Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   In news that will shock absolutely no one, two Trump judges broke the Code of Judicial Conduct to stop up to a million Floridians from voting in November   (slate.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Constitution, State supreme court, United States, federal appeals court, Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States  
•       •       •

3635 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2020 at 5:30 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-23 5:41:32 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark the GOP's voter suppression with a chainsaw.
 
2020-07-23 5:47:13 AM  
This is straight up electing rigging, not fraud, rigging.  The law passed to give these people who have served their time their rights back, but no the GOP goes out of their way to try to stop/slow/limit/hinder the changes that the law demands.

Farking criminals (the GOP not the victims.)
 
2020-07-23 5:48:33 AM  
If you make voting illegal, only criminals will vote.
 
2020-07-23 5:49:45 AM  
Hi guys, Norway here. Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence. It makes no sense, at all.

Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.
 
2020-07-23 5:53:47 AM  
The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.
 
2020-07-23 5:53:55 AM  

TotalFarsa: Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.


No, that's all there is to it...
=Smidge=
 
2020-07-23 5:56:12 AM  

Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-23 5:59:44 AM  
TotalFarsa:

Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence.

Minorities vote for Democrats by a significant margin, so disenfranchising large populations of minorities makes it harder for Democrats to win elections in areas of the country where the margins between parties are close.
 
2020-07-23 6:03:59 AM  

Murkanen: TotalFarsa:

Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence.

Minorities vote for Democrats by a significant margin, so disenfranchising large populations of minorities makes it harder for Democrats to win elections in areas of the country where the margins between parties are close.


So, basically, voter suppression.
 
2020-07-23 6:04:46 AM  

Murkanen: TotalFarsa:

Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence.

Minorities vote for Democrats by a significant margin, so disenfranchising large populations of minorities makes it harder for Democrats to win elections in areas of the country where the margins between parties are close.


You cut off the quote from the post where they state they know damn well it's voter disenfranchisement, just so you can start man-splaining about voter disenfranchisement.  Baller move!
 
KIA
2020-07-23 6:11:32 AM  
Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?
 
2020-07-23 6:11:53 AM  

TotalFarsa: Hi guys, Norway here. Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence. It makes no sense, at all.

Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.


Don't forget a strong tinge of old-fashioned racism.

/it's that Southern courtesy they always brag about
 
2020-07-23 6:13:03 AM  
apocryphaandmyth:

You cut off the quote from the post where they state they know damn well it's voter disenfranchisement, just so you can start man-splaining about voter disenfranchisement.

You mean the part where they said it made no sense because first world countries don't do that to their citizenry?
 
2020-07-23 6:13:30 AM  

Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.


It is not fines, it is 'fees and costs' that the person neither should owe, knows about or in many cases can even FIND OUT about. Its flat out suppression.
 
2020-07-23 6:13:55 AM  

TotalFarsa: Hi guys, Norway here. Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence. It makes no sense, at all.

Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.


Originally such laws were designed to prevent black people from voting.
 
2020-07-23 6:14:43 AM  

Smoking GNU: Murkanen: TotalFarsa:

Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence.

Minorities vote for Democrats by a significant margin, so disenfranchising large populations of minorities makes it harder for Democrats to win elections in areas of the country where the margins between parties are close.

So, basically, voter suppression.


Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-23 6:21:33 AM  

gaspode: Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.

It is not fines, it is 'fees and costs' that the person neither should owe, knows about or in many cases can even FIND OUT about. Its flat out suppression.


It sounds like something is seriously messed up with Florida courts if felons don't find out about the "fines and fees" imposed as part of their sentences. And that can't have anything to do with suppression because until just now paying those fines and fees wouldn't have restored their rights to vote. Imposing a fine on someone physically in your custody but never telling them demonstrates both startling incompetence and an uncharacteristic lack of interest in extracting money from them.
 
2020-07-23 6:22:27 AM  
Can judicial appointments be rescinded by executive order?


/asking for a friend
 
2020-07-23 6:23:41 AM  

KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?


That's not the issue. The former felons owe court fees or fines to the government. Crime victims don't get that money.
 
2020-07-23 6:35:42 AM  

Klyukva: gaspode: Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.

It is not fines, it is 'fees and costs' that the person neither should owe, knows about or in many cases can even FIND OUT about. Its flat out suppression.

It sounds like something is seriously messed up with Florida courts if felons don't find out about the "fines and fees" imposed as part of their sentences. And that can't have anything to do with suppression because until just now paying those fines and fees wouldn't have restored their rights to vote. Imposing a fine on someone physically in your custody but never telling them demonstrates both startling incompetence and an uncharacteristic lack of interest in extracting money from them.


What the fark has that to do with it? The point is that this ruling is manifestly unjust as it requires people to pay large amounts of money NOT given as part of their sentence, and which they often do not know about and the authorities can not or will not tell them or anyone the amount and reason of. No-one is arguing that the bold part is not true, so your incredulity is irrelevant and unfounded.
 
2020-07-23 6:38:25 AM  

gaspode: Klyukva: gaspode: Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.

It is not fines, it is 'fees and costs' that the person neither should owe, knows about or in many cases can even FIND OUT about. Its flat out suppression.

It sounds like something is seriously messed up with Florida courts if felons don't find out about the "fines and fees" imposed as part of their sentences. And that can't have anything to do with suppression because until just now paying those fines and fees wouldn't have restored their rights to vote. Imposing a fine on someone physically in your custody but never telling them demonstrates both startling incompetence and an uncharacteristic lack of interest in extracting money from them.

What the fark has that to do with it?


Now I'm confused. I thought you were talking about people owing money and not knowing it, and I was talking about the same thing.
 
2020-07-23 6:44:15 AM  

Klyukva: gaspode: Klyukva: gaspode: Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.

It is not fines, it is 'fees and costs' that the person neither should owe, knows about or in many cases can even FIND OUT about. Its flat out suppression.

It sounds like something is seriously messed up with Florida courts if felons don't find out about the "fines and fees" imposed as part of their sentences. And that can't have anything to do with suppression because until just now paying those fines and fees wouldn't have restored their rights to vote. Imposing a fine on someone physically in your custody but never telling them demonstrates both startling incompetence and an uncharacteristic lack of interest in extracting money from them.

What the fark has that to do with it?

Now I'm confused. I thought you were talking about people owing money and not knowing it, and I was talking about the same thing.


Yeah but the point here is the use of that to keep people perpetually disenfranchised, in direct opposition to the intention of the people, and against all justice.

The actual shiat behind the system putting people in perpetual debt if they get arrested is a side issue, albeit another injustice.
 
2020-07-23 6:45:28 AM  
Florida is where the GOP focus all their aims, shiat they have already openly stolen one election from there.
 
2020-07-23 7:03:30 AM  

KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?


Since half of incarcerated persons are for non-violent drug crimes, it's safe to say you're full of shiat.
 
2020-07-23 7:15:34 AM  

janzee: Can judicial appointments be rescinded by executive order?


/asking for a friend


They can be impeached. Or according to the president, there is something that 2nd Amendment people can do.
 
2020-07-23 7:17:54 AM  

Langdon_777: This is straight up electing rigging, not fraud, rigging.  The law passed to give these people who have served their time their rights back, but no the GOP goes out of their way to try to stop/slow/limit/hinder the changes that the law demands.

Farking criminals (the GOP not the victims.)


Which was both predictable and predicted when the people of Florida elected Republicans to administer that law
 
2020-07-23 7:27:26 AM  

feltrider: KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?

Since half of incarcerated persons are for non-violent drug crimes, it's safe to say you're full of shiat.


That's not true at all.

Here is information about Florida's inmate population by offenses

Over 50% of Florida state prisoners are serving time for violent offenses; 16% of state inmates are imprisoned for the sale, manufacture, purchase, trafficking or possession of drugs. These figures are consistent with the national average.

https://www.project180reentry.org/sta​t​istics/
 
2020-07-23 7:31:04 AM  

TotalFarsa: Hi guys, Norway here. Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence. It makes no sense, at all.

Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.


Because of a combination of racism and America's puritanical roots that mean no politician has ever lost his job for being too tough on crime.

When the post Civil War amendments were added to the Constitution, they explicitly left in the ability to abridge the right to vote if you're convicted of a felony.
 
2020-07-23 7:34:23 AM  

sprgrss: feltrider: KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?

Since half of incarcerated persons are for non-violent drug crimes, it's safe to say you're full of shiat.

That's not true at all.

Here is information about Florida's inmate population by offenses

Over 50% of Florida state prisoners are serving time for violent offenses; 16% of state inmates are imprisoned for the sale, manufacture, purchase, trafficking or possession of drugs. These figures are consistent with the national average.

https://www.project180reentry.org/stat​istics/


It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.
 
2020-07-23 7:35:52 AM  

moulderx1: sprgrss: feltrider: KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?

Since half of incarcerated persons are for non-violent drug crimes, it's safe to say you're full of shiat.

That's not true at all.

Here is information about Florida's inmate population by offenses

Over 50% of Florida state prisoners are serving time for violent offenses; 16% of state inmates are imprisoned for the sale, manufacture, purchase, trafficking or possession of drugs. These figures are consistent with the national average.

https://www.project180reentry.org/stat​istics/

It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.


That should say 52.6.  No prior incarceration.
 
2020-07-23 7:37:32 AM  

moulderx1: It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.


Less than half are for "non violent" offenses.  Want to know what gets wrapped up in non violent offenses?  Larceny, embezzlement, fraud, Impaired Driving, Commercial Burglary, Possession of Firearms by prohibited persons, a whole litany of crimes that I'm just ever so certain you most people believe belong in prison.
 
2020-07-23 7:45:52 AM  

sprgrss: moulderx1: It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.

Less than half are for "non violent" offenses.  Want to know what gets wrapped up in non violent offenses?  Larceny, embezzlement, fraud, Impaired Driving, Commercial Burglary, Possession of Firearms by prohibited persons, a whole litany of crimes that I'm just ever so certain you most people believe belong in prison.


Those crimes ARE putting people in prison. Just not for crimes considered violent.
I appreciate explaining most people still consider those crimes rise to incarceration offenses.
 
2020-07-23 7:51:01 AM  

moulderx1: sprgrss: moulderx1: It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.

Less than half are for "non violent" offenses.  Want to know what gets wrapped up in non violent offenses?  Larceny, embezzlement, fraud, Impaired Driving, Commercial Burglary, Possession of Firearms by prohibited persons, a whole litany of crimes that I'm just ever so certain you most people believe belong in prison.

Those crimes ARE putting people in prison. Just not for crimes considered violent.
I appreciate explaining most people still consider those crimes rise to incarceration offenses.


Then why are you trying to downplay those offenses in a poor effort to defend the baseless claim that half of incarcerated people are in prison for non violent drug offenses?  Note well that non violent in that sentence modifies the noun part "drug offenses"
 
2020-07-23 8:34:23 AM  
No one's saying that no one should go to jail, dummies.

They're saying that once they've served their sentence, they should have their voting rights restored.
 
2020-07-23 8:41:06 AM  
FTFA:Between 750,000 and 1.1 millionFloridians are believed to have court debt, though the state does not keep track of these records and cannot identify how much money most individuals actually owe.

So, people owe money... maybe? Do they go by looks?

Wow.
 
2020-07-23 8:57:07 AM  

Murkanen: TotalFarsa:

Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence.

Minorities vote for Democrats by a significant margin, so disenfranchising large populations of minorities makes it harder for Democrats to win elections in areas of the country where the margins between parties are close.


On paper, it might seem reasonable: right to vote is predicated on being a good citizen & not committing felonies.

In practice:  all US racial groups observe the same rates of drug abuse.   (5%?  20?).  Yet minorities are arrested more frequently, face harsher criminal charges, & more severe penalties.

//the game is rigged
 
2020-07-23 9:03:09 AM  

Murkanen: apocryphaandmyth:

You cut off the quote from the post where they state they know damn well it's voter disenfranchisement, just so you can start man-splaining about voter disenfranchisement.

You mean the part where they said it made no sense because first world countries don't do that to their citizenry?


First world countries are progressive democracies
 
2020-07-23 9:27:47 AM  

TotalFarsa: Hi guys, Norway here. Please explain why your right to vote is limited because of a prison sentence. It makes no sense, at all.

Besides voter suppression. But surely, that can't be it.


Nixon literally made marijuana illegal to take away the black and liberal youth's right to vote.

So yes, voter suppression. Our "free" country is based on not letting people vote.
 
2020-07-23 10:33:02 AM  

GooberK: FTFA:Between 750,000 and 1.1 millionFloridians are believed to have court debt, though the state does not keep track of these records and cannot identify how much money most individuals actually owe.

So, people owe money... maybe? Do they go by looks?

Wow.


A lower court had set a rule that if the state couldn't provide a bill within 21 days that the ex-felon should be allowed to vote. That was overturned with the District Court / SCOTUS decision. A statement of fact was also brought up where the State claimed it would take six years to clean up its records.

And keep in mind that Florida has no income tax. Courts are funded for through fines, and ex-convicts will find themselves paying fines for tons of stuff -- like a surcharge to pay for their probation. Missing payments can result in additional fines, and to top it all off the state is allowed to sell debts to private collection agencies that can add up to 40% to the bill.
 
2020-07-23 10:41:40 AM  

sprgrss: moulderx1: sprgrss: moulderx1: It still says half are for non violent offences and your link says 52% have to prior incarceration.

Less than half are for "non violent" offenses.  Want to know what gets wrapped up in non violent offenses?  Larceny, embezzlement, fraud, Impaired Driving, Commercial Burglary, Possession of Firearms by prohibited persons, a whole litany of crimes that I'm just ever so certain you most people believe belong in prison.

Those crimes ARE putting people in prison. Just not for crimes considered violent.
I appreciate explaining most people still consider those crimes rise to incarceration offenses.

Then why are you trying to downplay those offenses in a poor effort to defend the baseless claim that half of incarcerated people are in prison for non violent drug offenses?  Note well that non violent in that sentence modifies the noun part "drug offenses"


I don't find drugs offensive. Let them all go.
 
2020-07-23 11:15:43 AM  
That Florida contains a million ex-cons doesn't raise a single eyebrow, because of course it does.
 
2020-07-23 11:54:14 AM  

Klyukva: The amendment granted suffrage to individuals who have completed "all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." Florida Republicans then dramatically limited who could benefit by requiring ex-felons to pay all court-imposed fines and fees before regaining their right to vote.

If the terms of a sentence include paying a fine it is the plain text of the amendment that the fine must be paid before voting rights are restored.


According to TFA, the state of Florida doesn't even know how much most ex-felons owe.  Clearly they never intended for the fines to be paid.

BTW, do you still owe the outrageous court fees, jail room and board, etc. if you are eventually found innocent?  Does this prevent people who have been exonerated from voting as well?
 
KIA
2020-07-23 12:46:03 PM  

feltrider: KIA: Gee, it's almost like "completing all of the terms of their sentence" should not include paying their restitution to victims or something.  Like the felons should get a free pass and the victims should continue to suffer.  Who'd have thought that was not appropriate?

Since half of incarcerated persons are for non-violent drug crimes, it's safe to say you're full of shiat.


Well, technically only half full of shiat according to your number.

So half-right, yay!
 
2020-07-23 2:34:23 PM  
In the Early Republic era of Rome, there was no written law. The law was whatever the patrician governors or the patrician judges & juries decided at the moment it was.

In many cases, "the law" was based on precedent (like our "common law") but in other cases, it was based on some Patrician's whim, or whatever benefitted the Patrician Order generally.

Unsurprisingly, this system ensured the Plebs were constantly getting screwed. Plebs were prosecuted for doing things they weren't even aware were crimes. At some point, they decided they'd about had enough of this shiat.

The next time some Patrician consul picked a fight with a neighbor (to take their property for himself), the Patrician-only Senate called the Plebs to arms to fight the war.

And the Plebs collectively said..."Nah."

The Patricians shiat themselves. The war was going to happen, and they needed the Plebs to fight it.

So the Plebs said, "Maaaaaybe, but we need some changes made." And that is how the Plebs ensured that Rome got a sort of written Magna Carta/Bill of Rights (The Twelve Tables), published in the Forum, and some other long overdue reforms as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflic​t​_of_the_Orders

Fact: general strikes work like pretty much nothing else. Especially against entrenched oligarchs.
 
2020-07-23 8:20:53 PM  

IAmRight: No one's saying that no one should go to jail, dummies.

They're saying that once they've served their sentence, they should have their voting rights restored.


nice non sequitur.  I'm not shocked that the brain trust here upvoted you.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.