• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virginia Supreme Court refuses to hold Governor McAuliffe in Contempt

He isn't defying any court order the way he is currently doing the restoration. He is supposedly reviewing each case on an individual basis and either approving or denying it. That is what the law in VA requires.

The court said he could not do a blanket restoration, so he stopped and started to do the individually.


What law is he supposedly violating. Please tell me cause I hate defending the piece of crap man.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
that's not true. The court said he couldn't give a blanket restoration of rights, but Virginia law says a governor CAN restore rights on an individual basis. That's what he is doing, and it violates no court order whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Obviously, he's doing his best to work around the court order. The legislature might have to take action, though it would have to be veto proof. I would categorize it more of an abuse of power. And please, let's not kid ourselves about him standing up for rights and the greater good. This is solely for votes.
 
Captain Adverse said:
None supposedly (arguably those three where they can never vote again?), their rights are only supposed to be limited or suspended during incarceration.
Click to expand...
No, not the right to vote. In those States the people have decided that the punishment includes losing the right to vote.
They were full citizens with all rights and privileges prior to being incarcerated, and should have all the rights and privileges of citizenship restored once free of all burdens of their sentence.
Click to expand...
That's just your opinion, the law in those States says otherwise.

Ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation?" If you can't vote, but can still be taxed or held accountable for laws others pass...where is that original citizenship?
Click to expand...
Did you know that in some States, you can go to jail for drunk driving, and still lose the right to drive long after you are out of jail and no longer drunk?
 
Captain Adverse said:
A better question is, shouldn't such a person be sent to a psychiatric prison facility until a panel of psychiatrists unanimously determine he is safe to reside in society?
Click to expand...

Would you then leave him with your kids or grandkids?
 
Chillfolks said:
He isn't defying any court order the way he is currently doing the restoration. He is supposedly reviewing each case on an individual basis and either approving or denying it. That is what the law in VA requires.

The court said he could not do a blanket restoration, so he stopped and started to do the individually.


What law is he supposedly violating. Please tell me cause I hate defending the piece of crap man.
Click to expand...

This is probably a case where they never thought they would have a governor abusing his power like this, so they saw no need to put limits on it. But when you elect a piece of crap like McAuliffe, the best interests of the people are out the window.
 
jmotivator said:
Would you then leave him with your kids or grandkids?
Click to expand...

That's not an honest question, and let me tell you why. I would have no problem with most ex-cons babysitting my kids or grand kids, once they have completed parole. As a musician, I personally know a few ex-cons, and they are harmless.

As for a child rapist, he wouldn't be allowed to because, once he is out of prison, he is registered as a sex offender for life. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to babysit kids. And, of course, before I would allow ANYBODY to babysit my kids, I would do a background check on him or her. If the crime was bad checks or a possession of a couple of joints, no problem. If the crime was a violent one, I would most likely pass. Background checks are very easy to do. Pay publicdata.com 15 bucks for a year, and you can do more background checks than you need.

So my answer to you would be it depends on the crime. And linking voting to babysitting kids or owning a gun is a dishonest argument. Whether he votes or not is no way related to whether he gets to watch someone's kids or gets to own a gun. BTW, here in Texas, a felon can get his rights restored and own a handgun by getting his rights restored. He can also own a long gun 5 years after completing parole, whether or not he has had his rights restored. Again, That comparison to the right to vote, made by someone else, is also dishonest, since the right to vote has no capacity for violence, that is, unless you go back to the days where black people were lynched in the Old South merely for wanting to vote.
 
danarhea said:
That's not an honest question, and let me tell you why. I would have no problem with most ex-cons babysitting my kids or grand kids, once they have completed parole. As a musician, I personally know a few ex-cons, and they are harmless.

As for a child rapist, he wouldn't be allowed to because, once he is out of prison, he is registered as a sex offender for life. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to babysit kids. And, of course, before I would allow ANYBODY to babysit my kids, I would do a background check on him or her. If the crime was bad checks or a possession of a couple of joints, no problem. If the crime was a violent one, I would most likely pass. Background checks are very easy to do. Pay publicdata.com 15 bucks for a year, and you can do more background checks than you need.

So my answer to you would be it depends on the crime. And linking voting to babysitting kids or owning a gun is a dishonest argument. Whether he votes or not is no way related to whether he gets to watch someone's kids or gets to own a gun. BTW, here in Texas, a felon can get his rights restored and own a handgun by getting his rights restored. He can also own a long gun 5 years after completing parole, whether or not he has had his rights restored. Again, That comparison to the right to vote, made by someone else, is also dishonest, since the right to vote has no capacity for violence, that is, unless you go back to the days where black people were lynched in the Old South merely for wanting to vote.
Click to expand...

The issue with this story is as much the process as the outcome. I'm using the analogies already offered by other posters and the responses to determine whether the analogy and the counter analogy are actually sound and consistent. You don't make this process less muddy by adding a lynching analogy. :roll:

Let's put the sex offender question in the perspective of this voting story: Would you be OK with the VA Governor deciding unilaterally to end the law prohibiting pedophiles from babysitting? Do you think it should go through the state legislature? What about a governor that decides that the sex offender registration is cruel and unusual punishment and deciding unilaterally to close the eliminate the registration in their state?

These analogies are not meant to equate voting with pedophilia, they are meant to remove the bias from the scenario by casting the same process with a group you abhor rather than one you are sympathetic with. It's like the old truism about the freedom of speech: You don't really support freedom of speech until you defend someone who's speech you hate.
 
Need to look at the states consitution and what it says

In reading it appears he does have the authorty, to restore voting to a former felon
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Did you know that in some States, you can go to jail for drunk driving, and still lose the right to drive long after you are out of jail and no longer drunk?
Click to expand...

Driving isn't a Right. Voting and having representation is a Right.
 
Anthony60 said:
And it's a right you can lose as punishment for crimes.
Click to expand...

Temporarily yes. But it should not ever be permanent unless the sentence is life in prison or death. Otherwise you have second class citizens. Something which we of today are supposed to be against. Otherwise what was the point in the civil rights movement?
 
danarhea said:
Good decision. I strongly believe that, once someone has paid his debt to society, his rights are to be restored. We want to bring ex convicts back into society, not kick them out. When they are brought back into the fold, the chances are less that they will offend again. Besides, a sentence is just that... A sentence, and once it ends, the felon once more becomes a citizen.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
but he went against the court....This is kinda cut and dry.
 
Whether felons should be disenfranchised is a matter for each state to decide. I favor disenfranchising them in general, with exceptions for certain felonies that are relatively less serious. The fact most ex-felons vote for Democratic Party candidates is especially interesting this year. That party's presidential candidate has almost certainly committed one or more federal felonies, but has gone scot free because her fellow Marxist liar in the White House rigged the proceedings to assure she was not prosecuted. Birds of a feather.
 
And that is the end of that.

Not cool that a state like VA is breaking down this far. This aint Louisiana.
 
Those bastards!?!

One question...

...who is Governor Terry McAuliffe?
 
Captain Adverse said:
A better question is, shouldn't such a person be sent to a psychiatric prison facility until a panel of psychiatrists unanimously determine he is safe to reside in society?

Meanwhile, what point are you trying to make by using the most extreme examples?

Either a person has paid for their crime and should be welcomed back in order to become a properly functioning member of society without stigma...you know, TRY to prevent recidivism?

Or they should remain incarcerated until they are no longer identifiable as a threat.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, As I have stated in a few other posts, I do support felons having their rights restored, even gun rights on a case by case basis.

Ex cons with certain psychiatric problems (child molestation), I'm not so sure about.
 
danarhea said:
That's not an honest question, and let me tell you why. I would have no problem with most ex-cons babysitting my kids or grand kids, once they have completed parole. As a musician, I personally know a few ex-cons, and they are harmless.

As for a child rapist, he wouldn't be allowed to because, once he is out of prison, he is registered as a sex offender for life. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to babysit kids. And, of course, before I would allow ANYBODY to babysit my kids, I would do a background check on him or her. If the crime was bad checks or a possession of a couple of joints, no problem. If the crime was a violent one, I would most likely pass. Background checks are very easy to do. Pay publicdata.com 15 bucks for a year, and you can do more background checks than you need.

So my answer to you would be it depends on the crime. And linking voting to babysitting kids or owning a gun is a dishonest argument. Whether he votes or not is no way related to whether he gets to watch someone's kids or gets to own a gun. BTW, here in Texas, a felon can get his rights restored and own a handgun by getting his rights restored. He can also own a long gun 5 years after completing parole, whether or not he has had his rights restored. Again, That comparison to the right to vote, made by someone else, is also dishonest, since the right to vote has no capacity for violence, that is, unless you go back to the days where black people were lynched in the Old South merely for wanting to vote.
Click to expand...

See post #41
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Should a post be relevant to the subject matter, or just be random, irrelevant nonsense clumsily intended to evoke an emotional response?
Click to expand...

Very relevant question.

A blanket type order by the governor for a full restoration of rights to certain people is foolish and dangerous.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Temporarily yes. But it should not ever be permanent unless the sentence is life in prison or death. Otherwise you have second class citizens. Something which we of today are supposed to be against. Otherwise what was the point in the civil rights movement?
Click to expand...

It can be temporary, or it can be permanent. It depends on how each State decides to handle it. It has absolutely zero to do with civil rights. I am not for or against it, I'm for every State deciding on their own.
 
apdst said:
Excons should be able to own guns?
Click to expand...

A person should get back ALL their Constitutional rights once they have paid their debt to society. That includes voting rights as well as Second Amendment rights and all others.

The one exception to that rule I can support is a person convicted of abusing their children should NOT be given custody of them once they get out. But that involves protecting children and their rights as well.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Very relevant question.

A blanket type order by the governor for a full restoration of rights to certain people is foolish and dangerous.
Click to expand...

It also goes against the will of the people. They didn't intend for the governor to effectively overturn the law on his own. Ever notice how the left easily slips into the role of a dictator whenever they get the chance? They know that it sometimes takes years for the law to catch up with them, and there are never any consequences. They seem to comfortable in that role.
 
haymarket said:
A person should get back ALL their Constitutional rights once they have paid their debt to society. That includes voting rights as well as Second Amendment rights and all others.

The one exception to that rule I can support is a person convicted of abusing their children should NOT be given custody of them once they get out. But that involves protecting children and their rights as well.
Click to expand...

Ya know, part of that debt in some States is not being allowed to vote. Obviously, every State has an avenue for those rights to be restored.
 
Anthony60 said:
Ya know, part of that debt in some States is not being allowed to vote. Obviously, every State has an avenue for those rights to be restored.
Click to expand...

That is NOT part of the debt and to consider it as such is unfairly stacking the deck with all the political and racial implications that come with it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Should a ex con child rapist babysit your kids, or grandkids?
Click to expand...

What did that have to do with felons voting? Seems like quite the emotionally charged deflection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom