I don’t understand why you refer to Attorney General Hilgers as a “fascist”.