Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quin-essential cases: No Righting Voting Wrongs in Ohio
By Quin Hillyer
Examiner Columnist | 10/21/08 10:20 AM
Topping the list of most important legal cases this election year may be one in which the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, and about which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) turned a blind eye to justice. Rampant voter fraud may well result.
The nations highest court ruled Friday that, for now, a federal district court cannot force Ohios Secretary of State to enforce federal elections laws that she is flagrantly ignoring. Oddly enough, the Supreme Court is right: A loophole allows the Secretary of State to make a mockery of the law unless and until DOJ steps in.
But DOJ is so busy suppressing political speech that it cant be bothered with enforcing voting laws. This is especially true for voting laws that inconvenience the campaign of Barack Obama to whom top DoJ election lawyers have given large campaign donations.
If Attorney General Michael Mukasey doesnt step in, hes a virtual accessory to the crime.
The case itself is rather straightforward. Ohios election laws allow for early voting even for newly registered voters of which there are an astonishing 666,000 in recent months. The federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the chief State election official [and local election officials] to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, acknowledges there are discrepancies on some 200,000 new registrations, but she adamantly refuses to provide the county election boards with the state voter registration information necessary for the cross-checks.
Responding to a suit brought by the Ohio Republican Party, a federal district court and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals both ordered Brunner to comply with the law by providing the information.
The Supreme Court, though, overturned the order. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented, the court wrote in an extraordinarily brief decision. Instead, the court ruled that a private party such as the state GOP had no standing to bring such a suit, because HAVA provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil action to enforce the law but fails to provide for anyone else to do so.
......
What is and isn't and does it matter? If so, to whom? Should it be on merits or whom it benefits?
www.dcexaminer.com >> Quin Hillyer
Should anyone care?
Umm, what?
Is the argument here seriously that the Bush DOJ is somehow acting for Obama?
That seems rather absurd, to put it mildly.
The rank and file of the DoJ are liberal and Democrat, have been for years. Non appointed positions are vastly more numerous then appointed ones.
When a State Official is allowed to flaunt election laws for a Federal Election our entire election process is put in jeapordy. And you do not care because it works out in YOUR political favor.
The rank and file of the DoJ are liberal and Democrat, have been for years. Non appointed positions are vastly more numerous then appointed ones.
When a State Official is allowed to flaunt election laws for a Federal Election our entire election process is put in jeapordy. And you do not care because it works out in YOUR political favor.
Yep, and not the only one. We the People are in deep shi*.
Former Justice Department officials broke the law by letting Bush administration politics dictate the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, according to an internal investigation released Monday.
The Attorney Generals Honors Program is the exclusive means by
which the Department hires recent law school graduates and judicial
law clerks who do not have prior legal experience.
Politics dictated prosecutors' hiring, report says
Career government lawyers (such as DOJ lawyers).
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/oig-opr-investigation-hire-slip.pdf
And it was the AG's Honors Program which was tampered with.
This stuff is big news guys. Why haven't you heard about it? Oh right, because you only listen to rightwing news sources. I forgot.
Except the numbers were so small as to be a joke. But hey thnaks for trying. And last I checked no actual proof to make the case.
We determined that while working in the
OAG, Goodling conducted computer searches on candidates for career as
well as political Department positions. Goodling used an Internet search
string in her hiring research that she had received from Jan Williams,
her predecessor as the Departments White House Liaison. At some time
during the year Williams served as White House Liaison, she had
attended a seminar at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel
and received a document entitled The Thorough Process of
Investigation. The document described methods for screening
candidates for political positions and recommended using CQ.com - MoneyLine
and OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting to find information about contributions to
political candidates and parties. The document also explained how to
find voter registration information
We also note that Goodling was asked in her congressional testimony
whether she may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career
positions. Goodling agreed that she had done so. Goodling was not asked at the
hearing what questions she posed that were political in nature.
Goodling tried to block an appointment of a federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia because he was a "liberal Democrat", but was challenged by Jeffrey Taylor, the eventual U.S. Attorney for the district, who reminded her that consideration of political credentials was impermissible. Taylor got his appointment.
In interviewing an applicant for a spot in DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, Goodling's notes indicate that the candidate was "pro-God in public life" and "pro-marriage, anti-civil union."
Oh? Do tell exactly what the numbers were, RGS. And maybe you should check again.
Thats pretty much a smoking gun, genius.
Oh, that and Goodling basically admitted to it.
And did the oh so liberal DOJ prosecute? Nope. No prosecutions, despite the fact that its a clear violation of federal law. Yeah...they are sooooo liberal over there
Oh, and theres this.
Bush Justice officials broke law: DOJ IG: The Swamp
You are so incredibly ignorant RGS. Educate yourself on this before you talk about it anymore. Please, for my sake and yours.
The only ignorant one here is you. Remind us again how superior to us all you are.
What a surprise. You ignore all the evidence I post. Classic RGS style.
Oh? Do tell exactly what the numbers were, RGS. And maybe you should check again.
Thats pretty much a smoking gun, genius.
Oh, that and Goodling basically admitted to it.
And did the oh so liberal DOJ prosecute? Nope. No prosecutions, despite the fact that its a clear violation of federal law. Yeah...they are sooooo liberal over there
Oh, and theres this.
Bush Justice officials broke law: DOJ IG: The Swamp
You are so incredibly ignorant RGS. Educate yourself on this before you talk about it anymore. Please, for my sake and yours.
ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
By DAVID JOHNSTON,
Published: March 24, 1993
Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.
Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.
While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover. Says He Won't Resist
At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.
More...
What a surprise. You ignore all the evidence I post. Classic RGS style.
Oh but let's forget about the 93 that Clinton removed:
Clinton's action were at the beginning of his administration when presidents traditionally replace AGs.
Nice try, though.
Oh but let's forget about the 93 that Clinton removed:
So your position is that the federal election law shouldn't be followed? Interesting...
