Supreme Court rules signatures are Public!

[Yurt]

Yurt has simply given no logical reason to link the election process to the judicial process in order to avoid transparency in petition drives. He has given no law, no decisions, no rational logic suggested by anyone else, absolutely nothing.

His behavior is reflective of birther argumentation: make a silly assumption without any evidence, then expect everyone else to refute it with evidence.

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

 

[sangha]

Yurt has simply given no logical reason to link the election process to the judicial process in order to avoid transparency in petition drives. He has given no law, no decisions, no rational logic suggested by anyone else, absolutely nothing.

His behavior is reflective of birther argumentation: make a silly assumption without any evidence, then expect everyone else to refute it with evidence.

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

WHat you think makes sense is irrelevant. The facts are what count. You have yet to post one fact that supports your claim that any part of the legislative process is private.

ANd votes on legislation are not private. They are public

Elections are private, but petitions are not part of the electoral process

 

[Yurt]

you're an idiot...and i won't be bothered to try and educate you and teach you simple reading comprehension....

the VOTES at the ballot box are private, but the measely 4% of valid signatures of registered Washington voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last gubernatorial election...are what you deem necessary to be public....

Yes, because elections are public while the election proces is private

you said the petitions were voted on by the legislature, you were flat out wrong, yet you insist on continuing in your faulty logic

umm, I acknowledge my phrasing was off, and explained, again, that the petition is part of the legislative process, which is public

you're missing the whole point, the VOTE is the ultimate act, during the referendum process is when both sides come out in the public square...

No, you have just completely failed to provide any evidence that the VOTE is the only public part of the legislative process because you have nothing to back your claims with.

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

the vote on the petition at the ballot box is also part of the legislative process....it is wholly illogical to claim that only the signatures are part of the legislative process, when all the signatures do is get to the referendum phase before people VOTE on the legislative process....

you cannot parse out the vote from the signatures, they are part of the same process, without either, you don't have the process

i have never claimed the vote is the ONLY public part....care to share any more of your delusions with us? or do you just come here to lie in order to make yourself good?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt has simply given no logical reason to link the election process to the judicial process in order to avoid transparency in petition drives. He has given no law, no decisions, no rational logic suggested by anyone else, absolutely nothing.

His behavior is reflective of birther argumentation: make a silly assumption without any evidence, then expect everyone else to refute it with evidence.

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

Quit your whining, son. . . neg rep me all you want . . . you have to meet the burden of proof, and you have not done that. I don't have to "actually discuss a single point" until you meet your proof. Give us law, give us court decisions, give us something other than fervered muttering of your muddled brain, Yurt.

 

[manifold]

This was a bullshit decision. The Supreme Court voted to restrict the broadcast of the Prop 8 proceedings because the Defendants feared they would be subject to discrimination and harassment, but when people make the same argument for not publicly releasing names on petition because a group who has already stated their intentions on putting the names, along with other personal information, on a website specifically for people to call and e-mail them, the Supreme Court says there's no constitutional expectation of privacy?

Why is transparency so important to the legislative process in this way, but it's a non-issue in the judicial process? Just a crap decision.

You're right about the inconsistency and I thank you for pointing it out.

However IMO the bullshit decision was not allowing the court case to be broadcast, not this case. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you'll sign a petition, at least have the balls to show your face.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt has simply given no logical reason to link the election process to the judicial process in order to avoid transparency in petition drives. He has given no law, no decisions, no rational logic suggested by anyone else, absolutely nothing.

His behavior is reflective of birther argumentation: make a silly assumption without any evidence, then expect everyone else to refute it with evidence.

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

WHat you think makes sense is irrelevant. The facts are what count. You have yet to post one fact that supports your claim that any part of the legislative process is private.

ANd votes on legislation are not private. They are public

Elections are private, but petitions are not part of the electoral process

please link me to where it says the votes at the ballot box for the referendum are public knowledge...i am not aware of this

 

[Yurt]

Yurt has simply given no logical reason to link the election process to the judicial process in order to avoid transparency in petition drives. He has given no law, no decisions, no rational logic suggested by anyone else, absolutely nothing.

His behavior is reflective of birther argumentation: make a silly assumption without any evidence, then expect everyone else to refute it with evidence.

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

Quit your whining, son. . . neg rep me all you want . . . you have to meet the burden of proof, and you have not done that. I don't have to "actually discuss a single point" until you meet your proof. Give us law, give us court decisions, give us something other than fervered muttering of your muddled brain, Yurt.

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

 

[JakeStarkey]

Son, you have to provide probative evidence that the opposite is true. The SC is the law for the other side. You have nothing. Now quit whining.

 

[sangha]

you're an idiot...and i won't be bothered to try and educate you and teach you simple reading comprehension....

the VOTES at the ballot box are private, but the measely 4% of valid signatures of registered Washington voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last gubernatorial election...are what you deem necessary to be public....

Yes, because elections are public while the election proces is private



umm, I acknowledge my phrasing was off, and explained, again, that the petition is part of the legislative process, which is public

you're missing the whole point, the VOTE is the ultimate act, during the referendum process is when both sides come out in the public square...

No, you have just completely failed to provide any evidence that the VOTE is the only public part of the legislative process because you have nothing to back your claims with.

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

the vote on the petition at the ballot box is also part of the legislative process....it is wholly illogical to claim that only the signatures are part of the legislative process, when all the signatures do is get to the referendum phase before people VOTE on the legislative process....

That's why no one is arguing that "only the signatures are part of the legislative process"

Once again, you have shown no evidence that the legislative process is private

you cannot parse out the vote from the signatures, they are part of the same process, without either, you don't have the process

They can't make that public because elections are private.

i have never claimed the vote is the ONLY public part....care to share any more of your delusions with us? or do you just come here to lie in order to make yourself good?

Then, asode from the vote, which parts of the legislative process are public, and more importantly, what factual evidence do you have to support your claims?

So far, you haven't been posting any facts to support your argument.

 

[Yurt]

Son, you have to provide probative evidence that the opposite is true. The SC is the law for the other side. You have nothing. Now quit whining.

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

 

[sangha]

and once again, you haven't actually discussed a single point i have raised. you come out here and give conclusions with absolutely zero reasoning....and absolutely nothing about what i actually said

i have adequately explained how the process works, given you evidence from the scotus ruling itself as to how the process works, yet to you, i have given nothing, i have further argued how it makes no sense to have the signatures public, yet the VOTES private, the votes are what make the petition final

you're not here to actually debate, you're solely to insult and make stupid remarks in order to make yourself feel superior...even dumbass sangha can actually debate, you, nothing

Quit your whining, son. . . neg rep me all you want . . . you have to meet the burden of proof, and you have not done that. I don't have to "actually discuss a single point" until you meet your proof. Give us law, give us court decisions, give us something other than fervered muttering of your muddled brain, Yurt.

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

He asked for you to provide some evidence to support your claims. That is not an adhom.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, because elections are public while the election proces is private



umm, I acknowledge my phrasing was off, and explained, again, that the petition is part of the legislative process, which is public



No, you have just completely failed to provide any evidence that the VOTE is the only public part of the legislative process because you have nothing to back your claims with.

If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

the vote on the petition at the ballot box is also part of the legislative process....it is wholly illogical to claim that only the signatures are part of the legislative process, when all the signatures do is get to the referendum phase before people VOTE on the legislative process....

That's why no one is arguing that "only the signatures are part of the legislative process"

Once again, you have shown no evidence that the legislative process is private

you cannot parse out the vote from the signatures, they are part of the same process, without either, you don't have the process

They can't make that public because elections are private.

i have never claimed the vote is the ONLY public part....care to share any more of your delusions with us? or do you just come here to lie in order to make yourself good?

Then, asode from the vote, which parts of the legislative process are public, and more importantly, what factual evidence do you have to support your claims?

So far, you haven't been posting any facts to support your argument.

post 126...show me where the votes at the ballot box for the referendum are public...i am not aware the vote is public....

if the vote is public, it makes no sense to make the signatures private

 

[Yurt]

Quit your whining, son. . . neg rep me all you want . . . you have to meet the burden of proof, and you have not done that. I don't have to "actually discuss a single point" until you meet your proof. Give us law, give us court decisions, give us something other than fervered muttering of your muddled brain, Yurt.

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

He asked for you to provide some evidence to support your claims. That is not an adhom.

i have provided evidence....i also quoted directly from the scotus case

now, where is your proof the votes at the ballot box are public

 

[sangha]

the vote on the petition at the ballot box is also part of the legislative process....it is wholly illogical to claim that only the signatures are part of the legislative process, when all the signatures do is get to the referendum phase before people VOTE on the legislative process....

That's why no one is arguing that "only the signatures are part of the legislative process"

Once again, you have shown no evidence that the legislative process is private



They can't make that public because elections are private.

i have never claimed the vote is the ONLY public part....care to share any more of your delusions with us? or do you just come here to lie in order to make yourself good?

Then, asode from the vote, which parts of the legislative process are public, and more importantly, what factual evidence do you have to support your claims?

So far, you haven't been posting any facts to support your argument.

post 126...show me where the votes at the ballot box for the referendum are public...i am not aware the vote is public....

if the vote is public, it makes no sense to make the signatures private

Again, the electoral process is private. If the govt released the names of people who voted for a referendum, they would be releasing private info about who participated in the electoral process which, in the hopes it may someday sink in, IS PRIVATE!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Son, you have to provide probative evidence that the opposite is true. The SC is the law for the other side. You have nothing. Now quit whining.

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

You accuse me of 'ad homs', because you are whinging, and I call you on it?

You have to post the burden of proof, son, and you have not done that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

once again....zero debate, just ad homs

thanks for proving me right

He asked for you to provide some evidence to support your claims. That is not an adhom.

i have provided evidence....i also quoted directly from the scotus case

now, where is your proof the votes at the ballot box are public

The SCOTUS case, but you still have not give us law or decisions backing your claim. You have to do that. The Supreme Court doesn't support you, so what does? Your fervered imagination, Yurt?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sangha, Yurt's argumentation (reflective of several reactionaries and a few leftists here) depends on the force of immoral stubbornness. He can't provide an argument for burden of proof, so he keeps asking a question, demanding others refute his "evidence". He never has posted evidence other than he says he disagrees with SCOTUS, so who cares? Point out his failure enough times, he will start crying and saying others are ad homing him, then he will start neg repping. He has done this before simply because he is incapable of arguing. This is nothing new for Yurt.

 

[sangha]

Sangha, Yurt's argumentation (reflective of several reactionaries and a few leftists here) depends on the force of immoral stubbornness. He can't provide an argument for burden of proof, so he keeps asking a question, demanding others refute his "evidence". He never has posted evidence other than he says he disagrees with SCOTUS, so who cares? Point out his failure enough times, he will start crying and saying others are ad homing him, then he will start neg repping. He has done this before simply because he is incapable of arguing. This is nothing new for Yurt.

I agree. I have asked Yurt for evidence that any part of the legislative process has a legal garauntee of privacy.

So far, I've gotten zippo from Yurt.

It's typical of conservatives. They have no principles and no moral center. The only concept they consistently adhere to is short-term self-interest, which is why they will say anything to avoid admitting they are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt is not a conservative, sangha, he is a reactionary: a big difference. He is pretending to be a conservative Republican when actually he is much further to right socio-politically and is trying to continue the perversion of the Republican Party.

 

[Yurt]

That's why no one is arguing that "only the signatures are part of the legislative process"

Once again, you have shown no evidence that the legislative process is private



They can't make that public because elections are private.




Then, asode from the vote, which parts of the legislative process are public, and more importantly, what factual evidence do you have to support your claims?

So far, you haven't been posting any facts to support your argument.

post 126...show me where the votes at the ballot box for the referendum are public...i am not aware the vote is public....

if the vote is public, it makes no sense to make the signatures private

Again, the electoral process is private. If the govt released the names of people who voted for a referendum, they would be releasing private info about who participated in the electoral process which, in the hopes it may someday sink in, IS PRIVATE!!!!

lmao....you're either stupid or playing stupid....

the VOTE here is part of the legislative process of the initiative....its a vote vs. a signature that seeks to change legislation...why should the vote be private and not the signature...i've asked this question about a dozen times and you and stark are incapable of answering a simple question

if you take away the vote, you can't do anything with the petition