Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[sangha]

Why am I not surprised that sangha totally skipped this post and has not posted any proof?

Rick

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

Read it and weep

So, you prove that you are in Truthdoesn'tmatter's league for intelligence.

This is not a consent decree.

I posted the wrong link. There's so many links to the RNC's history of electoral fraud, I sometimes mix them up.

Here's the right link

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website

And you keep saying that

The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

And your little link here proves that you are a bold faced liar.

Not only is this not a consent decree, but the GOP never once said that they had a "constitutional right to intimidate voters."

Anything else you'd like to prove you lied about?

Rick

Idiots like Rick don't understand the written word, even when it's in English

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

In accordance with Local No. 93. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986), and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the court dismissed as meritless Defendants’ threshold argument that the decree was impermissibly broad because it went beyond the relief available for the original claims. Citing Ry. Employees' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956), the opinion also found the free speech objection irrelevant as judicial enforcement of an agreement between private parties is not state action for the purposes of the First Amendment.

The bolded text makes it clear that the RNC objected to the TRO on the grounds that it violated their 1st Amend rights.

 

[Liability]

Back to making stuff up so soon? I never said " wanting to change the COTUS means you don't love the COTUS", nor did I say "Obama wanting to fundamentally transform the US means he doesn't love the US."

Once again, you've proven that if a conservative doesn't make stuff up, he won't have anything to say.





Umm, constitutional amendments require more than a majority vote.

oh, you DID say it.

I didn't say a simple majority vote. Of course it's not that simple. Only YOU are that simple, well you and some of your brethren and sisters.

And here is conjob, once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.

First, he says

Majority DOES rule in this country

Then it's

IF for example a majority of people wanted to banish black people, it COULD be done,

No, if 50% +1 wanted to ban blacks, it could NOT be done because it doesnt take a majority; It takes a supermajority.

But I guess, in this case, your desire for being precise is absent in this case

Also wrong. The concept is facially unConstitutional so even a supermajority vote for such idiocy would = FAIL.

 

[sangha]

I've evaded nothing. Constitutional or Non Constitutional is a matter of interpretation, or the flavor of the day. Harm, Damage, Loss, which can be documented, is more than a matter of opinion. Bad Law Harms the Republic. Get you head out of your ass and ask Your Self, why is it so important for you to defend Injustice. I point out that where it is found it should be removed. You look for excuses to maintain the status quo. The mechanism was constructed to serve the True interest of the People. Where flaw is found, there is a need to rectify the flaw, not make excuses for it. Fix it.

WOrds do not mean what you demand they mean

While there are laws that are more harmful than helpful, no law is "against the republic". To be "against" something, one must have a mind. Laws do not have minds. They are not for or against anything. The people who put the laws in place (ie we, the people and our elected representatives) have minds, so they can be "against the repubic", but a bad law does not prove their intent and so therefore, even a "bad law" is not a sign of anyone or anything being "against the republic".

Failure to address a grievance that is legitimate, does harm, failure to amend the Law when it does harm is acting against the Welfare of the Republic. You act like once something is decided, it is set in stone. It is not. You act like once you pass a law, everything must bend to it, including reality. That is not the case. You are contrary to our Founders expectations of us. You compound error with layers of excuses and misdirection. Serve Justice, that is Paramount to the vain concerns a broken structure that you refuse to maintain or repair, instead you continue to build on flawed logic, falsely attempting to justify, merely because of the size of the monstrosity. The blind cannot lead the blind. Rectify and build on solid foundation. It is not rocket science. If it were, we would never have gotten off the ground. Stop fooling, stop the charade and Govern.

Failure to address a grievance that is legitimate, does harm,

Whether it is legitimate is an opinion. The rest of your post is equally nonsensical as it relies on you making stuff up about what I think

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

 

[sangha]

two words

Black Panthers

You left out the part where they weren't found guilty of anything in a court of law. All you have is your fantasy..still no facts coming from the conjob

On the other hand, the RNC has had a court find that they did engage in voter intimidation and other forms of electoral fraud, a fact you'll continue to run away from like the coward that you are.

It never even got to court, dumbfuck. The nuetered Holder squelched the idea, anyone involved in law stated that those two were toast in a court of law. No get back under that rock you came from

Umm, it was the bush* admin that decided not to charge Shabazz.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/072910LeahyToSessions.pdf

What makes allegations of politicization especially hard to credit is that the Department's decision to seek civil penalties rather than criminal sanctions in this case pre-dates the Obama administration. As made clear by the January 7, 2009, civil complaint filed by Attorney General Mukasey and others at the Department, that decision was made during the Bush administration.

 

[sangha]

oh, you DID say it.

I didn't say a simple majority vote. Of course it's not that simple. Only YOU are that simple, well you and some of your brethren and sisters.

And here is conjob, once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.

First, he says


Then it's

IF for example a majority of people wanted to banish black people, it COULD be done,

No, if 50% +1 wanted to ban blacks, it could NOT be done because it doesnt take a majority; It takes a supermajority.

But I guess, in this case, your desire for being precise is absent in this case

Also wrong. The concept is facially unConstitutional so even a supermajority vote for such idiocy would = FAIL.

A supermajority can amend the constitution and repeal amendments.

 

[Liability]

You left out the part where they weren't found guilty of anything in a court of law. All you have is your fantasy..still no facts coming from the conjob

On the other hand, the RNC has had a court find that they did engage in voter intimidation and other forms of electoral fraud, a fact you'll continue to run away from like the coward that you are.

It never even got to court, dumbfuck. The nuetered Holder squelched the idea, anyone involved in law stated that those two were toast in a court of law. No get back under that rock you came from

Umm, it was the bush* admin that decided not to charge Shabazz.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/072910LeahyToSessions.pdf

What makes allegations of politicization especially hard to credit is that the Department's decision to seek civil penalties rather than criminal sanctions in this case pre-dates the Obama administration. As made clear by the January 7, 2009, civil complaint filed by Attorney General Mukasey and others at the Department, that decision was made during the Bush administration.

Uhmmm, only initially. The Obama Administration easily could have decided to go ahead and prosecute the fuckers. For as I noted previously, we all know for a FACT that the Obama Administration is not bound to adhere to the polisuhs of the Bush Administration.

You are a true dumbass, suckhard.

 

[sangha]

It never even got to court, dumbfuck. The nuetered Holder squelched the idea, anyone involved in law stated that those two were toast in a court of law. No get back under that rock you came from

Umm, it was the bush* admin that decided not to charge Shabazz.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/072910LeahyToSessions.pdf

What makes allegations of politicization especially hard to credit is that the Department's decision to seek civil penalties rather than criminal sanctions in this case pre-dates the Obama administration. As made clear by the January 7, 2009, civil complaint filed by Attorney General Mukasey and others at the Department, that decision was made during the Bush administration.

Uhmmm, only initially. The Obama Administration easily could have decided to go ahead and prosecute the fuckers. For as I noted previously, we all know for a FACT that the Obama Administration is not bound to adhere to the polisuhs of the Bush Administration.

You are a true dumbass, suckhard.

The bushies didn't charge them with a crime. Not "only initially". Not EVER

YOu can't help but lie constantly.

The RNC has been found, by a court of law, on several occassions, to have engaged in a pattern of electoral fraud.

You just can't handle the truth.

 

[sangha]

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

Read it and weep

So, you prove that you are in Truthdoesn'tmatter's league for intelligence.

This is not a consent decree.

I posted the wrong link. There's so many links to the RNC's history of electoral fraud, I sometimes mix them up.

Here's the right link

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website

And you keep saying that

And your little link here proves that you are a bold faced liar.

Not only is this not a consent decree, but the GOP never once said that they had a "constitutional right to intimidate voters."

Anything else you'd like to prove you lied about?

Rick

Idiots like Rick don't understand the written word, even when it's in English

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

In accordance with Local No. 93. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986), and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the court dismissed as meritless Defendants’ threshold argument that the decree was impermissibly broad because it went beyond the relief available for the original claims. Citing Ry. Employees' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956), the opinion also found the free speech objection irrelevant as judicial enforcement of an agreement between private parties is not state action for the purposes of the First Amendment.

The bolded text makes it clear that the RNC objected to the TRO on the grounds that it violated their 1st Amend rights.

And you can read where the asses themselves (the RNC) claim they have a constitutional right to engage in electoral fraud

http://brennan.3cdn.net/ede026d0aad4c0ba8b_0dm6b4k8f.pdf

This ruling amounts to a prior restraint on the RNC's political speech, and accordingly runs afoul of long-standing First Amendment principles

 

[Navy1960]

It's my understanding that this recent opinion by the 9th Cir. will be heard En Banc and the recent decision by the 3 justices struck down the provision that required proof of citizenship for voter registration , thus reversing itself in prior opinions. This does not effect the requirement for ID to be shown to vote, in an effort to match the voters signature. One more thing to consider, this opinion will have little of any effect on the outcome of this election here in Arizona and by the time the next one comes to pass I am confident that the matter will be resolved by then.

 

[Meister]

It's my understanding that this recent opinion by the 9th Cir. will be heard En Banc and the recent decision by the 3 justices struck down the provision that required proof of citizenship for voter registration , thus reversing itself in prior opinions. This does not effect the requirement for ID to be shown to vote, in an effort to match the voters signature. One more thing to consider, this opinion will have little of any effect on the outcome of this election here in Arizona and by the time the next one comes to pass I am confident that the matter will be resolved by then.

There were only two judges that rendered a decision from the 9th circuit. Maybe they all should have been involved with this one.

 

[Navy1960]

It's my understanding that this recent opinion by the 9th Cir. will be heard En Banc and the recent decision by the 3 justices struck down the provision that required proof of citizenship for voter registration , thus reversing itself in prior opinions. This does not effect the requirement for ID to be shown to vote, in an effort to match the voters signature. One more thing to consider, this opinion will have little of any effect on the outcome of this election here in Arizona and by the time the next one comes to pass I am confident that the matter will be resolved by then.

There were only two judges that rendered a decision from the 9th circuit. Maybe they all should have been involved with this one.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does

Ruling strikes down part of Arizona Voter ID law - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

En Banc is the entire court and it's my understanding again that Arizona has appealed this decision to the entire court.

 

[sangha]

It's my understanding that this recent opinion by the 9th Cir. will be heard En Banc and the recent decision by the 3 justices struck down the provision that required proof of citizenship for voter registration , thus reversing itself in prior opinions. This does not effect the requirement for ID to be shown to vote, in an effort to match the voters signature. One more thing to consider, this opinion will have little of any effect on the outcome of this election here in Arizona and by the time the next one comes to pass I am confident that the matter will be resolved by then.

There were only two judges that rendered a decision from the 9th circuit. Maybe they all should have been involved with this one.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does

Ruling strikes down part of Arizona Voter ID law - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

En Banc is the entire court and it's my understanding again that Arizona has appealed this decision to the entire court.

Looks like the wingnut Meister is WRONG AGAIN!!!!

 

[Meister]

There were only two judges that rendered a decision from the 9th circuit. Maybe they all should have been involved with this one.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does

Ruling strikes down part of Arizona Voter ID law - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

En Banc is the entire court and it's my understanding again that Arizona has appealed this decision to the entire court.

Looks like the wingnut Meister is WRONG AGAIN!!!!

I was wrong...at least I am man enough to admit it. But with you, sonny...you still haven't even dropped your.....

 

[sangha]

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does

Ruling strikes down part of Arizona Voter ID law - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

En Banc is the entire court and it's my understanding again that Arizona has appealed this decision to the entire court.

Looks like the wingnut Meister is WRONG AGAIN!!!!

I was wrong...at least I am man enough to admit it. But with you, sonny...you still haven't even dropped your.....

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I just admitted to posting the wrong link, but the wingnut obviously doesn't know how to read. He thinks the words "three judges" means "two judges"

 

[Meister]

Looks like the wingnut Meister is WRONG AGAIN!!!!

I was wrong...at least I am man enough to admit it. But with you, sonny...you still haven't even dropped your.....

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I just admitted to posting the wrong link, but the wingnut obviously doesn't know how to read. He thinks the words "three judges" means "two judges"

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

 

[sangha]

I was wrong...at least I am man enough to admit it. But with you, sonny...you still haven't even dropped your.....

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I just admitted to posting the wrong link, but the wingnut obviously doesn't know how to read. He thinks the words "three judges" means "two judges"

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

 

[Meister]

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I just admitted to posting the wrong link, but the wingnut obviously doesn't know how to read. He thinks the words "three judges" means "two judges"

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

Like I was a Bush fan?

 

[Meister]

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

Like I was a Bush fan. Why did Holder drop the ball?

 

[sangha]

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

Like I was a Bush fan?

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

 

[Liability]

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I just admitted to posting the wrong link, but the wingnut obviously doesn't know how to read. He thinks the words "three judges" means "two judges"

Posting a wrong link, huh? Oh...just wow......sonny.

I see you still don't want to admit that it was the bush* admin who decided not to criminally prosecute Shabazz

[Note: An apparent typo (or some ill-defined effort to cast aspersion?) was fixed by me in the above quote.]No you didn't-meister

I see that you, shanker, are still in denial about the FACT that the Obama Administration could easily have corrected that Bush Administration error. And should have.

Why did the Obama Administration not correct the mistake?