• 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!

DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

Not shown, but the Judge cites it in the decision. Read the decision, it's there in it's entirety.
But you don't know where I take it.
You can't quote any of that language which says so, right?

So the decision is pretty much exactly as Summerwind and I described it.
But there's also some other counter suit going on as well.
 
But you don't know where I take it.
You can't quote any of that language which says so, right?

Where you take what?

So the decision is pretty much exactly as Summerwind and I described it.
But there's also some other counter suit going on as well.

No, not at all. You're glossing over that the complaint was filed and denied.
 
Where you take what?
I take you don't know where the "defendant's response" is.

No, not at all. You're glossing over that the complaint was filed and denied.
In that decision, the plaintiffs filed for an injunction. That was denied.
The defendants filed for a summary judgment. That was also denied.

That's about it for that decision.
:shrug:
 
Well that's bold faced mischaracterization of what happened. Let's try a more rational and accurate report....

Could voter ID law tilt North Carolina Senate race? Foes decry judge's ruling (+video) - CSMonitor.com



Basically the judge decided to do not much at all until the 2015 trial, he didn't give a win to either side.

Technically, you're correct. But in my experience, courts habitually grant injunctions when they see the likelihood of a suit being successful and the potential for the plaintiff's suffering some form of harm without the injunction. This simply tells me that the judge wants to see the case go to trial, presumably to provide some guidance/closure, but that he doesn't believe it's likely to succeed in the end.
 
I take you don't know where the "defendant's response" is.

I told you I didn't see it. However it was referenced and if you know how the system works, you'd understand why this is unnecessary. The judge spells out what the defendant asked for.

In that decision, the plaintiffs filed for an injunction. That was denied.
The defendants filed for a summary judgment. That was also denied.

That's about it for that decision.
:shrug:

Which means further cases can be brought, however, this one was defeated.
 
I wish people's desire for the whole story would actually extend beyond what a journalist interprets a court decision to be.

After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ complaints state plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and should be permitted to proceed in the litigation. However, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in this circuit only upon a “clear showing” of entitlement. After thorough review of the record, the court finds that as to two challenged provisions of SL 2013-381, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction. Consequently, the motions for prelimminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied. This resolution renders the motions to exclude expert testimony moot.

The judge never said the plaintiffs had "plausible claims," he just sited their complaint and that they should be handled during the trial. The fact that denied the injunction pretty much means this case is going nowhere. Pretty common sense, if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would have granted the injunction. The rest of the decision cites some case precedence which more or less support that conclusion.

At this point, I wonder what this has cost the Federal government? Sadly, the current DOJ seems hell bent on continuing these fishing expeditions attempting to overturn established precedence.
 
I told you I didn't see it. However it was referenced and if you know how the system works, you'd understand why this is unnecessary. The judge spells out what the defendant asked for.
So it really wasn't about this decision at all?
It's just something which was referenced as background?
The judge referenced the defendant's response to judge's decision in the decision itself?

Which means further cases can be brought, however, this one was defeated.
Imho, the "case" is the Mann v et al and these were two motions filed in the case--one by plaintiff and one by defense.
Each motion was denied.

But I expect that the attorneys will continue to litigate and file all sorts of this that and the others.
 
...courts habitually grant injunctions when they see the likelihood of a suit being successful and the potential for the plaintiff's suffering some form of harm without the injunction.
The judge says "irreparable harm" is a "a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief" and that "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy".

This simply tells me that the judge wants to see the case go to trial, presumably to provide some guidance/closure, but that he doesn't believe it's likely to succeed in the end.
The judge said he wasn't convinced on two of the challenges, but even if he was convinced the plaintiffs would win on all challenges, the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the mean time.
 
The fact that denied the injunction pretty much means this case is going nowhere. Pretty common sense, if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would have granted the injunction.
When I read where the judge wrote

"As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction."

I took it a totally different way than you did.
To me, it seems that the judge is saying more or less the opposite of what you're saying.

I would have paraphrased what it seems the judge specifically and explicitly said as something more like, "Even if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would NOT have granted the injunction."

:shrug:
 
So it really wasn't about this decision at all?
It's just something which was referenced as background?
The judge referenced the defendant's response to judge's decision in the decision itself?

You have absolutely no idea how a lawsuit works do you?

Imho, the "case" is the Mann v et al and these were two motions filed in the case--one by plaintiff and one by defense.
Each motion was denied.

above question applies here, too.

But I expect that the attorneys will continue to litigate and file all sorts of this that and the others.

That's what they do.
 

Plaintiff files a complaint with the court. Defendant files a response. In the response, the defendant requests what they would like the court to do (counter suit, in a nutshell). The defendant is not filing a separate complaint....it's a response to the complaint. The complaint was defeated....had it never been filed, the defendant would not have requested anything at all....to claim it is a loss for both sides is a superficial and, well, a childish way of looking at things.
 
I find it ironic that people had to show their ID 4 (four) times to get into the DNC convention in but they are pushing for no ID for voting. Amazing, just freaking amazing.
 
...to claim it is a loss for both sides is a superficial and, well, a childish way of looking at things.
In any case, the judge seems to think that he has denied motions from the defendant and the plaintiff.

"After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety."
"Consequently, the motions for preliminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied."
 
I find it ironic that people had to show their ID 4 (four) times to get into the DNC convention in but they are pushing for no ID for voting. Amazing, just freaking amazing.
Maybe there's more of a problem with people trying to enter the convention than there is of the kind of voter fraud which would be prevented by showing ID?

Apparently, the kind of voter fraud which can be prevented by showing ID is extremely rare.

:shrug:
 
I find it ironic that people had to show their ID 4 (four) times to get into the DNC convention in but they are pushing for no ID for voting. Amazing, just freaking amazing.

Who's pushing for NO ID for voting?

ID requirements for voter registration is clearly spelled out in the HAVA act of 2002, sec. 303.

If a simple photo ID was all that is required and everything possible was done to insure someone acquires said ID, I believe there would be very little pushback. It's all the garbage attached to these ID bills that cause some to not be able to comply or very difficult to comply, is what has people up in arms.

Making it easier for every eligible voter in the U.S. to vote should be the goal, not erecting hoops and hurdles to discourage even one eligible voter to become discouraged from voting.


Here's an investigation that found 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast - The Washington Post


That's a fraud rate of 0.00002%. Is that worth it if it causes even one eligible voter to not be able to cast their ballot?
 
In any case, the judge seems to think that he has denied motions from the defendant and the plaintiff.

"After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety."
"Consequently, the motions for preliminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied."

motion for judgement on the pleadings was the defendant asking the judge to end it entirely. The judge decided not to, while denying the plaintiffs motion to enjoin (which is what this case was for). So, if the plaintiff so chooses, they can bring the motion to court without getting the injunction they were looking for.
 
Back
Top Bottom