WWTBAM Bored

Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has invoked his pardon power to restore voting rights to all felons convicted under state law who have served their sentences and completed probation. Because it's a use of his pardon authority, it cannot be revoked by a future governor. On the other hand, it also doesn't seem to apply to anyone who completes probation tomorrow or later. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has invoked his pardon power to restore voting rights to all felons convicted under state law who have served their sentences and completed probation. Because it's a use of his pardon authority, it cannot be revoked by a future governor. On the other hand, it also doesn't seem to apply to anyone who completes probation tomorrow or later. --Bob

No one understands the Democratic Party's base better than a Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or former one.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has invoked his pardon power to restore voting rights to all felons convicted under state law who have served their sentences and completed probation. Because it's a use of his pardon authority, it cannot be revoked by a future governor. On the other hand, it also doesn't seem to apply to anyone who completes probation tomorrow or later. --Bob

No one understands the Democratic Party's base better than a Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or former one.

My understanding is that many felons got that way for drug offenses that people with more resources would plead out or otherwise escape a felony conviction. In any event, isn't the whole point of "paid their debt to society" that they get to become full members of society again? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:My understanding is that many felons got that way for drug offenses that people with more resources would plead out or otherwise escape a felony conviction. In any event, isn't the whole point of "paid their debt to society" that they get to become full members of society again? --Bob

Many is not most, and certainly not all. He pardoned all. The occasional drug user, the burglar, robber, killer. They may have paid their debt for what they were convicted of but they may not be rehabilitated or are even currently under suspicion of new crimes. These are folks who have made really poor decisions in there life and now they will be allowed to make another one in November.

You figure they are going to make America great again????

"A conservative is a liberal who's never been arrested." Tom Wolfe

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:My understanding is that many felons got that way for drug offenses that people with more resources would plead out or otherwise escape a felony conviction. In any event, isn't the whole point of "paid their debt to society" that they get to become full members of society again? --Bob

Many is not most, and certainly not all. He pardoned all. The occasional drug user, the burglar, robber, killer. They may have paid their debt for what they were convicted of but they may not be rehabilitated or are even currently under suspicion of new crimes. These are folks who have made really poor decisions in there life and now they will be allowed to make another one in November.

So you think they're going to vote for the Republican nominee? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:My understanding is that many felons got that way for drug offenses that people with more resources would plead out or otherwise escape a felony conviction. In any event, isn't the whole point of "paid their debt to society" that they get to become full members of society again? --Bob

Many is not most, and certainly not all. He pardoned all. The occasional drug user, the burglar, robber, killer. They may have paid their debt for what they were convicted of but they may not be rehabilitated or are even currently under suspicion of new crimes. These are folks who have made really poor decisions in there life and now they will be allowed to make another one in November.

So you think they're going to vote for the Republican nominee? --Bob

Obviously not. And neither does McAuliffe.

As part of this reporting I thought I recalled hearing this action will be done on a periodic (monthly) basis going forward.

bazodee wrote:As part of this reporting I thought I recalled hearing this action will be done on a periodic (monthly) basis going forward.

That would certainly make sense. --Bob

A plot about this in The West Wing proposed returning the vote to nonviolent offenders who had completed sentences and probation. It was a sticky wicket there as well.

Since so many eligible voters don't participate, I don't see much harm in allowing specific folks to take their places.

To me, it seems like everyone is missing the point here. Where does he, one person, get the authority to make that decision? I guess he is just following the lead of the President.
The legislature should have made this decision and the Governor should only have the power to enforce it. It is so obviously a political move that he might as well have given the power to vote only to those who swear to vote democrat.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:To me, it seems like everyone is missing the point here. Where does he, one person, get the authority to make that decision? I guess he is just following the lead of the President.
The legislature should have made this decision and the Governor should only have the power to enforce it. It is so obviously a political move that he might as well have given the power to vote only to those who swear to vote democrat.

From the Virginia Constitution, which gives the governor the power of pardon. Kind of like President Ford, once upon a time, pardoned all draft evaders. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:To me, it seems like everyone is missing the point here. Where does he, one person, get the authority to make that decision? I guess he is just following the lead of the President.

The Virginia State Constitution, Article 5, Section 12:

The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

The current version was adopted in 1971. The original version predates the Declaration of Independence.

Bob78164 wrote:From the Virginia Constitution, which gives the governor the power of pardon. Kind of like President Ford, once upon a time, pardoned all draft evaders. --Bob

Not to mention Richard Nixon.

The ends justify the means. I think it's disgusting. Not for the recipients. I have some sympathy for them. But an arbitrary, unilateral order that benefits his party and his friends without any public outcry for it and without any public discussion?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The ends justify the means. I think it's disgusting. Not for the recipients. I have some sympathy for them. But an arbitrary, unilateral order that benefits his party and his friends without any public outcry for it and without any public discussion?

You don't think Republicans were pardoned?

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The ends justify the means. I think it's disgusting. Not for the recipients. I have some sympathy for them. But an arbitrary, unilateral order that benefits his party and his friends without any public outcry for it and without any public discussion?

You don't think Republicans were pardoned?

Do you want to go there? Using that logic to support an action/decision as acceptable?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The ends justify the means. I think it's disgusting. Not for the recipients. I have some sympathy for them. But an arbitrary, unilateral order that benefits his party and his friends without any public outcry for it and without any public discussion?

You don't think Republicans were pardoned?

Do you want to go there? Using that logic to support an action/decision as acceptable?

Sorry, I forgot Republicans don't use logic.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Do you want to go there? Using that logic to support an action/decision as acceptable?

Sorry, I forgot Republicans don't use logic.

Yes we do, but use it consistently.

Your argument that it is OK because the casted net includes a Republican here and there would invalidate many of the equal rights arguments against many things because they disproportionately harm certain minorities. I'm O.K. with that if you are. I don't think a specific demographic should be given special status because their representation in a certain aspect is different that the larger population. If something is the right thing for one, its the right thing for all.

You and I will differ on if something is "the right thing", though.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Do you want to go there? Using that logic to support an action/decision as acceptable?

Sorry, I forgot Republicans don't use logic.

Yes we do, but use it consistently.

Your argument that it is OK because the casted net includes a Republican here and there would invalidate many of the equal rights arguments against many things because they disproportionately harm certain minorities. I'm O.K. with that if you are. I don't think a specific demographic should be given special status because their representation in a certain aspect is different that the larger population. If something is the right thing for one, its the right thing for all.

You and I will differ on if something is "the right thing", though.

You apparently aren't aware that most Whites in the former Confederate states are Republicans. While prisons do have a disproportionate number of non-whites you can bet a large number of those pardoned will register as Republicans, e.g. Aryan Brotherhood.

Bob Juch wrote: You apparently aren't aware that most Whites in the former Confederate states are Republicans. While prisons do have a disproportionate number of non-whites you can bet a large number of those pardoned will register as Republicans, e.g. Aryan Brotherhood.

LOL. You've lost the argument.

"but...but....but....you'll get 3 votes" (and you'll get 23). The point was made and you keep arguing against it.

"You hit me!" But I didn't hit you yesterday or the day before, so its O.K.

I could go on.

BackInTex wrote: If something is the right thing for one, its the right thing for all.

You and I will differ on if something is "the right thing", though.

And it's a complete coincidence that "the right thing" in your view just happens over and over to benefit whites to the detriment of minorities.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The ends justify the means. I think it's disgusting. Not for the recipients. I have some sympathy for them. But an arbitrary, unilateral order that benefits his party and his friends without any public outcry for it and without any public discussion?

Are you aware that (a) Virginia is one of only four states with lifetime bans of this sort, and (b) the law was originally a Reconstruction-era device specifically intended to keep blacks from voting?

I have little doubt that the reason Republican legislators have resisted changes to the bill is because they want to maintain their own electoral advantage. So I have no trouble at all with the governor exercising his own power to thwart their partisan effort to restrict voting rights. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: If something is the right thing for one, its the right thing for all.

You and I will differ on if something is "the right thing", though.

And it's a complete coincidence that "the right thing" in your view just happens over and over to benefit whites to the detriment of minorities.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.