- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
n a ruling late Friday, US District Judge Thomas Schroeder refused to issue a preliminary injunction to block the 2013 state voter ID law.
But the judge also rejected a motion by North Carolina officials that sought the complete dismissal of legal challenges to the new law.
Instead, Judge Schroeder ruled that the plaintiffs had raised “plausible claims” about the potential discriminatory intent and impact of the new voting requirements. He said those claims would be examined during a civil trial set for July 2015.
Any type of voter ID act by just one party will continue to backfire on said party as we saw in several "purple" states in 2012 with an actual increase in registration. Next my right-wing friends will accuse of voter fraud and on it goes. The real story is in the fineprint of the rest of the bill not having to do with ID--you know, the suppression stuff .
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.
No, this was an attempt to enjoin, which was denied by the court. Perhaps you should actually read what the hearing was for and what the courts decision was. It's right there, attached to the article. Read it.
Both sides were trying to get a final decision, neither got one. Get over yourself.
The DOJ filed the complaint, hun, they lost. It's common for the defendant to file a counter. You should try to figure out how the court system works before trying to sound knowledgable.
No, this was an attempt to enjoin, which was denied by the court. Perhaps you should actually read what the hearing was for and what the courts decision was. It's right there, attached to the article. Read it.
Sweetie-pie, it seems that the defendants didn't file "a counter" so much as they just asked for a summary judgment.The DOJ filed the complaint, hun, they lost. It's common for the defendant to file a counter. You should try to figure out how the court system works before trying to sound knowledgable.
Any type of voter ID act by just one party will continue to backfire on said party as we saw in several "purple" states in 2012 with an actual increase in registration. Next my right-wing friends will accuse of voter fraud and on it goes. The real story is in the fineprint of the rest of the bill not having to do with ID--you know, the suppression stuff .
Doesn't change the reported fact that NC was trying to use the same preceding to get it entirely dismissed. I stand by my comments as accurate.
"In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 barring Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381.... Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 94.)"
Sweetie-pie, it seems that the defendants didn't file "a counter" so much as they just asked for a summary judgment.
The judge does indeed seem to have denied both the injunction and the request for a judgment, hun.
ymmv
Where is that response?They did file a counter, it's in the defendants response, sweety.
Y'all sure skeered of them voter ID laws.
Did you post to the wrong thread?The judge is a Republican stooge. Backing a Republican law is not news.
Did you post to the wrong thread?
Because the judge wasn't backing any law.No. Why do you ask?
Where is that response?
"In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 barring Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381.... Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 94.)"
Sweetie-pie, it seems that the defendants didn't file "a counter" so much as they just asked for a summary judgment.
The judge does indeed seem to have denied both the injunction and the request for a judgment, hun.
ymmv