Andros X covered it very well. I trust you are satisfied that there is sufficient citation?
That’s not what the court ordered him to do.
I’m sorry, what thread have you been reading? Surely not this one. The court most certainly did order him to provide the paper forms. Your little trick of changing the word “provide” to “use” notwithstanding.
The court said no such thing. And besides, this clearly does not provide the assistance required by the law. They are required not only to give the proper forms to the felons before they are released, but to help them fill them out and submit them as well. That’s the LAW. The phone system does not meet this requirement. From the OP’s article:
Note that he’s saying “all THEY have to do…” But the law specifically requires the governor to assist, and not just leave it up to the inmates.
Weak. I refuted his argument, and rather than address what I said, you simply say he’s doing a “fine job”. Whatever. :rolleyes:
And as I keep pointing out, that would be inconsistent with Jeb’s past behavior, and you have given absolutely no reason to believe that he would suddenly behave differently. So I’m afraid I have to reject your opinion.
This is nothing but ad hominem. You haven’t refuted anything I said; you’ve just tossed out some blithe “you guys always do this because you hate Bush” generalities. Totally meaningless.
In other words, you refuse to consider any arguments made by people on the left because you are biased against them.
You’ve refuted nothing, you are continuing to discuss it with him, your final point being that inmates need “assistance” to make a telephone call. They do not even have to fill out a single form to apply for their hearing, isn’t that considered "assistance’? Or, do you really believe that the inmate should not have to take the tiniest bit of initiative or do any work whatsoever to get the ball rolling?
You are admittedly using past behavior to color your current analysis of the situation. There is no proof and no reasonable argument that a single person will be disenfranchised by this change. First off, their names are automatically entered into the system, so 15% of the inmates will get their vote back without having to do a thing. The remainder get a letter detailing how to contact them back, via any of 3 different methods of the inmates choosing. This is not an arduous process by any stretch of the imagination, if you’re not biased in the negative to begin with.
You’re argument is “He did something wrong with voter rolls 4 years ago, so this MUST be another criminal act on his part.” Because you admittedly don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, it is YOU who are unwilling to even consider the opposite side. Since I’m trying to be neutral here, I AM willing to consider your side, I just find the proof lacking.
I don’t give a shit about Jeb Bush, I don’t live in his state and I’m probably not voting for his brother either (not that it’ll matter in NY) I’m just a man who’s tired of hearing these pathetic whining arguments against the Bushes on topics so small that they shouldn’t even show up on anyone’s radar to begin with. FTR, I even defended december on these boards when I thought he was getting jumped on over his past threads rather than the thread he just started.
An intelligent person once said that facts are slippery things.
Intelligent people recognize that one has to look at facts in the context that surrounds them.
I don’t think it is left-wing bias that is 100% at work here, although it certainly is a factor.
I think a *reasonable * person could look at the context – the past behavior of Jeb Bush – and consider it to be very relevant when interpreting these particular facts.
To comply with the court order, the governor can certainly provide form ADM1501A.
But the governor may also do away with the requirement for form ADM1501A.
Either action places him in compliance with the court order.
If your interpretation is correct, then we have the absurd result that the court is ordering the executive to use form ADM 1501A for now and evermore. The court is not doing that, nor could they; the particular form and its use is the creature of the executive, not the judiciary. The court based its order on the concession, at oral argument, that a large majority of released felons used form ADM 1501A, and that, as a result, the failure of the Department to provide it was violative of the law.
If the form is no longer required, then the order is complied with.
How utterly disingenous of you. I refuted Bricker’s point, then made the ADDITIONAL point that they aren’t providing the assistance required by the law, yet you pretend that my additional point was the refutation. All the while, you wrongly claim you can “skip” the point because you pretend that Bricker has put it to rest, which he in no way has done.
The point is not what I believe, but rather what the law requires. The crux of the matter is that Jeb wasn’t providing the assistance as required by law, GOT SUED, and WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT to do so. Now he’s STILL refusing to provide the assistance.
I’m using past behavior as evidence towards a conclusion. It is not coloring anything. You, on the other hand, are allowing your partisanship to color your belief in what Jeb’s motivation might be. You want us to believe that Jeb has done this out of the goodness of his heart because he wants to comply with the court order, A COURT ORDER THAT WOULDN’T EVEN EXIST IF JEB HADN’T NEGLECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. But no, now you want us to believe that he WANTS to comply with the law, and this is his way of doing so. Not only that, but you want us to IGNORE all his past behavior, and just believe that he’s now trying to comply. And the capper here is that if we don’t ignore that mountain of evidence, you brand us as “biased”.
The argument is eminently reasonable. As to proof, you are asking for proof of that which has not yet occured - an impossibility.
15% eh? I’m underwhelmed.
Cite?
Again, the law is very specific about the assistance that is to be provided. The law does not simply call for it not to be “arduous”. That’s a strawman.
Calm down. I did not use the words, “This must be another criminal act.” You are deliberately overstating my position to make it sound like something it’s not.
Nope. I considered it, and concluded that it is without merit.
Ha! You’re neutral? That’s rich.
Oh, here we go. You’re losing on the facts of the matter, so you resort to characterizing your opponents position as “whining”. Typical…
You make a claim that not even the appellants in the court case made. In fact, they specifically admit that your claim is bullshit:
So where do you get the idea that the Department isn’t providing the assistance required by law, when not even the freaking PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT offers that accusation?
FWIW, NPR is reporting that new citizens in Florida are being given voter registration forms at the swearing-in ceremonies that are pre-marked so as to register them as Republicans.
blowero, read Bricker’s note just above yours, for evidence of exactly why you haven’t refuted his argument. Rather than have the inmates meet with someone to help them fill out a form, they talk with someone on the phone who processes their request directly, no form required. I’m just fucking baffled how someone can see that as a terrible injustice.
You say you’re not claiming Jeb is committing a crime? I’m overstating your position. I see you stating over and over again that he is breaking the law, refusing to comply with court order AND trying to deny people their right to vote so that he can fix the election! What do you consider that if not criminal? Whether or not you use the word criminal, you’re making BIG accusations, and dammit you need a hell of a lot more than prior bad acts to prove it.
I don’t see where you’re getting that. The law requires them to provide the form AND assist the inmates in filling it out and sending it, BEFORE they are released. How is that the same as telling them “You can call, email, or write a letter…” They’re still leaving the onus on the felon to take the necessary steps to schedule a hearing, which is EXACTLY what they were ordered NOT to do. The onus is on the STATE, not the felon.
And before you get your panties in a bunch about that, remember that Florida is one of only SEVEN states that even require a hearing AT ALL. They ought to just restore voting rights automatically. The only reason they don’t is because of a 19th century law designed to keep former slaves from voting.
Wrong. It very clearly says “do not contend that the Department has ever refused a request by an inmate…” You DO understand that assisting and not refusing are different, don’t you?
Geez, Cheeesteak. You know perfectly well that you were piggybacking on Bricker’s argument before he responded to my criticism.
You’re doing it again - putting words in people’s mouths. Show me where I used the words “terrible injustice”. Let’s stick to the arguments that have actually been made, please. You’re still missing the point. You think this is a debate about whether felons should have the right to vote, but it’s not. It’s a debate about whether Jeb Bush has deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election. So let’s please try to stay on track.
The law requires that they assist the inmates. I did not write the law; I am only telling you what it says. The court ordered them to uphold the law. Whether you think the felons deserve to get help is immaterial. The law requires it.
You say “rather than meet with someone…” they “talk with someone on the phone”, but is that the same thing? No. The analogue to my giving you a form is for ME to call YOU, not for me to WAIT for you to call. Get it yet? Giving you a form and helping you fill it out constitutes assistance. Simply saying “You can call me if you want”, does not. And what if you can’t get through on the phone? What if they’re understaffed? It’s not the same thing. It’s disingenously designed to appear like the same thing, but it’s not.
You’re still overstating it. He failed to uphold the law. Let’s just word it that way, please, because that’s what happened. Your continued taunting of “Are you calling him a criminal?” is just needlessly inflammatory.
The law requires them to provide any form that exists. It does not require that there be any forms at all. If there are no forms in the process, then the law is being complied with.
The onus is on the Department to assist the felon, If there are no forms, then, clearly, providing the released felon forms does not assist the felon.
No, they OUGHT do what the law of Florida tells them to do. I trust you don’t want to take the ridiculous argument you’ve advanced above anywhere: “Massacusetts OUGHT to forbid same-sex couples from marrying; they are the ONLY state that doesn’t.”
I can’t speak for the origins of Florida’s law, but in Virginia, felons were denied the right to vote well before slavery was abolished, so it’s clear that the motive you ascribe to Florida’s law was not in play in Virginia. I am thus moved to ask for a cite for your claim about Florida’s law. I’ve just finished reading two Law Review articles on the subject; oddly, neither mentions the “former slave” angle. I don’t think there are on-line links to either, but if you have Lexis or Westlaw: Howard E. Hill, Comments, Rights of the Convicted Felon on Parole, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 367 (1979) see also Joseph H. Kelley, Notes, Restoration of Deprived Rights, 10 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 924 (1969).
In any event, the true thrust for your agument becomes apparent here: because you disagree with Florida’s law disenfranchising felons, you seem to believe every Florida agent and agency should work to nullify its effects as much as possible.
But your view is not correct. The Department is compelled by Florida law to do some specific things: provide whatever forms are required, and provide assistance to felons in the process of restoring their voting rights. If the state of Florida changes the process so that forms are not required, the Department is not required to provide any forms at all: they don’t exist. And the phone system certainly complies with both the black-letter meaning of the law as well as the court’s ruling to provide assistance.
Tell you what: if your view is correct, the plaintiffs should be back in court claiming that the court’s order was violated, and the court should agree. Right?
Ok then, is it your position that Jeb “deliberately circumvented a court order for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the upcoming election?” I assume so since
Now that we have settled that point, you decide to reword your claim as
This description suggests you think this failure is an accident rather than deliberate. I know you don’t think this is accidental. If Jeb honestly tried to comply with the court order and chose a method that didn’t work out, that is “failing to uphold the law.” Deliberately designing a system to appear to follow the law while fully intending not to is “breaking the law.”
I disagree, I think it is sorely needed in this debate. You throw around accusations of criminal conduct like accusations of bad breath. Trying to fix an election by denying people the right to vote is big-time bad shit, it’s criminal, and if Jeb is doing it, his ass belongs in prison and HE should have to get a review to get his right to vote back. You can’t make that kind of accusation without something really solid to hang your hat on. At this point we’re reduced to quibbling about what constitutes sufficient assistance, that’s not exactly the stuff you build a federal case over.
There is a whole continuum of assistance levels available, I don’t think these two processes differ much on the level of assistance provided, but you do and I don’t think we will come to agreement on it any time soon.
Don’t be obtuse, Bricker. I didn’t advance that as an argument; I offered it in anticipation of your protests. You and Cheeseteak are the ones who have sidetracked this discussion into whether ex-felons ought to have voting rights, rather than merely discussing what the law says. Don’t fob it off on me, for Christ’s sake.
I mean, geez - who doesn’t mention it? [save your 2 law review articles]
Nope, that’s not the trust of my argument at all. As I’ve said over and over, the Florida government needs to simply comply with the law that requires them to assist the felons. Surely I was clear on that.
To the extent that you and Cheeseteak want to argue the irrelevant point that ex-felons don’t deserve assistance, I pointed out that you’re wrong on THAT point also, but it’s definitely not the crux of my argument. Clear now?
Well, Cheesesteak, you were making some good points, but now you’re just trying to miscontrue everything I said, and we’re just arguing in circles. I’m not really interested in playing “gotcha” games with you, especially when you’re just dead wrong about what I said - thanks anyway…
I did find the quote you offer, but dismissed it as utterly useless.
The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, civil rights groups say.
It’s very odd that you empahsized that phrase. Here’s what I focused on, and why I dismissed the quote as useless:
The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, civil rights groups say.
In essence, this is no more compelling than:
The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, blowero says.
There is nothing to indicate what reasons the “civil rights groups” are relying upon to draw this conclusion. There is nothing obvious in the policy that suggests it would limit the rights of former slaves. And since other jurisdictions implemented such policies thirty-some years before slaves were ever freed, it stands to reason that there exist non-racist reasons for such a policy.
So again I ask for a cite. A cite does not mean other people repeating a baseless assertion: it means some evidence that actually supports the claim. What evidence did the civil rights groups rely upon when they formed this opinion?
Well, then, I have amply demonstrated that the new policy complies with that law. If it does not, surely the plaintiffs will be back in court pointing out that the court’s order was flouted, and the court will surely agree.