Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LouisBooth" data-source="post: 70569477" data-attributes="member: 645"><p>This should mean you know what legal precedent means and that I'm right then.</p><p></p><p>and ONLY applies when the SC DECLINES to hear a case. It does not apply in this case.</p><p></p><p>"For stare decisis to be <u>effective</u>, each jurisdiction <u>must</u> have <u>one highest court</u> to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The <u>U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts</u> serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes <u>judicial precedent</u>."--http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stare+Decisis</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And it refutes your statement that ID laws discriminate against minorities. So yes, you need to refute it to cling to your claim. This is not a small time example, this is an actual state example.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, false dichotomy. Sorry, you're incorrect here. Like I said, if you believe this, you shouldn't even be posting on a computer or you're admitting you're greedy and immoral. If you give to one charity, you must give to all of them and give everything away.</p><p></p><p>No evidence has been found that this is confirmed. Sorry, you don't give credence to rumors.</p><p></p><p>My conclusion is that you've been refuted because you cannot address the example posted. Voter ID laws have no impact other then to cut back on voter fraud and graft.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Does it specify you have to be a citizens to vote?</p><p></p><p>Neither do I, unless it holds up the election process. There is no reason to stop it when it is clearly shown who won.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LouisBooth, post: 70569477, member: 645"] This should mean you know what legal precedent means and that I'm right then. and ONLY applies when the SC DECLINES to hear a case. It does not apply in this case. "For stare decisis to be [U]effective[/U], each jurisdiction [U]must[/U] have [U]one highest court[/U] to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The [U]U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts[/U] serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes [U]judicial precedent[/U]."--http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stare+Decisis And it refutes your statement that ID laws discriminate against minorities. So yes, you need to refute it to cling to your claim. This is not a small time example, this is an actual state example. Again, false dichotomy. Sorry, you're incorrect here. Like I said, if you believe this, you shouldn't even be posting on a computer or you're admitting you're greedy and immoral. If you give to one charity, you must give to all of them and give everything away. No evidence has been found that this is confirmed. Sorry, you don't give credence to rumors. My conclusion is that you've been refuted because you cannot address the example posted. Voter ID laws have no impact other then to cut back on voter fraud and graft. Does it specify you have to be a citizens to vote? Neither do I, unless it holds up the election process. There is no reason to stop it when it is clearly shown who won. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes
Top
Bottom