March 28, 2006

Arrogant Judge Over-Reaches On Felon Votes

This moron does not care what the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says on the matter – he’s simply going to strike down the law limiting the voting rights of felons because he wants to.

A King County Superior Court judge Monday ruled that thousands of Washington felons should be able to vote even though they have yet to pay off court-ordered fines.

"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," Judge Michael Spearman wrote in a ruling backing the challenge of three indigent felons.

Spearman said the state law requiring payment of all court-ordered fines and fees before a felon can vote again violates the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. He said "discrimination on the basis of wealth and property has long been disfavored.

Under state law, felons can petition the state to have their voting rights restored, but only after they have completed their sentences — including any probation or community service — and have paid all of their court-related costs.

State lawyers argued that the judge shouldn't make a distinction between court-ordered payments and other parts of a felon's sentence, such as jail time.

"It's rational for the Legislature to say we want you to complete everything, as opposed to start separating out sentence elements," said deputy solicitor general Jeff Even.

What’s more, the very amendment that contains the Equal Protection Clause countenances the restriction of voting rights for felons. Go here and read Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is makes it clear that a state may restrict the franchise “for participation in rebellion, or other crime”. The law in question restricts the franchise until ALL other parts of the sentence for a crime are completed, and therefore needs no additional justification. The judge has therefore engaged in a wanton act of arrogant judicial activism.

Probably the only positive point I can make is that this ninny didn't try to rule that this constituted a poll tax -- at least not from what I can tell in this article.

The state of Washington needs to engage in three separate actions. First, it must appeal the decision. Second, it must impeach the judge. Third, it must remove him from the bench. Otherwise, rule of law is dead in Washington state.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I agree that this Judge should be removed for issuing a Court ruling that attempts to "make a law" when Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 (last clause) states that only the U. S. Congress shall "make all laws." In my opinion, for about the last half Century, our Country has been being ruled by a Judicial Oligarchy (the majority of our U. S. Supreme Court Justices, the majority of State Supreme Court Justices, and many Federal and State Court Judges). The very basic good, Godly foundations of our Country are being destroyed by within by them! Every Justice and every Judge who "without any U. S. Constitutional authority" "makes a law" using a personal-opinion base (rather than a Federal or state law base) should be impeached. That Federal constitutional provision means that at state government level, only state Legislatures shall "make all laws." JUSTICES AND/OR JUDGES" have no right to change the intent of state laws "made by state Legislatures," such as when the majority of U. S. Supreme Court Justices ruled that the Texas Law was unconstitutional that prohibited Organized Gang members (with a history of violence after congregating) from "ganging up" on street corners - where they then disbursed routinely and committed crimes (violent and/or nonviolent).

I believe that every one of the majority of U. S. Supreme Court Justices, state Justices, and Federal and State Judges who issue personal-opinion based (and individual heart and mind based) Court rulings that are not based on laws made by Congress and by state Legislatures) should be removed from office for serving "under bad behavior." Such service "under bad behavior" is in direct opposition to Article 3 of our U. S. Constitution that requires them to serve "under good behavior!"

Posted by: Doris Edmonds at Tue Apr 18 23:02:36 2006 (JUvjm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.005, elapsed 0.0132 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0098 seconds, 30 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]