Supreme Court rules signatures are Public!

[Yurt]

part of alito's concurrence:

In light of those principles, the plaintiffs in this case have a strong argument that the PRA violates the First Amendment as applied to the Referendum 71 petition.
A Consider first the burdens on plaintiffs’ First Amend-ment rights. The widespread harassment and intimida-tion suffered by supporters of California’s Proposition 8provides strong support for an as-applied exemption in the present case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

 

[Modbert]

If there is one thing about Scalia, he is consistent with taking the Conservative/Libertarian position. I may not agree with even half of the decisions he sides with, but when even he is voting for this, it should say something.

 

[Modbert]

part of alito's concurrence:

In light of those principles, the plaintiffs in this case have a strong argument that the PRA violates the First Amendment as applied to the Referendum 71 petition.
A Consider first the burdens on plaintiffs’ First Amend-ment rights. The widespread harassment and intimida-tion suffered by supporters of California’s Proposition 8provides strong support for an as-applied exemption in the present case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

Because we all know those Homosexuals are the violent ones. Turns out the bigots don't want people to know they gave money or signed on because they would lose their business. Or are you not in favor of people knowing they're eating at a bigot's place there Yurt?

 

[Yurt]

part of alito's concurrence:

In light of those principles, the plaintiffs in this case have a strong argument that the PRA violates the First Amendment as applied to the Referendum 71 petition.
A Consider first the burdens on plaintiffs’ First Amend-ment rights. The widespread harassment and intimida-tion suffered by supporters of California’s Proposition 8provides strong support for an as-applied exemption in the present case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

Because we all know those Homosexuals are the violent ones. Turns out the bigots don't want people to know they gave money or signed on because they would lose their business. Or are you not in favor of people knowing they're eating at a bigot's place there Yurt?

wow...i've seen strawman, but this takes the cake

that was alito's concurrence, yet you jump all over me with false accusations. no one said homosexuals are the violent ones...completely dishonest characterization of what alito said and if you bothered to read it, it was backed up with FACTS

if someone is a bigot, that is their right. appears you would like us to institute a scarlet letter society...i had no idea how puritanical you are and how you believe citizens thoughts must all be public

 

[manifold]

When you put your signature down as supporting a particular "thought" you are making it public.

Don't want your thoughts public, keep'm to yourself.

<or post them on the internet>

 

[Yurt]

When you put your signature down as supporting a particular "thought" you are making it public.

Don't want your thoughts public, keep'm to yourself.

<or post them on the internet>

then you believe the ballot should be public as well....?

 

[Modbert]

wow...i've seen strawman, but this takes the cake

that was alito's concurrence, yet you jump all over me with false accusations. no one said homosexuals are the violent ones...completely dishonest characterization of what alito said and if you bothered to read it, it was backed up with FACTS

if someone is a bigot, that is their right. appears you would like us to institute a scarlet letter society...i had no idea how puritanical you are and how you believe citizens thoughts must all be public

The Prop 8 people seem to think otherwise. I read what Alito said. Some people fear if their names are out there, they'll get harassed. Reality of the situation is they saw what happened to businesses who publicly gave money to Prop 8, they lost a lot of business. Turns out Homosexuals don't like to dine or sleep at places owned by bigots, imagine that huh?

You make me laugh though, nobody said anything about labeling them. I merely asked you whether you think Homosexuals in this case for example should be able to know that the owner of the establishment they are eating at is someone who gave $100 to help Prop 8 pass.

 

[rightwinger]

it is part of the voting process....if the petition is public, why not the actual ballot? it makes no sense

A petition is not a vote, it is an endorsement

are you actually suggesting it is not part of the voting process? yes or no. we all know it is not a vote.

A potential candidate needs to file a petition with sufficient signatures to get on a ballot. Those signature are up to challenge and are often wrong. Any citizen should have access to those signatures, it is a public document which affects everyone in the community

 

[Modbert]

then you believe the ballot should be public as well....?

A ballot isn't a thought.

 

[Yurt]

wow...i've seen strawman, but this takes the cake

that was alito's concurrence, yet you jump all over me with false accusations. no one said homosexuals are the violent ones...completely dishonest characterization of what alito said and if you bothered to read it, it was backed up with FACTS

if someone is a bigot, that is their right. appears you would like us to institute a scarlet letter society...i had no idea how puritanical you are and how you believe citizens thoughts must all be public

The Prop 8 people seem to think otherwise. I read what Alito said. Some people fear if their names are out there, they'll get harassed. Reality of the situation is they saw what happened to businesses who publicly gave money to Prop 8, they lost a lot of business. Turns out Homosexuals don't like to dine or sleep at places owned by bigots, imagine that huh?

You make me laugh though, nobody said anything about labeling them. I merely asked you whether you think Homosexuals in this case for example should be able to know that the owner of the establishment they are eating at is someone who gave $100 to help Prop 8 pass.

yes, you want to lable bigots with a scarlett letter B, B for bigot....

no, i don't believe we live in a society that demands we all make our thoughts known to the public....this is truly funny coming from you who made a big stink when i called you by your former user name, you got all pissy that i was revealing personal information about you, i had no idea you used your real name as your user name....why did you get so upset? oh, because you want YOUR privacy, yet seemiingly you don't want to extend the same to others.

if people want to be bigots, they can be. there should never be a requirement that such thoughts are public.

tell me why ballots are private? and do you deny there are less restrictive means to ensure voting integrity? and what specifically do you disagree with Alito's concurrence?

 

[Yurt]

then you believe the ballot should be public as well....?

A ballot isn't a thought.

when you vote for the initiative at the ballot box, it is the same process as putting your sig on a petition....the only difference is a vote vs a signature...

this posts shows more evidence that you in fact believe we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thoughts

 

[Modbert]

yes, you want to lable bigots with a scarlett letter B, B for bigot....

no, i don't believe we live in a society that demands we all make our thoughts known to the public....this is truly funny coming from you who made a big stink when i called you by your former user name, you got all pissy that i was revealing personal information about you, i had no idea you used your real name as your user name....why did you get so upset? oh, because you want YOUR privacy, yet seemiingly you don't want to extend the same to others.

if people want to be bigots, they can be. there should never be a requirement that such thoughts are public.

tell me why ballots are private? and do you deny there are less restrictive means to ensure voting integrity? and what specifically do you disagree with Alito's concurrence?

Who said we do? You seem to not get the point here, you're on the border line of just not either knowing or being willingly obtuse.

I was merely pointing out why many people would like those names public. They would simply not want to give money to such people.

 

[Modbert]

this posts shows more evidence that you in fact believe we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thoughts

Well, that makes it official, you're being obtuse.

 

[Yurt]

A petition is not a vote, it is an endorsement

are you actually suggesting it is not part of the voting process? yes or no. we all know it is not a vote.

A potential candidate needs to file a petition with sufficient signatures to get on a ballot. Those signature are up to challenge and are often wrong. Any citizen should have access to those signatures, it is a public document which affects everyone in the community

not true....if challenged public officials can verify the signatures and insure accuracy without making the names available to the public

try reading alito's concurrence and by your silence, i am going to assume you in fact believe the petition is part of the voting process....do you believe your vote should be made public....afterall, many votes are challenged, yet i don't see you calling for votes to be made public....

most recent big case was the al franken case....now, are you going to be consistent and proclaim votes should be public?

 

[Yurt]

yes, you want to lable bigots with a scarlett letter B, B for bigot....

no, i don't believe we live in a society that demands we all make our thoughts known to the public....this is truly funny coming from you who made a big stink when i called you by your former user name, you got all pissy that i was revealing personal information about you, i had no idea you used your real name as your user name....why did you get so upset? oh, because you want YOUR privacy, yet seemiingly you don't want to extend the same to others.

if people want to be bigots, they can be. there should never be a requirement that such thoughts are public.

tell me why ballots are private? and do you deny there are less restrictive means to ensure voting integrity? and what specifically do you disagree with Alito's concurrence?

Who said we do? You seem to not get the point here, you're on the border line of just not either knowing or being willingly obtuse.

I was merely pointing out why many people would like those names public. They would simply not want to give money to such people.

it is not official, i am not being obtuse, you're being deceiving....

do you believe people's thoughts should be public....all your posts indicate that you support people's right or whatever you're thinking to know that business's are bigotted or not....do you believe those people have a right to know if a business is bigotted....yes or no

tell us what you think and stop hiding behind questions....this what you do, you hide behind others and then when called to the floor you proclaim, oh no, i am merely talking about them, when the whole time it is clear you support their beliefs

 

[sangha]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

Donations to candidates may no longer be anonymous with the new rollback of campaign finance restrictions. I want the light to shine on all of that.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

Donations to candidates are publicly reported, you ninny

 

[sangha]

Local News | Ref. 71 signatures are public, Supreme Court rules | Seattle Times Newspaper

The high court ruled Thursday in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that disclosing the identities of petition-signers does not, generally, violate the First Amendment.

But the justices also said their decision "does not foreclose success" should Ref. 71 sponsors decide to pursue an exemption in a lower court — which the sponsors said they will do.

Those who want to keep Ref. 71 signers' names confidential now will have to prove in U.S. District Court that there is "reasonable probability" that disclosing the names will lead to threats, harassment and reprisals.

That's "a high standard to meet, and they just don't have the evidence to meet it," contended Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who argued the case on behalf of the state in April.

The high court ruled Thursday in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that disclosing the identities of petition-signers does not, generally, violate the First Amendment.

I do not see where it says Signatures, it says the Identities of the signers. I must be missing something.
Petitions, I thought, we're always public knowledge along with those who signed them, not necessarily the actual signature but the name merely spelled out

If conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

 

[sangha]

yes, you want to lable bigots with a scarlett letter B, B for bigot....

no, i don't believe we live in a society that demands we all make our thoughts known to the public....this is truly funny coming from you who made a big stink when i called you by your former user name, you got all pissy that i was revealing personal information about you, i had no idea you used your real name as your user name....why did you get so upset? oh, because you want YOUR privacy, yet seemiingly you don't want to extend the same to others.

if people want to be bigots, they can be. there should never be a requirement that such thoughts are public.

tell me why ballots are private? and do you deny there are less restrictive means to ensure voting integrity? and what specifically do you disagree with Alito's concurrence?

Who said we do? You seem to not get the point here, you're on the border line of just not either knowing or being willingly obtuse.

I was merely pointing out why many people would like those names public. They would simply not want to give money to such people.

it is not official, i am not being obtuse, you're being deceiving....

do you believe people's thoughts should be public....all your posts indicate that you support people's right or whatever you're thinking to know that business's are bigotted or not....do you believe those people have a right to know if a business is bigotted....yes or no

tell us what you think and stop hiding behind questions....this what you do, you hide behind others and then when called to the floor you proclaim, oh no, i am merely talking about them, when the whole time it is clear you support their beliefs

In a previous post I said if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.

Now yurt is proving it true by claiming the SCOTUS ruling means you have to make all your thoughts public

 

[Luissa]

Local News | Ref. 71 signatures are public, Supreme Court rules | Seattle Times Newspaper

The high court ruled Thursday in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that disclosing the identities of petition-signers does not, generally, violate the First Amendment.

But the justices also said their decision "does not foreclose success" should Ref. 71 sponsors decide to pursue an exemption in a lower court — which the sponsors said they will do.

Those who want to keep Ref. 71 signers' names confidential now will have to prove in U.S. District Court that there is "reasonable probability" that disclosing the names will lead to threats, harassment and reprisals.

That's "a high standard to meet, and they just don't have the evidence to meet it," contended Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who argued the case on behalf of the state in April.

The high court ruled Thursday in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that disclosing the identities of petition-signers does not, generally, violate the First Amendment.

I do not see where it says Signatures, it says the Identities of the signers. I must be missing something.
Petitions, I thought, we're always public knowledge along with those who signed them, not necessarily the actual signature but the name merely spelled out

I should have worded it differently, sorry. I was tired, and I posted this right before I went to bed. So I apologize for not being clear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire and Fugitive Nadhmi Auchi funneled money to Tony Rezko who paid for the Obama's House and a $625,000 tract of land for which the Obama paid just over $100,000.

Let's start there.

Oh I C, we're going to use the talking points and not factual info. No wonder you concurred.

Let's see the facts Frank if you can't provide those facts, you're a lost man.

I've posted the facts about the Obama "Just words? No Deeds!" bribe many times.

In a nutshell, when the Obama's bought their house using fund provided by Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who received a funds wire from Auchi a few days before. (Why is Rezko receiving funds from an Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive? I dunno, maybe you can tell me). Simultaneously, a trust controlled by the Obamas was deeded a parcel of land from Mrs. Rezko who paid $625,000 but sold to to the Obama's for $104,500!!

Follow that?

Tony's wife sells the land to the Obamas who had been very helpful in seeing that Tony got tens of million in properties not long before

Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?

AFTER Tony was indicted for fraud, and his dealing were going to be scrutinized, Obama suddenly remembered that what he actually bought was a "Sliver" of the vacant parcel.

Do you follow that?

Nobody ever did legitimate business like that!

If I was going to sell Obama a sliver, Id' get it subdivided (if even possible -- that's another article) and sell him the sliver. The Rezko's sold him the entire parcel and I could not find any record of any approval for a subdivision when I checked the Cook County clerks office during the time prior to the Rezko indictment.