Can our resident legal experts (Dave, Chris, etc) comment on what they think of this ruling? When I read what a bill of attainder is all about (I didn't even know that the Constitution forbade it), I don't see how barring federal funding qualifies as such.

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

====

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... unding-ban

Judge stops ACORN funding ban
By Eric Zimmermann - 12/11/09 06:21 PM ET

A federal judge today issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN.

Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a "bill of attainder" that unfairly singled out ACORN.

"[The plaintiffs] have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt," Gershon wrote in her decision.

Gershon said ACORN had demonstrated "irreperable harm" from the ban, while "the potential harm to the government, in granting the injunction, is less."

The decision noted that the ban had already prevented ACORN from receiving payment from contracts awarded before the ban took effect.

"The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies, which was stopped solely by reason of [the ban]," Gershon wrote.

In defending the ban, the Obama administration argued it interpreted the bill narrowly enough to allow payment of existing contracts. But Gershon found the legislation too broad.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued a statement criticizing Gershon's decision and noting that she was appointed by Bill Clinton.

"This left-wing activist Judge is setting a dangerous precedent that left-wing political organizations plagued by criminal accusations have a constitutional entitlement to taxpayer dollars," Issa said. "The Obama Administration should immediately move to appeal this injunction.”

interesting. when i saw that term bill of attainder i knew it was banned by the constitution (one of those odd tidbits of information enough US history and govt. in high school ingrained in me), but i had completely forgotten what it was.

i guess the problem here is that they are being singled out and banned, and the reasoning for that ban is they are suspected/accused of a crime.

but i'm no legal expert.

All liberal judges are activist, all activist judges are liberal.

and w/ the recent report that the employees didn't actually commit any crimes and therefore the "stripping of funds" wasn't warranted to begin with... end of story i suppose?

ACORN REGISTERS LOW INCOME URBAN VOTERS WHO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS.

I'm sure this report must have come from a very fair and objective source.
This street mob's very existence is criminal. Let's defund border security, and give more to acorn.

Do you see the inverted mindset here? His view is based on a premise that this mob's very existence entitles them to our money. And the issue is whether taking our money AWAY from them is legitimate. It's very twisted, but par for the course.

This part is actually pretty logical, besides the part calling Judge Nina Gershon a he.

I didn't know Gina had a sister.

I really expected a less snarky answer from you.

Not really snark. I fully believe that it is the primary reason why ACORN has become the boogeyman du jour for the right wing media. Republican electoral victories are inextricably tied to suppressing the vote among Democratic leaning constituencies. When Democrats vote, they win. Republicans tend to vote in the same percentages come rain or shine. Democrats are fair-weather voters. Give 'em a reason to stay home and they will. That's the primary strategy for the GOP, and it shows up in tactics as innocuous as negative campaign ads, to as insidious as voter caging, intimidation and purging.

In any case, from a legal standpoint, this case is far from over, but the granting of a preliminary injunction is a very strong indication of how the actual case will go. Judges only grant preliminary injunctions when the plaintiff has shown a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits AND a high likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

all true.

I don't really disagree with you, but regardless of what we think of the intentions, I still don't see how this qualifies as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. That's the main reason I started a new thread on this.

If figuring out how, when, and where to vote is an obstacle for you, you shouldn't be in the voting booth to begin with.

right, b/c its just that simple...

It kind of is.

What am I missing?

But is it supression? Didn't you just say they don't vote because they don't care and stay home?

I've never met a black person in my life that is intimidated by any white person.

hell in Atlanta they wouldn't even consider voting for a white person, the only time they vote en mass is to keep whitey out.

If it's raining less people vote. Is that voter supression? I would imagine in presidential races they just didn't care to vote because they didn't see much of a difference.

People tell me I throw my vote away all the time. I still go put one in for the principle of it all regardless of what someone feels of my political views.

Perhaps with the election of Obama minorities may now feel that they can actually effect/participate in the voting process and may see it as important to participate. At least in this city it is as simple as the color of someones skin.

Oh wow.

check out the demographics of the last Atlanta mayoral election. It's completely split along racial lines. It's not that way everywhere obviously... but it is here. Almost everyone in the city is liberal the only real deciding factor other than the rich people in Buckhead (extreme north end) who are Republican is race. That's what we vote on here aparently. Issues are really glossed over.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-mayor-s ... 21469.html

I couldn't tell you why Kasim Reed or Mary Norwood would be a good canidate for mayor. I seriously doubt either of them would or will be effective though.

Reed's entire campaign was basically get out the vote on the southside of town... the black vote. It won him the election.

Acorn probably makes a huge difference in lower income or less educated areas where people don't have the internet or don't really read the paper or keep up on current events and getting those people registered to vote. Even if you pay attention it's not really advertised how to register and or when to vote sometimes.

I don't know that it needs to be a government agency doing this but I guess someone felt that way.

They had to create a government-sponsored agency...to help people figure out how register to vote. For shits and giggles, I wanted to find out just how crafty and nuanced one has to be to register oneself, what with the process so fraught with mystery and intrigue.

It took me ~3 seconds to type "register to vote" in google. I clicked on the first hit (rockthevote.com) and it took me just under 1:30 to complete the registration information. I didn't click confirm (fraud and what not), but it required nothing more than your name and contact information (you don't even have to have a driver's license # or Social Security #). There were huge banners on both the registration screen and other screens for "Find your polling place", "Sign up for election reminders", etc. If you're too dense or disconnected to actually know when an election is taking place, they can send you reminder via text or email.

This is neither difficult nor time consuming.