- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,200
- Reaction score
- 9,692
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Your position is that it is ALWAYS OK to remove a person's right to vote unless they have paid every dime in fines and/or court fees.
If, at some point, it becomes NOT OK to remove a person's right to vote due to the onerous nature of the fines and/or court fees, then your point is not valid.
How about if the court sentenced the person to write "I will never drive drunk again." 1,000,000,000,000,000 times (by hand, using a 2H pencil, on toilet paper) - and would only count the times where the writing was completely legible and the paper was not torn? That wouldn't cost the person a dime (well, other than the cost of the pencils and toilet paper) so it couldn't possibly be considered a "poll tax" - could it?
And that point is decided by legislation and court procedure and process as well as the appeals process and higher court decisions.
Your argument by the widest stance possible isn't even close to what I am arguing, you are just trying to find an extreme I will agree to your point when your point isn't realistic by a gigantic margin. Try a reasonable hypothetical.