« New Blog about Britain | Main | Two faces, two choices »

September 22, 2006

Comments

Rivrdog

The very best legal minds in GA worked on that legislation, as a team, with plenty of input from the bench.

This judge has a bad Reconstructionist complex, imagines himself as a Carpetbagger out to impose the Yankee point of view on those eeeeevil slave owners.

The idiot has done his village a disfavor by leaving.

Considering your point of the First vs the Second, I'm sure the judge would say that you can kill someone with a gun but not a fraudulent vote. I would pose this to that judge: considering that some of the closest elections in our history have been held recently, and indeed it could be said of 2000 that fraudulent voting in Miami, had it been upheld by the liberal courts (which desperately wanted to until the SCOTUS got into it), we would have had AlGore these last 5 years, and I have no doubt in my mind that Al-Qaeda would have had some success killing Americans in that (D)onk-led span of time.

It stands to reason, then, that a few fraudulent votes DO have the potential to kill Americans.

anonymous

Slightly OT: Did you see the other day a black robed tyrant, er, judge thru out a case of requiring photo id to vote?

Why is it a violation of my constitutional rights to require photo id to vote, but in order to exercise my second amendment rights I need to:

() Provide photo id
() Answer a bunch of questions and sign a form under threat of perjury
() Pay for the privilege of having a background check run
() Provide two thumb prints?

How about that judge throw those unconstitutional requirements out?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad