Fuck off, derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> L4NDy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's exactly wrong. If you'd actually read
> Plyer v Doe instead of
> > just talking out of your Asshole..., then you'd
> understand that the
> > Court specifically said that there are clear
> distinctions between
> > "rights" and equal application of the law.
>
> Yo, dumbass. What the Rutherford Institute
> apparently failed to explain to your sorry ass is
> that the liberal majority in Plyer specifically
> forbade attempts to encumber of eliminate
> educational rights in the very sort of manner that
> worthless dipshits here propose to use in their
> ugly efforts to rid Fairfax County of Hispanics.
> The law of the land does not permit this at all.
> All persons in the County have rights under the
> Constitution that must be respected equally. Your
> dumbfuck, off-road analyses do not change these
> essential facts in any way at all.
In other words, no, you haven't actually read the decision. If you had rather than just pulling shit out of your Asshole... then you might understand that the Court specifically said that:
Quote
"Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973)."
It was not a case of fundamental equal rights for illegals nor an extension of the 14th to provide for illegals to receive all benefits provided to citizens as you'd wrongly like to believe. The Court specifically said not:
Quote
Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. But more is involved in these cases than the abstract question whether § 21.031 discriminates against a suspect class, or whether education is a fundamental right...
You also might further understand that it did NOT forbid denying any such benefits. What it found was that the state had not presented a compelling case to do so in this case. That does not preclude other cases where it may.
Quote
"If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed."
You can try your usual "read between the lines" nonsense that you always do when your ass-speak bullshit gets shot down now. lol
>
> > And you're wrong again. More permissible
> *local* election rules in one
> > specific *local* jurisdiction (and basically the
> only one and which has
> > not been seriously challenged) are not
> equivalent.
>
> Well, they 100% falsify your earlier douchebag
> contentions. There's always that fact for your
> derpness to go suck on. Since 1996, federal law
> has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal
> elections. No state has permitted it since 1926,
> but more localities that just Takoma Park do
> permit it, and the tiny burg of New York City has
> lately been considering it also. The points here
> are that contrary to your pathetic babble, it is
> local laws that apply here, along with the plain
> fact that all residents have a stake in
> government. Why -- aside from simple and
> outrageous bigotry -- would anyone want to deny
> non-citizens a voice in selecting that government?
So in other words you're wrong again. You didn't really think that you could slide "considering" by did you? #Fail
Because residents aren't citizens.
>
>
> > You may need to stop talking out of your
> Asshole...
> > and you wouldn't be shown to be wrong so often.
>
> You're on a run of really bad luck here,
> shit-for-brains. None of your claims has held any
> water at all. You're spouting nothing but
> discredited right-wing rot.