Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Oct 20, 2006.
Why would this be considered political? Isn't there a Constitutional basis for "one person- one vote"? How else can you guarentee that right without making sure that each voter is a legal resident and is who he says he is?
Really, if you don't get it you should ask the Ninth Circuit why it's political.:duh3:
Over two-thirds of the justices out here on the Ninth were appointed by Democrats. It's true that it's the "Hollywood Court".
Not surprising at all that another one of their incoherent rulings was overruled, that's par for this course. SCOTUS vacated it, even worse (for them), that means it doesn't deserve comment.
Too many justices, too many liberal justices, a national joke. Good that SCOTUS acted promptly, the Democrat Party could actually lose seats in both Houses if this kind of thing was put to bed:
Courts like the Ninth Circuit are their last great liberal white hope.
Without election fraud, Dems would lose by wider margins
You say its political, and the 9th Circus says its political, therefore it could not possibly be.
Seriously, though, I know an attorney who is very liberal, a die-hard Democrat, and he stated to me that he cannot see the justification that these liberal Judges have for making rulings inconsistent with the Constitution, when that is clearly their only mandate.
When rulings are made based on Original Intent, politics goes away. That is, as long as you aren't intent on changing the meaning of the Constitution.
That is obviously true, but the reality is far worse, because by lobbying against ID requirements, Democrats put their love of power over and above love of country.
Libs have been doing that since 9-11 on the issue of national security as well
The ONLY thing thst libs care about these days is regaining their political power
The needs of the country are of no consideration to the left
I agree. The thing that interests me is when this shift occurred in the Democrat Party. This is certaitly not the Party of JFK, at least not at face value. I realize that there were questionable voter resulted that elected him, that Nixon did not contest, but the fraud today is so blatent, rampant.
I'm not so naive that I don't think that voter fraud was uncommon, but I think it was isolated to certain locales, such as Chicago, Boston. Now it seems to have taken on a State-wide scale. Maybe it is just a poor perspective on my part?
While libs continue to bellow about how the 2004 election was stolen; if you do a search you will find ONLY Dems have been convicted and sent to jail over election fraud
I am NOT shocked to see how many Dems have gone to jail over this, yet the liberal media does not report on it
On a personal note, I got a call from a buddy of mine who worked in the Voter Registration Office and he told me how my dad voted for Gore in 2000 via absentee ballot
My dad died in 1984
Separate names with a comma.