there isn't a state in the nation that had equal opportunity voting while the SC ruled that is what florida needed....every state had various types of voting in different districts, all different and varying in how well a person's vote would count.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction
- Thread starter Modbert
- Start date
that is not correctno, they didntscotus changed florida election law AFTER the fact as well then too.
yes they did. they cut off the recount that was approved already by saying the votes had to be tallied by that saturday night of their decision...when florida election law and federal law had provisions of what steps were to be followed if electors of florida missed the cut off date to dc, due to a recount not being completed.
the laws were ambiguous
at best
and the FL SC was changing those laws after the fact to help Gore
the SCOTUS stepped in to protect the vote
thats all they did
and
every recount but the ones MOST favorable to Gore and MOST damaging to Bush showed that Bush won FL
that is not correctno, they didnt
yes they did. they cut off the recount that was approved already by saying the votes had to be tallied by that saturday night of their decision...when florida election law and federal law had provisions of what steps were to be followed if electors of florida missed the cut off date to dc, due to a recount not being completed.
the laws were ambiguous
at best
and the FL SC was changing those laws after the fact to help Gore
the SCOTUS stepped in to protect the vote
thats all they did
and
every recount but the ones MOST favorable to Gore and MOST damaging to Bush showed that Bush won FL
well on this, I disagree with you and so do many election law scholars.
the supreme court HAD to interfere in order for bush to win the election, and I stand by such.
every state's votes were ambiguous and not fair due to the various voting methods each state had....where certain machines and methods were better than others in getting the citizen's vote to count, NOT JUST FLORIDA....but it was florida and only florida, that they forced this stupid decision of theirs on.
because no other state was that closethat is not correctyes they did. they cut off the recount that was approved already by saying the votes had to be tallied by that saturday night of their decision...when florida election law and federal law had provisions of what steps were to be followed if electors of florida missed the cut off date to dc, due to a recount not being completed.
the laws were ambiguous
at best
and the FL SC was changing those laws after the fact to help Gore
the SCOTUS stepped in to protect the vote
thats all they did
and
every recount but the ones MOST favorable to Gore and MOST damaging to Bush showed that Bush won FL
well on this, I disagree with you and so do many election law scholars.
the supreme court HAD to interfere in order for bush to win the election, and I stand by such.
every state's votes were ambiguous and not fair due to the various voting methods each state had....where certain machines and methods were better than others in getting the citizen's vote to count, NOT JUST FLORIDA....but it was florida and only florida, that they forced this stupid decision of theirs on.
and if Gore had won his HOME STATE, it would have been MOOT
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
Sorry bout that,
1. One day it will come out obama lied about being born in America.
2. And when that happens then a whole lot of seemingly good names will have to go down the toilet.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
You mean everyone in the Bush administration who couldn't have figured that out or never checked?
Sorry bout that,
1. No.
2. I mean all those who are adding to the cover up.
3. And when the documents come out, and we find out what they knew and when they knew it, and what they did when they knew it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Sorry bout that,
1. One day it will come out obama lied about being born in America.
2. And when that happens then a whole lot of seemingly good names will have to go down the toilet.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
You mean everyone in the Bush administration who couldn't have figured that out or never checked?
1. No.
2. I mean all those who are adding to the cover up.
3. And when the documents come out, and we find out what they knew and when they knew it, and what they did when they knew it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
ok, first off, stop with the "sorry bout that" at the begining of every postSorry bout that,
Sorry bout that,
1. One day it will come out obama lied about being born in America.
2. And when that happens then a whole lot of seemingly good names will have to go down the toilet.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
You mean everyone in the Bush administration who couldn't have figured that out or never checked?
1. No.
2. I mean all those who are adding to the cover up.
3. And when the documents come out, and we find out what they knew and when they knew it, and what they did when they knew it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
its rather ridiculous
and you dont need to "sign" every post at the end
if you want that on every post, put it in your sig file
and there is no "cover up"
thats just INSANE
taichiliberal
Rookie
- Aug 11, 2010
- 3,517
- 239
- 0
- Banned
- #68
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obamas citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judges October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a frivolous litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitzs second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
Love it!
Supreme Court upholds ‘birther’ sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama’s citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge’s October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a “frivolous” litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
The jokes on you, didn't you hear Arizona passed a law that said anyone running for political office must show their birth certificate? obama could bypass Arizona and not be put on the ballot, but he's going to need every illegal; vote he can get in 2012. you DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
you DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
True but he will also need all the illegal vote he can get in 2012 He will lose four to five million votes if he does not get on the Arizona ballot. If he is not on the ballot in Arizona does that mean if he wins that he doesn't represent Arizona?
Last edited:
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
you DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
He was running against an AZ senator, it's no wonder he lost the state.
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
you DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
True but he will also need all the illegal vote he can get in 2012 He will lose four to five million votes if he does not get on the Arizona ballot. If he is not on the ballot in Arizona does that mean if he wins that he doesn't represent Arizona?
No...
the point being he didnt need the electoral votes to winyou DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
He was running against an AZ senator, it's no wonder he lost the state.
so any number of "lost votes" wouldnt have changed the outcome of the election
so he could just not be on the ballot in AZ
you DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
True but he will also need all the illegal vote he can get in 2012 He will lose four to five million votes if he does not get on the Arizona ballot. If he is not on the ballot in Arizona does that mean if he wins that he doesn't represent Arizona?
No...
No what?
the point being he didnt need the electoral votes to winyou DO understand that he didnt win AZ in 2008, and if he wasnt on the ballot there it would make ZERO difference as to what happens in every other state?
now, chances are that he wont win in several states he won in 08 in 12, but AZ isnt likely to be a factor
He was running against an AZ senator, it's no wonder he lost the state.
so any number of "lost votes" wouldnt have changed the outcome of the election
so he could just not be on the ballot in AZ
Which brings us back to this question
If he is not on the ballot in Arizona does that mean if he wins that he doesn't represent Arizona?
If he's not on the ballot then he would not be voted for or against by the people of Arizona. That is if he would by chance win
Last edited:
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
True but he will also need all the illegal vote he can get in 2012 He will lose four to five million votes if he does not get on the Arizona ballot. If he is not on the ballot in Arizona does that mean if he wins that he doesn't represent Arizona?
No...
No what?
If he wins 2012 he'll still represent Arizona even if he's not on the ballot just like he represents them now.
No...
No what?
If he wins 2012 he'll still represent Arizona even if he's not on the ballot just like he represents them now.
How could that be to not have been voted for by a whole state to be able to say he represents them. I can't see how that could be Constitutional.
Do you have any references?
because POTUS isnt elected by the popular voteNo what?
If he wins 2012 he'll still represent Arizona even if he's not on the ballot just like he represents them now.
How could that be to not have been voted for by a whole state to be able to say he represents them. I can't see how that could be Constitutional.
Do you have any references?
because POTUS isnt elected by the popular voteIf he wins 2012 he'll still represent Arizona even if he's not on the ballot just like he represents them now.
How could that be to not have been voted for by a whole state to be able to say he represents them. I can't see how that could be Constitutional.
Do you have any references?
What does that have to do with representing the people who elected him? Are you saying a president only represents the electoral college?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 146
- Replies
- 222
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 307
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 132
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 184
- Views
- 954
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 11
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8039
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-