Posted on 06/17/2013 7:30:44 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
I find myself upsidedown trying to make sense of the ideological mix of justices in the majority these days. When it was 5-4 conservative v. liberal or vice versa, I could follow the logic even if I disagreed. Now? Scalia against Thomas? I’m confused.
Rational reporting points out that the decision was made on the basis of federal supremacy in election law for federal elections.
Irrational - i.e. Leftist race baiting - reporting is calling it a defeat for an "anti-Latino immigrant" law (that from the Anti-Defamation League, who I suppose are worried about the millions and millions of Jewish Mexicans who will be deprived of um..something...can't quite figure it out).
The fact is that the AZ legislature can narrow the requirement to State elections, but that will be a bit difficult logistically since federal/state election ballots are usually conjoined.
..the current population of AZ is 6.5 Million will swell to 34 million come election time
As well, the Court held that in the future, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which creates the federal form, to include a requirement of additional proof of citizenship in the form, and to bring different legal challenges if the EAC refuses to do so.
WHEN will Arizona do this AND how many other States will join in.
As an aside I find it ironic that SCOTUS refers to Congress having the ability to define some voting issues regarding the States as premise for this ruling YET then suggests the State request from EAC (a bureaucratic commission with Executive appointed members) that they add the proof of citizenship requirement. BIZARRE how Congress both delegated the Executive added powers and diminished State powers with this leftist voter equality nonsense.
This whole thing could be resolved by congress adding a sentence to the federal code section requiring proof of citizenship, or allowing the states to require such proof.
This could make for a great campaign issue all across the country.
Whether it is “the losing play” or “the winning play” is irrelevant, rather is it correct.
The majority has set forth as a potential remedy “a non existent pathway to administrative relief”. While this remedy is pursued persons may be illegally registered and consequently vote.
A vote cast by an illegally registered person (ie, a foreigner) can not be undone.
Further, as Thomas showed and the majority ignored, “[To] require Arizona to seek approval for its registration requirements from the Federal Government, [] the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to withhold such approval. Accordingly, it does not have the authority to command States to seek it.”
This ruling (1) improperly makes demands of Arizona and (2) wastes time while Arizona seeks “a non existent pathway to administrative relief” to fulfill those improper demands. Meanwhile persons may be illegally registered and consequently vote.
The damage is real, the danger clear and present. The court has sent Arizona on a fool’s errand. A country can not long survive if foreigners are given control of its government, in fact in such a case it is already dead. This ruling gives foreigners undue control of our government, it strikes at the very heart of our republic.
I may apply for a dozen or so Absentee Ballots! Why not it’s the DNC way of life.
When they ask how many I used, I’ll answer “ I can’t remember”. Hell, it worked for Clinton#1, Clinton #2, (d—k)Holder, Pelosi and etal.
“WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW!”
“There is a solution to this scotus ruling: the state can require citizenship for those voting in state elections, so separate the federal ballot from the state ballot, and require every voter voting on a state ballot to be a US citizen and prove residency in AZ.”
I can guarantee THAT will never happen. Nice idea. But combined state / fed ballots will continue. Good luck changing that
Jan may try it. She isn’t a ‘go along to get along’ type Governor, from what I read.
From reading the opinion, all is not lost. Arizona just has to follow additional procedures.
This could make for a great campaign issue all across the country.
EXACTLY! Congress needs to take back the powers it has at best unwittingly ceded to unelected bureaucrats that are appointed by the Executive e.g. the EAC.
SCOTUS = 100% Liberal
Myself as well. I just checked ESPN and the NBA score was front page news.
Additional evidence that lifetime appointments are harmful to citizens.
EODGUY
Exactly. The majority in this case followed the rule of law [the Constitution]. Congress can remedy this through the addition of a single sentence.
“Federal law already provides enough protection, and states should not be unduly burdening eligible citizens who want to register to vote,” Advancement Project Co-Director Penda D. Hair said.
Name one, just one protection the Feds provide to prevent Voter ID Fraud...
I’m waiting.
The Chicken Little bridage DOES get tiresome.
I doubt that justices with lifetime appointments care whether their institution is respected or not. As long as the 1788 constitution is in force, they are the only (”court of last resort”) game in town. They will continue to have about three hundred times the number of cases that they can handle each year.
Laypeople might want to read the explanation of the decision by attorneys who have actually argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Here’s an excerpt:
“The argument before the Court was that the federal law must control, because Congress had specified that, in filling out a federal form, all would-be voters had to do was to swear they are U.S. citizens, while Arizona went further and required an actual piece of official paper to prove citizenship. The challengers argued that the two approaches cannot co-exist, so the state proof requirement had to yield.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court agreed that, for now, Arizona’s proof requirement must yield to the federal form’s approach — that is, it is enough to register, using that form, if the would-be voter swears that he satisfies the citizenship requirement.
On the other hand, however, the Court also ruled that Arizona can seek permission from federal officials to impose its proof-of-citizenship requirement. If it fails with that request, it can go to court and argue that it has a constitutional right to make proof of citizenship a binding requirement for all voters.
It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/
Many of us in CA thought it was over way back in 1994...
While other states were sleeping, CA voters overwhelmingly passed Propostion 187 in 1994. It would have denied criminal illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in California.
Our free vote won big...The overwhelming majority of Californians won!!
Then the Feds stepped in with their state co-conspirators and burned our ballots and declared our free election illegal.
Some states are just now getting a taste of the ruling class and ever expanding, all controlling government.
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.