Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[NYcarbineer]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

The Court upheld the National Voter Registration Act, correct? A Federal law, passed by ELECTED representatives.

In order for the Court to rule the other way, it would have had to 'obviate' (sic) a 'legitimate mandate that the people voted for'.

 

[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

[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?

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

 

[Meister]

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?

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

I see you can't bring yourself to admit that both administrations were wrong in not prosecuting him. With you it's the (really old) Boooooooooosh syndrome.

 

[sangha]

[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?

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

I see you can't bring yourself to admit that both administrations were wrong in not prosecuting him. With you it's the (really old) Boooooooooosh syndrome.

Both were right. Even bush* and his republicans agreed

 

[Meister]

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

I see you can't bring yourself to admit that both administrations were wrong in not prosecuting him. With you it's the (really old) Boooooooooosh syndrome.

Both were right. Even bush* and his republicans agreed

Then your an idiot....thanks for proving that to all.

 

[sangha]

I see you can't bring yourself to admit that both administrations were wrong in not prosecuting him. With you it's the (really old) Boooooooooosh syndrome.

Both were right. Even bush* and his republicans agreed

Then your an idiot....thanks for proving that to all.

The only thing that was proven is that both republicans and democats agreed that there was no criminal behavior to prosecute, and your final response proves you have nothing to back up your wacky wingnut lies.

 

[Shadow]

You are too lost in Bureaucracy to even have a clue. Thats the whole point. Government is not God. Government has not mastered perfection. The Founders knew that, You have been programed your whole life to deny it. Why is that? Who does it serve? The Amendment Process was constructed specifically to rectify unforeseen problems. You think Government can do no wrong, cannot grow too large? Who are you fooling besides yourself. You have turned checks and balances into the three headed Hydra taking terms feeding off of us. Stop denying the Abuse, the Tyranny, the Usurpation of Power.

I have to give you some props. That was the least wingnutty way to avoid the issue I have ever seen.

It's nutty, but at least it wasn't wingnutty!

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.

Good post. It always amazes me that people just go along...for the sake of partisanship. You see it all the time in the political arena. I will hear or read something that leaves me shaking my head thinking...how can anyone defend this...and sure as shit...I come to this board (or others). And there are people doing just that...like I said earlier it really amazes me sometimes. I agree nothing will ever change if people don't fight to rid the system of injustce wherever it is found.

 

[Liability]

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?

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

I see (again) that you have difficulty spelling "Bush Administration."

And I see (again) that you are unable to admit that the Obama Administration ALSO could have just as easily elected to prosecute the fucking Black Panther criminal, but chose not to.

 

[sangha]

[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?

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

I see (again) that you have difficulty spelling "Bush Administration."

And I see (again) that you are unable to admit that the Obama Administration ALSO could have just as easily elected to prosecute the fucking Black Panther criminal, but chose not to.

Both republicans and democrats agreed; There was nothing to prosecute.

 

[Liability]

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

I see (again) that you have difficulty spelling "Bush Administration."

And I see (again) that you are unable to admit that the Obama Administration ALSO could have just as easily elected to prosecute the fucking Black Panther criminal, but chose not to.

Both republicans and democrats agreed; There was nothing to prosecute.

Wrong. There obviously was. They just chose not to. Politics.

Huge difference.

 

[sangha]

I see (again) that you have difficulty spelling "Bush Administration."

And I see (again) that you are unable to admit that the Obama Administration ALSO could have just as easily elected to prosecute the fucking Black Panther criminal, but chose not to.

Both republicans and democrats agreed; There was nothing to prosecute.

Wrong. There obviously was. They just chose not to. Politics.

Huge difference.

Wrong. There obviously was not. Both republicans and democrats agreed.

You're playing politics.

Big difference

 

[Liability]

Both republicans and democrats agreed; There was nothing to prosecute.

Wrong. There obviously was. They just chose not to. Politics.

Huge difference.

Wrong. There obviously was not. Both republicans and democrats agreed.

You're playing politics.

Big difference

Wrong again. The decision not to prosecute the obvious effort to intimidate voters was clearly cheap theatrical politics. The decision, by the Bush Administration was wrong; and the failure of the Obama Administration to correct that error was JUST as wrong.

And, ultimately, it is you who is playing politics.

Not different at all from what we've come to expect from a cheap partisan hack like you.

 

[sangha]

Wrong. There obviously was. They just chose not to. Politics.

Huge difference.

Wrong. There obviously was not. Both republicans and democrats agreed.

You're playing politics.

Big difference

Wrong again. The decision not to prosecute the obvious effort to intimidate voters was clearly cheap theatrical politics. The decision, by the Bush Administration was wrong; and the failure of the Obama Administration to correct that error was JUST as wrong.

And, ultimately, it is you who is playing politics.

Not different at all from what we've come to expect from a cheap partisan hack like you.

So you think the bush* admin was engaged in "cheap theatrical politics" when it didn't prosecute? What did they have to gain?

 

[Liability]

Wrong. There obviously was not. Both republicans and democrats agreed.

You're playing politics.

Big difference

Wrong again. The decision not to prosecute the obvious effort to intimidate voters was clearly cheap theatrical politics. The decision, by the Bush Administration was wrong; and the failure of the Obama Administration to correct that error was JUST as wrong.

And, ultimately, it is you who is playing politics.

Not different at all from what we've come to expect from a cheap partisan hack like you.

So you think the bush* admin was engaged in "cheap theatrical politics" when it didn't prosecute? What did they have to gain?

I don't know what you mean by "bush* admin."

Do you intend to refer to the Bush Administration?

Anyway, they decided (I surmise) that taking on that particular battle would be spun dishonestly by the dishonest liberal main stream media. It was a relatively small case, so they let it slide. That was a mistake. The Bush Administration decision-making was evidently concerned more with cheap cheesy political calculations rather than being concerned with basic principles.

Now, I couldn't help but notice you seem unconcerned with why the Obama Administration DoJ failed to reverse that piss-poor decision by the Bush Administration.

Kurt Vonnegut once used an asterisk to denote an asshole. So, perhaps I should just refer to you as sangha*.

 

[ConHog]

why are yall arguing with Sangha? He's a brain dead buffoon, and arguing with him is a complete waste of time.

 

[daveman]

why are yall arguing with Sangha? He's a brain dead buffoon, and arguing with him is a complete waste of time.

It's interesting. I've never seen someone so disconnected from reality still be able to type.

 

[sangha]

Wrong again. The decision not to prosecute the obvious effort to intimidate voters was clearly cheap theatrical politics. The decision, by the Bush Administration was wrong; and the failure of the Obama Administration to correct that error was JUST as wrong.

And, ultimately, it is you who is playing politics.

Not different at all from what we've come to expect from a cheap partisan hack like you.

So you think the bush* admin was engaged in "cheap theatrical politics" when it didn't prosecute? What did they have to gain?

I don't know what you mean by "bush* admin."

Do you intend to refer to the Bush Administration?

Anyway, they decided (I surmise) that taking on that particular battle would be spun dishonestly by the dishonest liberal main stream media. It was a relatively small case, so they let it slide. That was a mistake. The Bush Administration decision-making was evidently concerned more with cheap cheesy political calculations rather than being concerned with basic principles.

Now, I couldn't help but notice you seem unconcerned with why the Obama Administration DoJ failed to reverse that piss-poor decision by the Bush Administration.

Kurt Vonnegut once used an asterisk to denote an asshole. So, perhaps I should just refer to you as sangha*.

Both republicans and democrats agreed that there was nothing to prosecute. That's why you have no evidence.

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

 

[Liability]

So you think the bush* admin was engaged in "cheap theatrical politics" when it didn't prosecute? What did they have to gain?

I don't know what you mean by "bush* admin."

Do you intend to refer to the Bush Administration?

Anyway, they decided (I surmise) that taking on that particular battle would be spun dishonestly by the dishonest liberal main stream media. It was a relatively small case, so they let it slide. That was a mistake. The Bush Administration decision-making was evidently concerned more with cheap cheesy political calculations rather than being concerned with basic principles.

Now, I couldn't help but notice you seem unconcerned with why the Obama Administration DoJ failed to reverse that piss-poor decision by the Bush Administration.

Kurt Vonnegut once used an asterisk to denote an asshole. So, perhaps I should just refer to you as sangha*.

Both republicans and democrats agreed that there was nothing to prosecute. That's why you have no evidence.

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

Nope. They just decided not to prosecute. That doesn't mean that they believed there was nothing that could be properly prosecuted.

You are the wingnut, sangha*, and are not on speaking terms with reality.

 

[sangha]

I don't know what you mean by "bush* admin."

Do you intend to refer to the Bush Administration?

Anyway, they decided (I surmise) that taking on that particular battle would be spun dishonestly by the dishonest liberal main stream media. It was a relatively small case, so they let it slide. That was a mistake. The Bush Administration decision-making was evidently concerned more with cheap cheesy political calculations rather than being concerned with basic principles.

Now, I couldn't help but notice you seem unconcerned with why the Obama Administration DoJ failed to reverse that piss-poor decision by the Bush Administration.

Kurt Vonnegut once used an asterisk to denote an asshole. So, perhaps I should just refer to you as sangha*.

Both republicans and democrats agreed that there was nothing to prosecute. That's why you have no evidence.

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

Nope. They just decided not to prosecute. That doesn't mean that they believed there was nothing that could be properly prosecuted.

You are the wingnut, sangha*, and are not on speaking terms with reality.

Nope. There was nothing to prosecute. Voter intimidation requires that a voter be intimidated. No voters were intimidated.

But in wingnut world, the bush* administration was a liberal conspiracy that supported the Black Panthers.

 

[Liability]

Both republicans and democrats agreed that there was nothing to prosecute. That's why you have no evidence.

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

Nope. They just decided not to prosecute. That doesn't mean that they believed there was nothing that could be properly prosecuted.

You are the wingnut, sangha*, and are not on speaking terms with reality.

Nope. There was nothing to prosecute. Voter intimidation requires that a voter be intimidated. No voters were intimidated.

But in wingnut world, the bush* administration was a liberal conspiracy that supported the Black Panthers.

Of course there was something to prosecute.

You really don't grasp the notion of "prosecutorial discretion."

No. In nobody's world would the Bush Administration, sangha*, be seen as engaging in a liberal conspiracy to support the Black Panthers.

Possibly the Obama* Administration, though.