Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[sangha]

Are you really that dense? How much education do you have?
All the court did was cite the Federal LAW that is in effect that applies to this. That law invalidates the rules laid out in the Federal law. Arizona was told up front that their law was not constitutional. I believe the Arizona law to make complete sense but we have to change the Federal law before this state law is legal. Voting requirements are Federal law.
We dealt this exact same voting law in the 60s in the south here.
So called "conservatives" POINT hard to court rulings when it goes their way but change their tune and label them "activist judges" when a sound ruling, based on the law, goes against their ideology.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT MEN.

Part of that means doing your job, not obstructing justice and corrupting the election process. The infrastructure does not take precedent over it's purpose for being. Shit or get off of the pot. Aiding and abetting is not your job. How many more years must this horse shit continue????? Coulda-woulda-shoulda.

The ONLY thing you have to do to prove that that was voter intimidation is imagine that it would have instead been a white guy in a robe standing there with a baton. The lefties would have been screaming bloody murder. They have no shame about just flat lying.

In the USA, the ONLY way to prove a crime is in a court of law. The RNC has been proven to have engaged in a pattern of voter intimidation. The BPs have not.

 

[Misty]

I think the ninth circuit should go live in a border town anywhere in the united states not just Arizona.

It's worse than anything you can imagine.

It's working it's way to you. And by then it will be to late.

 

[ConHog]

Are you really that dense? How much education do you have?
All the court did was cite the Federal LAW that is in effect that applies to this. That law invalidates the rules laid out in the Federal law. Arizona was told up front that their law was not constitutional. I believe the Arizona law to make complete sense but we have to change the Federal law before this state law is legal. Voting requirements are Federal law.
We dealt this exact same voting law in the 60s in the south here.
So called "conservatives" POINT hard to court rulings when it goes their way but change their tune and label them "activist judges" when a sound ruling, based on the law, goes against their ideology.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT MEN.

To be fair, SOME conservatives do so, as do SOME liberals.

I've never seen a liberal call a judge an "activist judge" merely because they disagreed with the decision. I have seen liberals facetiously call a judge who makes a decision that conservatives like an "activist judge" but they are only pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives for not criticizing those activist judges for "making law" (the way the OP is doing here).

So while both liberals and conservatives disagree with certain court decisions, liberals have no ideological objection when the courts rule laws unconstitutional; conservatives do object to this, except when they don't

Negged for Rdeaning. Now I remember why you're on ignore.

 

[Liability]

Since there is STILL no other explanation for the behavior of the Black Party billy club brandishing asshole, I frankly do not care which Administration or AG first came up with the notion of NOT prosecuting him. The decision was wrong. And the new Administration is not bound by the determinations of the old Administration. (We all KNOW that the AG grasps that point, too.)

What a load of bullshit. For all your whiining about how you don't care which admin it was, you sure are making sure you do everything to blame the Obama admin. Your lies are transparent.

You can cry like a bitch all you want, but you can't address the point. And you don't.

The point remains (despite your stupid petty whining) that: the past is gone. Nobody can do anything about what has already taken place (short of working to undo it). I cannot jump in a time machine and protest the Bush signing of the TARP bill.

But what we CAN do is stop it from moving forward.

And YOU, being the dishonest sack of pus you are, can also not credibly deny that the Obama Administration has moved much farther and much faster on this break-neck rush to socialism than any other fucking President in U.S. history. So, if we choose at long last to get concerned about the direction in which this country is moving, and that happens to be when the most ardent Marxist/Socialist is our President, then that seems to be a very good time to express such concern.

In your bitching and crying and whining, you are fully exposed. You are a tyrant wanna-be. You are a Statist.

I oppose you. Get over it, bitch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

Are you really that dense? How much education do you have?
All the court did was cite the Federal LAW that is in effect that applies to this. That law invalidates the rules laid out in the Federal law. Arizona was told up front that their law was not constitutional. I believe the Arizona law to make complete sense but we have to change the Federal law before this state law is legal. Voting requirements are Federal law.
We dealt this exact same voting law in the 60s in the south here.
So called "conservatives" POINT hard to court rulings when it goes their way but change their tune and label them "activist judges" when a sound ruling, based on the law, goes against their ideology.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT MEN.

Dullard73!

Hey, who lifted the rock and let you out??

But it is so good to have your input, as now we can claim diversity: from intelligent debate, all the way down to you.

Now, not all the legal minds- and, of course, in no way does that phrase include you, Dullard, agree with this absurd decision, which adds even more pathos to your totally convinced post.

One of the Ninth Circuit panel:

Dissenting, Judge Alex Kozinski was highly critical of the majority, ending his own opinion by writing, "Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once. Count me out." Dissenting Opinion at 17704. Kozinski's argument is that the panel has evaded the law of the Circuit and weakened the rules surrounding the law of the case. He argues that the panel is wrong not to take precedent seriously and wrong that the precedent it disregards was erronelously decided.
Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Arizona Voter Identification Law Unconstitutional as Preempted by National Voter Registration Act


I'm guessing that he was referring to Supreme Court decisions such as:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

You have heard of the Supreme Court, haven't you Dull-boy?

Would you like some friendly advice, Dullard? Be sure you post with a few friends next time, so you’ll have someone to drool with during rehab.

 

[sangha]

To be fair, SOME conservatives do so, as do SOME liberals.

I've never seen a liberal call a judge an "activist judge" merely because they disagreed with the decision. I have seen liberals facetiously call a judge who makes a decision that conservatives like an "activist judge" but they are only pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives for not criticizing those activist judges for "making law" (the way the OP is doing here).

So while both liberals and conservatives disagree with certain court decisions, liberals have no ideological objection when the courts rule laws unconstitutional; conservatives do object to this, except when they don't

Negged for Rdeaning. Now I remember why you're on ignore.

Another wingnut reduced to childish insults. The delicate flower is too upset to talk about the issue at hand.

You would be better off posting on the Disney Channels' website.

 

[sangha]

Since there is STILL no other explanation for the behavior of the Black Party billy club brandishing asshole, I frankly do not care which Administration or AG first came up with the notion of NOT prosecuting him. The decision was wrong. And the new Administration is not bound by the determinations of the old Administration. (We all KNOW that the AG grasps that point, too.)

What a load of bullshit. For all your whiining about how you don't care which admin it was, you sure are making sure you do everything to blame the Obama admin. Your lies are transparent.

You can cry like a bitch all you want, but you can't address the point. And you don't.

The point remains (despite your stupid petty whining) that: the past is gone. Nobody can do anything about what has already taken place (short of working to undo it). I cannot jump in a time machine and protest the Bush signing of the TARP bill.

But what we CAN do is stop it from moving forward.

More bullshit from a wingnut who wants to pretend he objected to something bush* and the republicans in congress did. The truth is you happily sat on your ass and cheered as the republicans spent our economy down the drain.

You're just pissed that you lost the election. Get over it nancyboy!

And YOU, being the dishonest sack of pus you are, can also not credibly deny that the Obama Administration has moved much farther and much faster on this break-neck rush to socialism than any other fucking President in U.S. history. So, if we choose at long last to get concerned about the direction in which this country is moving, and that happens to be when the most ardent Marxist/Socialist is our President, then that seems to be a very good time to express such concern.

You're too deluded that this country has been a socialist nation for decades now, with conservatives being the biggest recipients of govt welfare. Conservatives, hypocrits that they are, hate govt spending, but love their Medicare, their SS, their farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and subsidies for shipping jobs overseas.

And you happily sat on your ass (at least while republicans were in control) while it happened. Socialized roads, socialized postal system, socialized water supply, electrical grid, retirement system, fire protection, and on and on.

Suddenly, you're worried about socialism.

Yeah, right

 

[BlindBoo]

Holy shit, how retarded.

If?

There WAS deliberate voter intimidation. There is no other honest or coherent explanation for that asshole to be standing in front of a polling place in military regalia brandishing a fucking club.

And, nobody ever gets convicted of anything until and unless somebody else actually steps up to the plate to prosecute him or her. Since the spineless, dishonest, gutless, ball-less and useless Obama Administration Department of "Justice" failed to prosecute, the guilty guy got away with his obvious crime.

As made clear by the January 7, 2009, civil complaint filed by Attorney General
Mukasey and others at the Department, that decision was made during the Bush administration. Another decision by experienced career attorneys evaluating the case was to pursue those civil penalties and obtain an injunction against King Shamir Shabazz, the only party alleged to have a stick outside the polling place.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/072910LeahyToSessions.pdf

Since there is STILL no other explanation for the behavior of the Black Party billy club brandishing asshole, I frankly do not care which Administration or AG first came up with the notion of NOT prosecuting him. The decision was wrong. And the new Administration is not bound by the determinations of the old Administration. (We all KNOW that the AG grasps that point, too.)

For a more accurate and full account of the hideous AG Holder "decision," try this: John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

It's another none-issue issue.

For starters, consider that the NBPP pair in question, supposedly intent on intimidating white voters, only showed up in predominately black North Philadelphia at a polling place inside a predominately black elderly apartment building in a predominately black/Democratic ward, instead of choosing to menace voters in polling places located in predominately white communities, such as those located only one mile east and/or one mile west of that location.
But conservative ire over this alleged incident goes beyond the incident itself. (Certainly conservatives are not upset by a baton armed NBPP member when they applaud Tea Party/NRA members bringing loaded firearms to public meetings, including one with President Obama.)
Conservatives are howling at the refusal of the Obama Administration to prosecute charges filed against the NBPP in January 2009, in the waning days of the lame-duck Bush Justice Department.
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) complains of being “deeply troubled” by Obama’s “questionable dismissal of an important voter intimidation” case in Philadelphia. (Earlier this year this same Rep. Wolf who found no fault in Virginia’s Republican governor issuing a proclamation for Confederate History Month that contained no mention of slavery – the reason for the South’s rebellion against the federal government.)
Conservatives claim Obama officials backed-off prosecuting the NBPP to placate blacks, dismissing the Obama Administration’s explanation that the case as filed did not contain election law violation proof sufficient to obtain convictions.
“I think the Obama Administration acted correctly in not pursuing voter intimidation that did not take place,” Thomas says. (The Obama Justice Department did obtain a court injunction barring that baton carrying NBPP from carrying a baton near polling places.)
One fact conveniently missing from the conservatives’ voter intimidation narrative here is the Bush Justice Department’s charge, lodged against the NBPP’s Washington, DC- based president, accusing him of ‘directing and managing’ his two Philadelphia followers.
This was a specious assertion made without strong supporting evidence, which attempted to bootstrap the already spurious Philadelphia incident into an attack on the entire national NBPP organization.
“The Panthers have no influence in black or Democratic Party leadership circles, but the Tea Party is the main influence in the Republican Party at this time,” writes noted political scientist and syndicated columnist Dr. Ron Walters.
“Still, I am amazed that major news organizations, so intimidated by the Right, will give credibility to this made-up story on the Panthers, on equal terms to the NAACP’s criticism of Tea Party racism.”
This amped-up right-wing attack on the NBPP, a small radical fringe group, and the Obama Administration shows striking parallels to conservative assaults on ACORN and more recent lashings on Sherrod.


t r u t h o u t | Philly Knows Better: Republican Scam Machine Again Tries to Smear Obama and Black Activists as Racists

 

[Gadawg73]

are you really that dense? How much education do you have?
All the court did was cite the federal law that is in effect that applies to this. That law invalidates the rules laid out in the federal law. Arizona was told up front that their law was not constitutional. I believe the arizona law to make complete sense but we have to change the federal law before this state law is legal. Voting requirements are federal law.
We dealt this exact same voting law in the 60s in the south here.
so called "conservatives" point hard to court rulings when it goes their way but change their tune and label them "activist judges" when a sound ruling, based on the law, goes against their ideology.
we are a nation of laws, not men.

to be fair, some conservatives do so, as do some liberals.

i've never seen a liberal call a judge an "activist judge" merely because they disagreed with the decision. I have seen liberals facetiously call a judge who makes a decision that conservatives like an "activist judge" but they are only pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives for not criticizing those activist judges for "making law" (the way the op is doing here).

So while both liberals and conservatives disagree with certain court decisions, liberals have no ideological objection when the courts rule laws unconstitutional; conservatives do object to this, except when they don't

tmi.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Has nothing to do with thread. Stop being an idiot. Another case of a radical commie left leaning judge twisting the law. ILLEGALS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE OR LIVE HERE, PERIOD!!!! Typical left vote stealing to get dimwits in office, idiots!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I was just reading about this and double checked the constitution.

It seems as if this ruling would have been unquestionably unconstitutional except for one amendment (the 17th?) that overrules the state's exclusive authority over elections by inserting a provision which gives congress the ability to pass laws regulating the denial of voting rights based on race, creed, sex etc.

Obviously the court over stepped it's bounds since proof of citizenship is not a racial qualifier, or a racially targeting obstacle. It is just proof of citizenship.

The court should be ashamed.

Lefties are too stupid to be ashamed. The end justifies the means to them, idiots!!!! Lefties are anti American and should leave along with illegals.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Seems by the time the court gets finished with the Arizona illegal alien Act, there will be nothing left to act on. Of course, cons told us there was nothing unconstitutional about the act, and they read it themselves!! Shows how much they understand about National Health care................hehehehehee

Ruling Strikes Down Part of Arizona Voter ID Law
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
By Bob Christie, Associated Press
Phoenix (AP) - A federal appeals court has struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote or casting ballots.

Tuesday's decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.

Appeals Court Judge Sandra S. Ikuta's opinion was joined by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who heard the case as a temporary appeals court judge. The 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, dissented.


Ruling Strikes Down Part of Arizona Voter ID Law | CNSnews.com

Really? You seem to be happy about this ruling so could you care to explain why it is a bad thing to require people be legal citizens to vote? The insanity is never ending!

A bad thingy? Do I live in freedom, or do I live under fascism? Why should I be required to carry ID papers or show them in a free America? I was born here, and should be free of government. Free to drive my car without insurance, drivers license or license plates. Free to vote, or work, or marry without license or id, or background checks, etc.

So I ask you, why should Americans be punished and lose freedoms and privacy rights, when it is government that is allowing the illegals to enter America? You might ask why the Arizona governor wrote the act, a women heavily invested in private prisons to house illegals, what was her motive? What has she done to stop illegals, drug trade, gun running, abductions of American women, disease, poverty, heavy burden of schools, hospitals and other social services.

Every state has the same problem, has governors, and has a system of government to force the sealing of the US border, which is the problem. I am not the problem, I am the answer, and the answer is don't steal my freedoms, fix the problem.

The only fascists here are the lftiy commies. The arizona bill is the same as the fed bill that the feds refuse to enforce. Without rules you have anarchy, oh but that is what you want right? Idiot.

 

[hboats]

Wrong and wrong. It's just amazing how wrong you can be.

The consent decree deals with Republicans trying to clean up voter rolls by "caging." It has nothing to do with intimidation.

Liar. You don't even know which consent decree I'm referring to. The RNC is under several due to their pattern of criminal behavior.






I said nothing about how getting a letter in the mail asking to prove my citizenship is intimidation. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

I mean I know when I get letters in the mail I cower in the corner because they just intimidate me so much. Damn you citibank, stop your campaign of intimidation!!!!!!!! I don't want a credit card from you and your insistence on sending me these letters is just going to intimidate me into getting one. (sarcasm off)

Rick

I hope you turned the lying off along with the sarcasm.

How convenient for you to argue a consent decree that you've not linked to. And even more convenient for you to post an arbitrary unsubstantiated quote from same consent decree.

Here's a novel idea, post some proof of your quote above.

I'll wait patiently.

Rick

Why am I not surprised that sangha totally skipped this post and has not posted any proof?

Rick

 

[sangha]

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.

Has nothing to do with thread. Stop being an idiot. Another case of a radical commie left leaning judge twisting the law. ILLEGALS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE OR LIVE HERE, PERIOD!!!! Typical left vote stealing to get dimwits in office, idiots!!!!

I find that very unpersuasive.

If only you had made in an all-caps post. Then I would have been persuaded

 

[AmericanFirst]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

You cons just don't get it, do you? The whole PURPOSE of the courts, is to put a curb on "the will of the people" when "the will of the people" exceeds Constitutional limitations.

Wrong idiot lebturd. The will of the people cannot exceed constitutional limitations. The constitution protects the will of the people, just another idiot libturd turning things around, get smart or leave my country please, and let common sense back.

 

[ConHog]

Liar. You don't even know which consent decree I'm referring to. The RNC is under several due to their pattern of criminal behavior.






I said nothing about how getting a letter in the mail asking to prove my citizenship is intimidation. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say



I hope you turned the lying off along with the sarcasm.

How convenient for you to argue a consent decree that you've not linked to. And even more convenient for you to post an arbitrary unsubstantiated quote from same consent decree.

Here's a novel idea, post some proof of your quote above.

I'll wait patiently.

Rick

Why am I not surprised that sangha totally skipped this post and has not posted any proof?

Rick

Pssst. Sangha NEVER posts any proof to back up any of his wild ass claims. EVER.

 

[daveman]

you are mistaken. Altering quotes is forbidden. Making up a quote that sounds like something you might say is not.

And since he opposes requiring proof of voter citizenship, he DOES feel that way.

I have not stated any opinion on requiring proof of citizenship for voting. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

So, then, what's your opinion on it?

 

[ConHog]

And since he opposes requiring proof of voter citizenship, he DOES feel that way.

I have not stated any opinion on requiring proof of citizenship for voting. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

So, then, what's your opinion on it?

He'll let you know as soon as Obama emails him with instructions.

 

[sangha]

How convenient for you to argue a consent decree that you've not linked to. And even more convenient for you to post an arbitrary unsubstantiated quote from same consent decree.

Here's a novel idea, post some proof of your quote above.

I'll wait patiently.

Rick

Why am I not surprised that sangha totally skipped this post and has not posted any proof?

Rick

Pssst. Sangha NEVER posts any proof to back up any of his wild ass claims. EVER.

Ironically, conjob makes a claim he can't back up with proof.

 

[sangha]

And since he opposes requiring proof of voter citizenship, he DOES feel that way.

I have not stated any opinion on requiring proof of citizenship for voting. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

So, then, what's your opinion on it?

I don't think requiring proof of citizenship at registration is necesarily unconstitutional. I also don't think it makes much of a difference. Many people, most of them republican, have gone to court and tried to prove that this is a significant problem. All of them have failed.

Wingnuts must have something to hate, and undocumented residents are the latest scary boogeyman for the right. IMO, people who think majority rule overides the Constitution are scarier than a Mexican with no papers.