« Obama's War on Talk Radio | Main | Sotomayor Ruled Against Gun Rights! »
May 27, 2009
Judge Sotomayor and Five Million Criminal Votes for Obama
.
Judge Sotomayor and Five Million Criminal Votes for Obama
There are 5.3 million votes for Obama out there, the only problem is that they happen to belong to murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other convicts and ex-convicts.
That golden box of 5+ million votes is being unlocked by Democrats in one of two ways. The first relies on changing state laws that prevent felon voting at the state level. Their greatest success has arguably been Florida, a crucial swing state with over a million ex-felons. When Governor Charlie Crist promised to let criminals vote during the election and then implemented it once in office, the impact on the 2008 Presidential election was quite sizable.
With anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 new votes available, the Obama campaign ran a "You can Vote Too!" registration drive for ex-felons. And since Obama won Florida by barely 200,000 votes, the newly enfranchised murderers, rapists and pedophiles no doubt did their share to help put him in the White House.
Iowa restored felon voting in 2005, and between 2004 to 2008, swung from Republican to Democratic.
In 2007 Colorado struck down the requirement that ex-felons have to at least complete their parole before becoming eligible to vote, overriding a Colorado Supreme Court ruling. In 2008 Colorado voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate for the first time in 26 years.
Virginia, which also began legalizing felon voters, became another swing state that swung unexpectedly to Obama.
While legalizing felons alone did not swing any of these states, they were part of a larger program to liberalize the voting base, which is why such laws were invariably championed by Democrats and Liberal Republicans. Bringing in millions of new votes changes the game. And that was what happened in 2008.
However giving criminals voting rights on a state by state level has been a long slow process, and that is where the second method comes in, to strike down any bans on felon voting at the Federal level.
The key argument used by felon voting advocates is that barring criminals from voting is a form of racial discrimination, since a disproportionate number of convicted felons are black or members of other minority groups. This brings in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into the picture. Using the VRA, the Supreme Court could potentially strike down any state laws banning criminals from voting. Even convicts still in jail.
This would immediately unlock that golden box of 5 million votes for Obama, even more than local state measures of ACORN's voting fraud, which relied heavily on ex-cons, did.
And the Voting Rights Act is where Judge Sotomayor comes into the picture. While the Supreme Court currently has not chosen to hear any cases involving felon voting, allowing state circuit courts to maintain the ban, Judge Sotomayor is an enthusiastic judicial advocate of applying the VRA to felon voting, treating criminals as a discriminated against group being denied their civic rights.
In Hayden vs Pataki, a case brought by Joseph "Jazz" Hayden, who stabbed a sanitation worker to death, and has since become a campaigner for letting felons vote, Judge Sotomayor dissented from the majority by arguing that the VRA in no way excludes or was meant to exclude felons.
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
"It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all “voting qualification[s].” And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.
What that means is that Sotomayor believes that any voting qualification, including bans on having convicted murderers and rapists vote, is a violation of the Voting Rights Acts. Felons can be treated as a "group" that has been discriminated against by being banned from the right to vote.
This would allow Obama to "crack" more conservative states where felon voting enfranchisement has not made any headway, by treating felon disenfranchisement as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
By nominating Sotomayor, Obama is very clearly looking ahead to 2012, by first nominating an Hispanic Woman, secondly a left wing judicial advocate, more specifically one whose views on ballot access will help open up that golden box of millions of votes, and in the case of a Bush vs Gore type Supreme Court case, will always argue on the side of inadequate access.
And of course Sotomayor's ruling in Ford vs McGinnis that Islamic rights for prisoners can be entirely at the whim of the prisoner, can't hurt. Nor her open position that her job is to make policy, rather than rule on the constitutionality of the laws.
Like Obama her nomination is being treated as a "historical nomination", though Justice Benjamin Cardozo was arguably the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (who naturally doesn't count because he's Jewish), and her judicial advocacy views, her identity politics, will be treated as assets, in the same way that they were for Obama.
But the bigger picture is that Sotomayor is meant to be Obama's ace in the hole for the 2012 election.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
GREAT article and information. I remember when Charlie Crist did this I was so angry!!
I was so ticked off this morning when she was announced and then immediately the bush bashing, the racists speak. The party of no is going to say no. They had a whole script prepared because they knew she was a racist and has made racist comments. As always they are making this about race.
Her saying that her court made policy and then she caught herself because she was being taped. Then someone came ot make light of that and said some stupiud thing like that was a discussion among students. So that made it okay? Obama likes the radical who will go against their given rights within their position.
And to those on TV saying she is a moderate. If Sotomayor is moderate than so were Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
There is a dark side to this lady. Very dark.
Posted by Wild Thing at May 27, 2009 06:47 AM
Comments
Why are we letting felons and illegals vote? I thought if you were found guilty of a felony, you lost all your rights. And illegals shouldn't be voting at all. They should have no say in anything this nation does! Period.
While I'm glad to see people voted, no one really used their brains and we allowed the one person who will go down in history as the man who destroyed America to get all power over us.
How shameful
Posted by: Lynn at May 27, 2009 08:20 AM
If my suspicion of Justice Souter's motive for retiring is correct, yes, we may see more of the liberal justices do the same thing. Things have to happen quickly before the next election cycle when conservatives will attain a parity if not a majority.
Posted by: jim warren at May 27, 2009 09:06 AM
At this point, it doesn't matter if a couple of other liberal judges resign the balance will still be there.
A key is Justice Kennedy, he swings both ways so if he goes then it will be time to worry. Right now all we can do is expose Obama for the flaming liberal he is. This Sodamayor, Sotojerk or whatever her name is. She can only cast one vote on the Supreme Court.
Last year when the SCOTUS decided the Guns rights bill it was 5-4 regardless if she gets in or not it would still be 5-4. The problem is no one is upholding that decision. It was the DC Gun ban and it is still in place. As it is in Chicago and many other cities. The Libs don't like the decision so they won't abide by it. It was the same with Bush's ban on partial birth abortion, alot of the states didn't abide by it and Bush did not enforce it. He should have been all over Kansas when Sebelis was Governor.
More importantly, we need to put pressure on our Representatives to enforce the law.
Posted by: Mark at May 27, 2009 11:57 AM
Sotomayer is pretty much the kind of pick I expected Obama to make for SCOTUS. She is ultraliberal, not moderate. She expects the courts not the Congress to make laws. You would think that alone would make the Senate reject her appointment.
I do not think ex felons should be allowed to vote. It is a surprise to see how many states allow this now.
Posted by: TomR at May 27, 2009 12:19 PM
