Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[daveman]

Sorry about your luck, you're not able to discriminate against the Latino community.. Look on the bright side, you still have your racist governor and Sheriff Joe.

How is it racist to require proof of citizenship to vote? Are you claiming that voting in US elections is not a responsibility of citizenship, but a human right that applies to everyone regardless of citizenship?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

I think you missed this one, Sarah.

 

[daveman]

Don't think so. Someone has to stand with them against you slime.

Careful -- sangha will condemn you for making an emotional response.

Oh, wait...no, he won't.

The next leftie on this board who I see call out a leftie for bad behavior will be the FIRST leftie I see doing so on this board.

You're not supposed to point that out.

 

[Meister]

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

two words

Black Panthers

WHen you're done pretending to care about voter intimidation, I'm sure you'll get around to criticizing the GOP for being the only party that a court has decided engaged in voter intimidation on a systematic basis

Now that was a really bad spin. Holder wouldn't allow the case to go forward when it was clear that the Black Panthers were intimidating, it was a slam dunk by most lawyers. Hmmmm

 

[Father Time]

How is it racist to require proof of citizenship to vote? Are you claiming that voting in US elections is not a responsibility of citizenship, but a human right that applies to everyone regardless of citizenship?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

It's unconstitutional. Unlike the fascist wingnuts, liberals respect the Constitution, even when they disagree with a courts ruling.

It is rare that an individual reveal how truly inept they are in the areas of knowledge and debate as quickly as you have.

The very basis of modern liberalism is the denial of the Constitution...

1.The Progressives view of the direction that America should take began to gain prominence in the late 19th century-early 20th century. It was very different from America’s political traditions up to that point. Ms. Clinton described herself as a ‘modern progressive, of the beginning of the 20th century.

2. Progressives, i.e. John Dewey, co-opted the term liberal, but it was big government liberalism as opposed to the original (classical) meaning of liberalism.

3. These Progressives differed dramatically from earlier incarnations of this viewpoint in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution. This separation from earliest traditions was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

4. Frank Goodnow, “The American Conception of Liberty and Government,” a president of Johns Hopkins University, and pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government. [p.101]

a. Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America.


Does the flashing light 'Idiot' on your forehead keep you awake at night?

Do you ever get tired of posting these fallacious 'all liberals are evil' lists?

 

[sangha]

I guess you missed the substantive posts I made showing how Illinois and NY law disenfranchise felons and those in jail, and how Cook County Jail inmates are being given registrations and ballots in violation of the law.

You wanna go back and look at them, or would you rather continue pretending they aren't there?

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

Oh, so you're prepared to make the claim that voting in US elections is a fundamental human right and not a privilege and responsibility of citizenship?

Typical wingnut dishonesty. You can't deny the GOP's use of voter intimidation tactics, so you're trying to distract attention from your criminal representatives cheating

The GOP is the only party that has argued it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

 

[loosecannon]

The proof of the rights' hatred for the Constitution and the freedom it provides is the way they want to re-write it by adding, changing and deleting parts of the Constitution

Why does the right hate America?

showing what you don't know...

The court overruled this AZ law based on an amendment to the constitution, not the framer's text.

 

[ConHog]

Federal law trumps state law, sorry that's just how it works. If the people vote on a law that's unconstitutional it's still unconstitutional and should be removed.

The 9th Circus Court is filled with liberals and is the most overturned federal court in the nation. They are a joke. The 9th Circus Court legislates from the bench instead of interpreting from the bench. What's new here....It shows that they just may not be right.

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

You don't acknowledge that 18 over turned decisions in a single term is quite a few? It is true that the 9th makes up the bulk of the cases sent on for review by the SCOTUS, but 30% of the cases that SCOTUS overturns are from the 9th? That's a bit high and indicates that the 9th may be using a different document than the the SCOTUS to rule.

 

[Meister]

Federal law trumps state law, sorry that's just how it works. If the people vote on a law that's unconstitutional it's still unconstitutional and should be removed.

The 9th Circus Court is filled with liberals and is the most overturned federal court in the nation. They are a joke. The 9th Circus Court legislates from the bench instead of interpreting from the bench. What's new here....It shows that they just may not be right.

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

 

[sangha]

Being precise is not being petty. Many DO believe that things have been removed from the COTuS, that is incorrect.

As for you claim that wanting to change the COTUS means you don't love the COTUS, I say excellent, thank you for agreeing with us that Obama wanting to fundamentally transform the US means he doesn't love the US.

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.

PS - Majority DOES rule in this country. IF for example a majority of people wanted to banish black people, it COULD be done, there is no mechanism to stop such an Amendment from being voted in, of course the odds of it happening are slim to none and slim just left, BUT your claim that the majority do not rule is incorrect.

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.

Two things

1) I notice you have backed down from your claims about what I said, once again proving that even conservatives won't stand by the absurd claims they make

2) You said "Majority DOES rule in this country." You're wrong

It take MORE THAN a majority.

 

[ConHog]

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

Oh, so you're prepared to make the claim that voting in US elections is a fundamental human right and not a privilege and responsibility of citizenship?

Typical wingnut dishonesty. You can't deny the GOP's use of voter intimidation tactics, so you're trying to distract attention from your criminal representatives cheating

The GOP is the only party that has argued it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

What on God's green Earth does that have to do with requiring identification to vote?

 

[daveman]

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

Oh, so you're prepared to make the claim that voting in US elections is a fundamental human right and not a privilege and responsibility of citizenship?

Typical wingnut dishonesty. You can't deny the GOP's use of voter intimidation tactics, so you're trying to distract attention from your criminal representatives cheating

The GOP is the only party that has argued it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

So you're claiming voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

Well, except for the US military, obviously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry about your luck, you're not able to discriminate against the Latino community.. Look on the bright side, you still have your racist governor and Sheriff Joe.

Happily, the people of the United States are tiring of you slime, who throw around aspirsions like 'racist' as though it has any import.

And it idicts you as lacking the intellect to debate, and shows that you are too much of a sap to realize that it no longer has any impact.

To put that differently, you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Don't think so. Someone has to stand with them against you slime.

It seems that your motto is pretty much the first two words in your post.

 

[sangha]

Sorry about your luck, you're not able to discriminate against the Latino community.. Look on the bright side, you still have your racist governor and Sheriff Joe.

How is it racist to require proof of citizenship to vote? Are you claiming that voting in US elections is not a responsibility of citizenship, but a human right that applies to everyone regardless of citizenship?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

I think you missed this one, Sarah.

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

 

[ConHog]

The 9th Circus Court is filled with liberals and is the most overturned federal court in the nation. They are a joke. The 9th Circus Court legislates from the bench instead of interpreting from the bench. What's new here....It shows that they just may not be right.

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.

 

[daveman]

How is it racist to require proof of citizenship to vote? Are you claiming that voting in US elections is not a responsibility of citizenship, but a human right that applies to everyone regardless of citizenship?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

I think you missed this one, Sarah.

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

 

[sangha]

two words

Black Panthers

WHen you're done pretending to care about voter intimidation, I'm sure you'll get around to criticizing the GOP for being the only party that a court has decided engaged in voter intimidation on a systematic basis

Now that was a really bad spin. Holder wouldn't allow the case to go forward when it was clear that the Black Panthers were intimidating, it was a slam dunk by most lawyers. Hmmmm

I see another winguts is too scared to comment on the fact that the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has the constitutional right to intimidate voters. It gets in the way of wingnuts pretending to be opposed to voter intimidation

 

[loosecannon]

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

that was deceptive! From your link:

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.[7]

The 9th Circuit also hears the most cases of any of the circuit courts and thus has the most decisions move on to the Supreme Court.

 

[Father Time]

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.

So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?

 

[ConHog]

The 9th Circus Court is filled with liberals and is the most overturned federal court in the nation. They are a joke. The 9th Circus Court legislates from the bench instead of interpreting from the bench. What's new here....It shows that they just may not be right.

you know that's only 18 reversals, right?

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Judgepedia

so yeah, its the most of what the court took in terms of percentages, but it's still only 18 cases out of how many that they hear?

just sayin'

it's easy to repeat what we hear... particularly when it's based in truth. but sometimes we need to look a little bit closer.

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

I think you missed this one, Sarah.

I guess you missed that one about how the GOP is the only party to argue in court that it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

 

[sangha]

The proof of the rights' hatred for the Constitution and the freedom it provides is the way they want to re-write it by adding, changing and deleting parts of the Constitution

Why does the right hate America?

showing what you don't know...

The court overruled this AZ law based on an amendment to the constitution, not the framer's text.

Like I said, the right hates the constitution and the amendments which grant us our freedoms.