Posted on 08/23/2012 2:57:32 AM PDT by markomalley
I am amazed at how many of my fellow freepers condone rule by blackrobes, a gross violation of separation of powers and antithetical to the basis of our republic. Rats are fixated on results. They don't care if we end up in the dictatorship we are headed for, as long as they get social justice. Conservatives should focus on process and Constitutionality. What a single damn judge feels is bad law does not justify rewriting the law.
EVERYBODY knows what the ‘none’ vote means.
IMPEACH this jerk judge. NOW!
You are making the assumption that it was legislators who enacted this law and it is those who must dispense of it. The fact is that I don’t know but I will find out as I have family living there. I would counter to assume it was a ballot initiative and if so the voters did so without considering the ramifications of the points I submitted and asserted to mob rule.
I will find out the genesis of this law and get back to all on this thread later today. Watch your pings.
I like Newt’s idea. Disestablish entire lower courts and start over. For instance, the commie Ninth Circus could be disestablished by Congress and the judges sent home. No messy impeachments necessary.
Not to say impeachment is a bad idea; the scalps of few liberal judges hanging off our belts every year would quickly convince the remaining judges to make their future decisions based on the constitution.
It was a ballot initiative created by disgruntled voters in 1976 over the Watergate scandal. In 1998 Harry Ried won over John Ensign by over 400 votes. There were over 8000 votes cast for none of the Above in that race. How many of those 8000 were swayed by the liberal media at the time?
Although John Ensign owned his own Vet clinic, he was tied to his father’s stature as the big bad casino people as he was the CEO of Mandalay bay at the time. My sister was his father’s chosen waitress at the coffee shop at the time.
Exactly!
A NOTA vote prevents recount vote fraud.
Personally, I think that if NOTA wins, there should be a new election with the current candidates being ineligible to run.
Instead of voting for someone a voter is lukewarm about it would be great if they could vote against someone they despise, a negative vote instead of positive. The negatives would subtract from a candidate’s vote totals. Instead of voting for a lessor evil, which voters have to do frequently, a voter could vote against evil. This would also help with the stupid vote, the voters that can’t follow simple instructions. Half of them would vote opposite their stupid intentions.
That's exactly my point, and that's why a judge was involved in the case.
As I said before ... I don't disagree with the general intent of the Nevada law, but based on what I read of this case it sounds like the "legislature" (or in the case of a ballot initiative, whoever crafted the language of the initiative) may not have considered some of these issues. The Nevada law would eventually have ended up in a courtroom anyway, if "None of the Above" ended up "winning" an election.
Keep in mind that the language of the law effectively precludes anyone in Nevada from having any legal grounds to dispute the judge's decision on the basis of their own self-interest. Since "None of the Above" never had a chance to "win" an election anyway, then a legal decision that prevents someone from voting for that "candidate" is a matter of no consequence whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.