First District Court of Appeal upholds decision against Christopher "Doc" Bailey, ruling that Florida does not have to recognize Missouri's restoratio

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 4:54 PM

First District Court of Appeal upholds decision against Christopher "Doc" Bailey, ruling that Florida does not have to recognize Missouri's restoration of his civil rights after a federal conviction.

In a significant ruling with implications for the qualifications of public officials, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decision that Florida is not required to recognize another state's laws regarding the restoration of a person's civil rights following a federal felony conviction.

This is sufficient grounds for ever other state in the union to cease recognizing the law of Flor-I-Duh.

This needs to be far-reaching and hard-hitting. No laws from Flor-I-Duh need to be considered by other states. Flor-I-Duh should not be allowed to extradite persons from other states, nor should Flor-I-Duh court orders be recognized anywhere.

This would mean that Flor-I-duh attempts to enforce child support, driver license issues, court orders, arrest warrants, detainers, wage garnishments, and other things would be completely ignored when sent by the KKK government of Flor-I-duh.

Flor-I-duh should not be given these rights back until Rhonda Santis is gone and that ruling is reversed. It should also cause the judge(s) involved in their rulings their licensure and be the reason they are booted off the bench.

It's time for the backwards ****s in Flor-I-duh to be held accountable.

MSN

Stealers Wheel · Thursday at 5:13 PM

Does it not also mean that one state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state?

If so, the ramifications are incredible. If you were to simply relocate - POOF! - you're no longer married. You avoid all the responsibilities of marriage and you forfeit all the rights that come with marriage.

What could possibly go wrong?

bongsaway · Thursday at 5:35 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
First District Court of Appeal upholds decision against Christopher "Doc" Bailey, ruling that Florida does not have to recognize Missouri's restoration of his civil rights after a federal conviction.

In a significant ruling with implications for the qualifications of public officials, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decision that Florida is not required to recognize another state's laws regarding the restoration of a person's civil rights following a federal felony conviction.

This is sufficient grounds for ever other state in the union to cease recognizing the law of Flor-I-Duh.

This needs to be far-reaching and hard-hitting. No laws from Flor-I-Duh need to be considered by other states. Flor-I-Duh should not be allowed to extradite persons from other states, nor should Flor-I-Duh court orders be recognized anywhere.

This would mean that Flor-I-duh attempts to enforce child support, driver license issues, court orders, arrest warrants, detainers, wage garnishments, and other things would be completely ignored when sent by the KKK government of Flor-I-duh.

Flor-I-duh should not be given these rights back until Rhonda Santis is gone and that ruling is reversed. It should also cause the judge(s) involved in their rulings their licensure and be the reason they are booted off the bench.

It's time for the backwards ****s in Flor-I-duh to be held accountable.

MSN

Yay!!!!!

bongsaway · Thursday at 5:36 PM

Stealers Wheel said:
Does it not also mean that one state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state?

If so, the ramifications are incredible. If you were to simply relocate - POOF! - you're no longer married. You avoid all the responsibilities of marriage and you forfeit all the rights that come with marriage.

What could possibly go wrong?

Let's face it, our legal system of fifty fiefdoms don't fit together very well at all.

daeler · Thursday at 5:52 PM

Stealers Wheel said:
Does it not also mean that one state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state?

This was a very specific ruling, it only deals with rules concerning holding office.

Stealers Wheel said:
If so, the ramifications are incredible. If you were to simply relocate - POOF! - you're no longer married. You avoid all the responsibilities of marriage and you forfeit all the rights that come with marriage.

What could possibly go wrong?

mrjurrs · Thursday at 5:54 PM

bongsaway said:
Yay!!!!!

Why?

mrjurrs · Thursday at 5:56 PM

daeler said:
This was a very specific ruling, it only deals with rules concerning holding office.

Please source that claim.

FYI, the ultimate scope of this ruling will be determined by SCOTUS, not the Fed Court of Appeals

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 6:06 PM

mrjurrs said:
Please source that claim.

FYI, the ultimate scope of this ruling will be determined by SCOTUS, not the Fed Court of Appeals

Perhaps so, but in the interim, no legal rulings from Flor-I-duh need to be respected or accepted.

The Flor-I-dummies need to understand that actions have consequences.

daeler · Thursday at 6:06 PM

mrjurrs said:
Please source that claim.

FYI, the ultimate scope of this ruling will be determined by SCOTUS, not the Fed Court of Appeals

That claim is in the OP, did you read it?

mrjurrs · Thursday at 6:21 PM

daeler said:
That claim is in the OP, did you read it?

No, your claim. You claimed the decision was limitedf in scope. Source your claim. Didn't you read the decision before you made the claim?

bongsaway · Thursday at 6:22 PM

mrjurrs said:
Why?

It means to me that states can't impose their laws onto other states like texas trying to arrest Democrats who aren't in Texas.

daeler · Thursday at 6:23 PM

mrjurrs said:
No, your claim. You claimed the decision was limitedf in scope. Source your claim. Didn't you read the decision before you made the claim?

From the Article in the OP:

"Bailey challenged the Governor's decision, arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution required Florida to honor Missouri's restoration of his civil rights. He filed an amended petition for a writ of quo warranto, a legal action used to challenge a person's right to hold office."

"The case, Christopher "Doc" Bailey v. Ron DeSantis and William Laurie, centered on whether a Missouri statute could supersede Florida's constitutional and statutory provisions for holding public office."

Read the Article.

Peacenik · Thursday at 6:28 PM

I presume Florida strikes anyone from the voter rolls who has had a conviction in another State regardless of whether the other state has restored their civil rights or not. That's absurd. 'Oh, you can vote in this state but not in that one.'

daeler · Thursday at 6:30 PM

Peacenik said:
I presume Florida strikes anyone from the voter rolls who has had a conviction in another State regardless of whether the other state has restored their civil rights or not. That's absurd. 'Oh, you can vote in this state but not in that one.'

Actually they have the same wording in their laws and constitution, once you have finished your sentence you can vote. There is no provision that you have to get approval from a council like the issue in the OP.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 6:37 PM

Peacenik said:
I presume Florida strikes anyone from the voter rolls who has had a conviction in another State regardless of whether the other state has restored their civil rights or not. That's absurd. 'Oh, you can vote in this state but not in that one.'

it's simple corruption on the part of the scum in Flor-I-duh.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 6:38 PM

daeler said:
Actually they have the same wording in their laws and constitution, once you have finished your sentence you can vote. There is no provision that you have to get approval from a council like the issue in the OP.

This is what happens when republicans are allowed in office.

daeler · Thursday at 6:39 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
This is what happens when republicans are allowed in office.

People get to vote? Not sure how else your comment relates to my post.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 6:42 PM

daeler said:
People get to vote? Not sure how else your comment relates to my post.

This is just an absolute lie.

Republicans have always opposed voter rights.

When real people vote, republicans do not get elected.

daeler · Thursday at 6:45 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
This is just an absolute lie.

Republicans have always opposed voter rights.

When real people vote, republicans do not get elected.

I get your angry, but being realistic is not that hard.

Maybe explain what you meant by your reply in post 16.

ColdHardTruth · Thursday at 6:47 PM

daeler said:
I get your angry, but being realistic is not that hard.

Maybe explain what you meant by your reply in post 16.

Fair enough. I appreciate your candor.

Anytime Republicans are in office this is massive corruption. Look at Texas and the other shit-hole red states.

Republicans have ZERO respect for the constitution or the rule of law.

When Democrats are in office, the law is followed.

CaughtInThe · Thursday at 6:52 PM

Too bad we can't get a humane ruling regarding Florida's concentration camps in the middle of alligators.

mrjurrs · Thursday at 6:53 PM

bongsaway said:
It means to me that states can't impose their laws onto other states like texas trying to arrest Democrats who aren't in Texas.

That's already in place.

Federalism.

daeler · Thursday at 6:54 PM

ColdHardTruth said:
Fair enough. I appreciate your candor.

Thanks!

ColdHardTruth said:
Anytime Republicans are in office this is massive corruption. Look at Texas and the other shit-hole red states.

I don't really disagree. I just also think the same is true, though to a lesser extent, when Democrats are in office.

ColdHardTruth said:
Republicans have ZERO respect for the constitution or the rule of law.

I don't think Trump has any respect for the constitution, I do think there are some republicans that do. I just think at the moment there are very few of them that are willing to stand up currently to defend it.

ColdHardTruth said:
When Democrats are in office, the law is followed.

Well, until they don't.

mrjurrs · Thursday at 6:56 PM

daeler said:
From the Article in the OP:

"Bailey challenged the Governor's decision, arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution required Florida to honor Missouri's restoration of his civil rights. He filed an amended petition for a writ of quo warranto, a legal action used to challenge a person's right to hold office."

"The case, Christopher "Doc" Bailey v. Ron DeSantis and William Laurie, centered on whether a Missouri statute could supersede Florida's constitutional and statutory provisions for holding public office."

Read the Article.

The article is not the decision. Can you source your claim or are you just interpreting an article.

Do you even see the difference?

daeler · Thursday at 7:05 PM

mrjurrs said:
The article is not the decision. Can you source your claim or are you just interpreting an article.

The decision was made based on the arguments based on holding office. The Florida constitution specifies that a person convicted of a felony must get their rights restored by the Florida Board of Executive Clemency to hold office in Florida.

Since he did not get that, they ruled that it doesn't count that it was done in another state. It is needed to be that specific board if he wants to hold office in Florida.

mrjurrs said:
Do you even see the difference?

The relevant information is in the Article, can you see that conclusion?

First District Court of Appeal upholds decision against Christopher "Doc" Bailey, ruling that Florida does not have to recognize Missouri's restoratio

ColdHardTruth

SN/YN US NAVY