Skip to comments.Obama campaign urges Supreme Court to let early voting ruling stand and not hear Ohio’s appeal
Posted on 10/14/2012 12:19:01 AM PDT by presidio9
President Barack Obamas campaign is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to consider an appeal in a dispute over early voting in the presidential battleground state of Ohio.
A lower court had reinstated early voting on the three days before Election Day and returned discretion to local boards of elections.
Secretary of State Jon Husted (HYOO-sted), a Republican, has appealed that ruling. Hes also asked the Supreme Court to delay the lower court ruling while it decides whether to take the case.
Attorneys say the Obama campaign submitted a court filing
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The dems are preparing to contest the elction results in Ohio, even before the vote has been taken. At least Hal Gorp
waited until after the vote.LOL.
And the liberal fascist Obama campaign will call for rioting in the streets if the lose in Ohio.The state might as well start preparing the Ohio National Guard right now.
Yep. They aren’t gonna let go of this election.
Prediction: Obama will create a national emergency to declare martial law to suspend the election and extend his reign if he sees he’s going to lose the election...
If he does that he better be prepared to live out his days in the White House bunker and never let his face be seen on the street. And he also be ready to execute every active duty fighter pilot to keep to keep one from getting in the air with a JDAM locked onto the GPS coordinates of the Oval Office.
No problem, the Chief Justice has already shown that he is a marxist and someone who hates freedom and our constitution. The first order of business in the Romney admin. should be his impeachment.
After thier loss and the rioting out of control in most cities encouraged by them of coarse he will try to declare martial law to satisfy the unhappy. It’s all in the plan.
They need to shop for christmas, they will destroy thier own nieghborhood and after it’s done the feds will step in and revitalize the area.....again! The rats and the head rat have been boiling the water with the frogs in the pot since he’s been elected only the frogs have gotten wind and stepped out of the pot and are prepped for what may be coming thier way.
“the Chief Justice has already shown that he is a marxist and someone who hates freedom and our constitution”
You know, when you throw that ridiculous “marxist” accusation around like that about Roberts it makes it impossible for us to educate people as to what a real Marxist is.
I spent an hour and a half listening to the oral arguments regarding the critical affirmative action case the Supreme Court is deciding right now. Roberts was WONDERFUL, as was Scalia. And you could definitely identify the MARXIST qualities of Sotomayer and Ginsburg.
If you care to listen or read the transcript:
10/10/12 Oral Argument in Affirmative Action Case Fisher v. University Of TX (audio & transcript)
The next 4 years will bring 2 or possibly even 3 new Supremes. If Obama stays in office, they will be more Sotomayers and Kagans and we can just throw in the towel with an enormously progressive Supreme Court for decades.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 79 (and fighting pancreatic cancer)
Antonin Scalia, age 76
Anthony Kennedy, age 75
Stephen Breyer, age 74
Clarence Thomas, age 64
Samuel Alito, age 62
Sonia Sotomayor, age 58
John Roberts, age 57
Elena Kagan, age 52
Romney named Robert Bork the head of his Judicial Advisory Comittee. Jay Sekulow is also a Romney advisor.
Mitt Romney deeply understands that the rule of law and the integrity of our courts are essential components of our nations strength and must be preserved. He will nominate judges who faithfully adhere to the Constitutions text, structure, and history and he will carry out the duties of President as a zealous defender of the Constitution. We fully support Mitt Romneys campaign and look forward to working with other members of the committee as we advise him on todays pressing legal issues. (Judge Robert Bork in joint statement)
Well the Guard will do according to our Governor`s wishes, but the rest of us Ohioans will do what we have to. The zombies will have a tough time if they rampage around my community.
Although an opponent of gun control, Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.The fact is that Bork is a clear believer of that 'State Right' nonsense that the gun-grabbing leftists on SCOTUS believe in. As such, it's good thing he did get 'Borked' by the drunken sot Kennedy.
Ergo, when it comes to the Second Amendment, PRESIDENT Romney better listen to Vice President Ryan, and not Robert Bork.
But how ironic is that, Ted Kennedy's actions actually torpedoed his fellow gun-grabbers. Bet he got drunk as a skunk at the 'Hell's Hot Lounge and Nudie Bar' when Heller v DC came down. Then to add insult to injury its followed by McDonald v Chicago.
judges are trained to ignore people. They pride themselves on disregardign everything but their own arrogance.
Politicians are trained to listen to what people say and pretend to be doing it.
Like I said on another post. They better not stray to far from the city.
If they do I have a feeling they are in for a big surprize.
“...Prediction: Obama will create a national emergency to declare martial law to suspend the election and extend his reign if he sees hes going to lose the election...”
If he had the backing of the majority of the military, I’d say that was plausible.
However...he doesn’t yet have a “Red Army” behind him, and eventually, Officers will remember their oath.
Plus a whole bunch of former military, LEOs, and civilians.
I disagree that Bork is no friend to the Second Amendment. This is Bork in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah:Modern Liberalism and American Decline”
“As law professor Daniel Polsby demonstrates, “the conventional wisdom about guns and violence is mistaken. Guns don’t increase national rates of crime and violence - the continued proliferation of gun control laws almost certainly does.”
“Gun control shifts the equation in favor of the criminal. Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure that citizens cannot defend themselves.”
And you mentioned Heller vs. DC, Robert Bork signed an amicus brief SUPPORTING Heller.
Ah, yes, threatening Roberts again...nice touch.
Sadly, Judge Roberts has done the most recent damage.
I’m so sick and tired of pretzel judicial rulings.
I’ve read transcripts and listened to many Supreme Court oral arguments. Roberts is in no possible manner a liberal. I was very disappointed in the Obamacare ruling, also, but pleased that he blocked the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Regarding his approving the legislation as falling under congressional taxing power, I’m holding out with others that he did so to leave open the future challenge that the “tax” was not constitutionally passed because it did not originate with the House.
I know that the Senate used an original House bill and then gutted it to insert Obamacare, but that practice itself should be ruled unconstitutional as it deliberately subverts the intention of the Constitution. From what I understand, the practice has never been challenged in the courts before but it can’t be done with this until someone actually incurs the “tax” and then has standing.
I can see why you might not agree, but everything else I have seen from Roberts has been consistently conservative and it is ridiculous for many here to call him a liberal or marxist because of this one complicated case and ruling :-(
The decision was more than "very disappointing" it was one of the dumbest decisions in the court since the Dredd Scott case.
The AZ case was pretty bad as well.
There is no defense for Roberts for these two capitulations to the liberal Gods of insane jurisprudence.
I know :-(
I do agree that he should have struck the whole thing down. I’m still hoping that he planned it will be challenged and then struck down as a “tax”. In the meantime, we have a very good argument against the slimy Democrats who insisted the entire time they were forcing Obamacare through Congress that “THIS IS NOT A TAX!” but then argued stridently to the Supreme Court that is was constitutional because it WAS a tax.
Tamzee I appreciate the fact that you have read his rulings, and I’m more than happy to defer to your take on Roberts overall.
All I can say is that this one Roberts’ ruling, will be the one he has hung around his neck for all time. He’s only got himself to blame for that too.
If he had a problem with the way this tax was instituted, he should have refused to back Obamacare on Constitutionality. I can more easily see him making that stretch than the one he did make.
You know..., I don’t like Obama. That being said, I thought Roberts acted improperly with the swearing in. He should have conducted it flawlessly. It was amazing to me that he would not be more careful there.
Perhaps the guy will redeem himself over time, but frankly he’s a great big question mark for me now. There’s no telling what this guy will do from here on out.
I fully agree with your criticisms above and am not as enthusiastic about Roberts as I once was.
That said, I really think you might find this very interesting. It is the audio and transcript for the oral arguments the other day regarding the Fisher affirmative action case. (The transcipt is worthwhile, but the audio is superior in that you can catch their tones and timing.) Roberts was terrific. The university keeps insisting that race is only one of many “holistic” qualities used to determine acceptance. Roberts was the one who pointed out during arguments that “race” was the only “holistic” quality that appears on every cover of each application. Roberts also posed a strong defense of Fisher having standing to pursue the case.
Other than that, Scalia was also brilliant, Alito wonderful as well and Kennedy was impressive. They did a great job through their questioning of pointing out the inherent silliness of the University’s claims. Ginsburg and Sotomayer were typical leftist idiots, and Sotomayer sounded quite bitter in her comments at the end of the session.
It was great fun to listen in, but terrifying at the same time to consider two or three more Sotomayers or Kagans overwhelming these arguments and tipping the court radically to the left in decisions. And I think that is where we land if Obama gets back in :-(
I need to look only at his vote on the health care law.
Look, early voting is a disaster for more reasons than I can name, but here are a few:
1) It is questionably unconstitutional
2) It diminishes the role of the People as, in effect, a jury - We are supposed to hear the evidence before we make a decision.
3) It is, of course, an invitation to fraud, massive fraud. We have poll watch systems in place in every precinct on Election Day, not here.
4) As far as sick people - if they are too sick to vote on Election Day, they can vote absentee.If they are too sick to vote absentee, they should not be voting. If they are dead by Election Day, they shouldnt be voting at all.
5) Military: Commissioned officers should not vote (if it was good enough for Eisenhower and Nimitz, Im fine with the tradition). Enlisted men should vote via a special absentee mechanism, run by their home states (no Federal or DOD involvement, other than resources), on Election Day, and their votes should be counted as late as necessary.
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.