Surprised?

MLD Woody

@baconhound said:

Now your just arguing to argue.

What? Steve? Never

DieHardBrownsFan

@mld-woody said:
What? Steve? Never

Pot, meet kettle........

calfoxwc

I'd say Steve was exactly on point:

calfoxwc

Westside Steve

@baconhound said:

Now your just arguing to argue.

I guess you'd have to give me some specifics on what due-process actually means if you're going to convince me. If not just man up and admit that the courts can-do just about whatever the fuck they feel like take as long as they want and arrange for any outcome theysee fit.

In this particular case due-process means obstructing anyone from finding out that the voting systems in all these States have been at the very least lax and at the very worst criminal.

WSS

BaconHound

@westside-steve said:

I guess you'd have to give me some specifics on what due-process actually means if you're going to convince me. If not just man up and admit that the courts can-do just about whatever the fuck they feel like take as long as they want and arrange for any outcome theysee fit.

In this particular case due-process means obstructing anyone from finding out that the voting systems in all these States have been at the very least lax and at the very worst criminal.

WSS

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The information is requested and the custodian determines whether or not they release it. Based on the custodian's decision either the requester or a third party may request the Court way in as a point of law.

Westside Steve

@baconhound said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The information is requested and the custodian determines whether or not they release it. Based on the custodian's decision either the requester or a third party may request the Court way in as a point of law.

So it doesn't seem to me like there's any protocol besides cya. Correct? Sort of along the lines of the Fifth Amendment?

Maybe the Attorney General could subpoena it. Hope so.

WSS

BaconHound

@westside-steve said:

So it doesn't seem to me like there's any protocol besides cya. Correct? Sort of along the lines of the Fifth Amendment?

Maybe the Attorney General could subpoena it. Hope so.

WSS

Or the flip side where a State releases the information requested and a voter, or more likely a lobby, sues the State for disseminating the information.

Westside Steve

@baconhound said:

Or the flip side where a State releases the information requested and a voter, or more likely a lobby, sues the State for disseminating the information.

Bottom line question so what do you suppose the states have to hide?

WSS

BaconHound

@westside-steve said:

Bottom line question so what do you suppose the states have to hide?

WSS

I really don't know. The issue I have, and I believe many share, is more bottom up than top down. Many citizens have no issue with government intrusion or regulation when they have no skin in the game but when they do they scream socialism and small government. My voting records have absolutely nothing to hide and I'd wager most, if not all, in here are the same but I take issue with the government without any proof "auditing" my life.

calfoxwc

and yet, liberals fight to get information on those who donate to the republican party...

and they fight to get all gun owners registered nationally, etc etc etc.

then they use the information as a weapon. but they turn around and insist

that information they DON'T want to get out... should stay private.

because liberals feel GOOD when they can use the info....so they like it. But they feel ANGRY when

it's information they do NOT want given to the feds.

calfoxwc

if liberals are all that worried about giving out iniformation on voting, they should

enforce legitimate voting of each voter.

but they don't. They want illegals to vote...obviously, that would be democratic.

asswhole liberal hypocritical sombeitches.