1 posted on
05/23/2014 2:05:33 PM PDT by
jazusamo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
To: jazusamo
I predict the judge is going to retire to a very, very nice estate in Upper Michigan.
28 posted on
05/23/2014 2:25:56 PM PDT by
AU72
Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!
29 posted on
05/23/2014 2:27:03 PM PDT by
jazusamo
To: jazusamo
Does this end up splitting the Dem vote?
Does the pubbie have a shot at it?
30 posted on
05/23/2014 2:36:00 PM PDT by
toast
To: jazusamo
So they can just keep going up the judicial ladder until someone agrees?
We do not have a democracy or republic anymore. Is there even a name for a country run by its out of control judicial system?
34 posted on
05/23/2014 2:41:00 PM PDT by
grania
To: jazusamo
Whoa...who saw that coming.
35 posted on
05/23/2014 2:41:20 PM PDT by
Busywhiskers
("Once you have wrestled, everything else in life is easy" -Dan Gable)
To: jazusamo
Under what authority is this Federalista using to overturn a Secretary of States constitutional authority? If I was the SoS I would insure the rule of law stands and ignores this extra constitutional order.
To: jazusamo
The judge could have saved even more time and money by simply declaring Conyers to be re-elected.
39 posted on
05/23/2014 2:49:16 PM PDT by
kaehurowing
(FIGHT BULLYING, UNINSTALL FIREFOX)
To: jazusamo
A Democrat judge appointed by a socialist president give the middle finger to the law and reminds us that Democrats don’t have to follow laws they don’t like. Remember the guy in the White Hut doesn’t like our Constitution and has said so.
40 posted on
05/23/2014 2:49:48 PM PDT by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
To: jazusamo
Was there any legal justification beyond “I’m a federal judge and I say so?”
41 posted on
05/23/2014 2:49:53 PM PDT by
Slings and Arrows
(You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
To: jazusamo
Did you really expect anything less? Seems rules are only for the sheeple not for our elite masters! /s
42 posted on
05/23/2014 2:51:11 PM PDT by
Leofl
(I'm from Texas, we don't dial 9-11)
To: jazusamo; thackney
There’s “peasant law”, and then there’s Law For Our Betters...
46 posted on
05/23/2014 2:56:35 PM PDT by
kiryandil
(turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
To: jazusamo
do I really have to say it???
47 posted on
05/23/2014 2:57:11 PM PDT by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
To: jazusamo
This goes to the USSC.
States are empowered to determine the qualifications to get on the ballot for Federal Office as long as those standards do not conflict with any other section of the Constitution.
In fact, for POTUS a State is not even required to hold a general election with universal suffrage. A state can appoint its electors by any criteria they choose...as long as it does not conflict with other sections of the Constitution.
48 posted on
05/23/2014 2:58:58 PM PDT by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: jazusamo
Of course John Conyers is qualified to be on the ballot. And Rahm Emanuel was a resident of Chicago in 2011. And Frank Lautenberg was eligible for to run for governor when Bob Torricelli bailed. And Barry Soetoro was born, well, wherever the heck he wanted to have been born . . .
50 posted on
05/23/2014 2:59:33 PM PDT by
Stosh
To: jazusamo
If you want to know the reason why this ruling was necessary, an interview on the local radio station tells the story: The interviewer asked the guest if Conyers could win a write in election like Detroit mayor Duggan just did.
The answer was: "No. Duggan has two distinct advantages over Conyers. Duggan had a lot of financial backers, and he is in his right mind."
51 posted on
05/23/2014 3:00:51 PM PDT by
norwaypinesavage
(The Stone Age didnÂ’t end because we ran out of stones)
To: jazusamo
Lemme guess. The judge is a COMMIE/MARXIST/LIBERAL bastard.
I hate these people. Truly hate them.
54 posted on
05/23/2014 3:08:21 PM PDT by
unixfox
(Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
To: jazusamo
The sad part is that he’s going to win....
56 posted on
05/23/2014 3:09:57 PM PDT by
Tzimisce
To: jazusamo
Why do I have to follow the law?
None of these guys do - and they write the law.
59 posted on
05/23/2014 3:10:51 PM PDT by
Tzimisce
To: jazusamo
Oh gosh I am soooo very surprised. Not
60 posted on
05/23/2014 3:11:16 PM PDT by
Nifster
To: jazusamo
This is a State issue. The federal judge should not have any authority in it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson