Comments on: The House of Delegates Elections Subcommittee shows Bobby Orrock the door. https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/ "Agitate, agitate, agitate!" -Frederick Douglass Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:14:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Timothy Watson https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/comment-page-1/#comment-10300 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:14:49 +0000 http://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/?p=1902#comment-10300 I was not defending the bill, I was just stating a legal fact. I also pointed out that the Supreme Court obviously agreed with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in the matter since they denied the state of Ohio’s writ of certiorari:
https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/10/why-is-bobby-orrock-supporting-legislation-that-has-been-declared-unconsitutional-in-ohio/

]]> By: theRadical https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/comment-page-1/#comment-10299 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:11:42 +0000 http://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/?p=1902#comment-10299 You are correct in that a challenge would have to be brought through a VA court and then through the 4th Circuit. Hopefully this bill dies prior to that happening.

]]> By: theRadical https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/comment-page-1/#comment-10298 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:07:13 +0000 http://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/?p=1902#comment-10298 Technically the decision out of OH wouldn’t necessarily apply to laws in KY, MI, or TN (the other states in the 6th) until the court heard cases from those states. Fortunately, the Constitution holds in every state, what is unconstitutional in one state is likewise unconstitutional in another. That you would defend something that has been shown to violate and restrict free speech leads me to question your motives. If the SCOTUS had any belief that the 6th’s determination that these bans are unconstitutional was flawed, they would have taken the case; their refusal to hear certiorari in that case essentially affirmed the 6th circuits decision.

]]> By: Timothy Watson https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/comment-page-1/#comment-9903 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:07:57 +0000 http://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/?p=1902#comment-9903 Unfortunately, opinions from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals don’t apply in Virginia since Virginia is part of the 4th Circuit.

]]> By: theRadical https://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/2009/02/08/the-house-of-delegates-elections-subcommittee-shows-bobby-orrock-the-door/comment-page-1/#comment-9885 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:44:12 +0000 http://www.imsurroundedbyidiots.com/?p=1902#comment-9885 Some sense, yes, but not much.

The prohibition on payment per signature is facially unconstitutional. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar Ohio law as unconstitutional last year in the case Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters.

Orrock is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money when someone sues to overturn this law.

]]>