worse... precedence has been set.
Posted on 10/17/2008 8:55:28 AM PDT by Danae
Edited on 10/17/2008 12:24:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Have you noticed there’s been a lot of ridiculous stories about this thing being over? It appears to be an orchestrated, chaotic onslaught of negative stories.
There was a story on the AP/Yahoo poll, and instead of talking about McCain being within 2 points in the poll, they said his negative campaigning is causing this to slip away!!! Not only that, but they didn’t even give the bottom line results of the poll!
What the hell’s going on?
But that isn't what he criticized me for. He criticized me for letting folks know that this was the outcome of Scalia's views.
There can be no question that this decision is mainstream Scalia. It is Scalia who wrote the famous Lujan case that is the SC's doctrine for standing. The strict construction of the statute and recognizing no rights other than those expressly stated in the statute is also mainstream Scalia, who is the strict constructionist on the Court.
Scalia is popular with conservatives because of his views on Rowe v Wade. I don't disagree with his dissent there. His views on strict construction and standing unquestionably prevent a lot of mischief and frivolous litigation in the Courts and we need more of that. While others signed onto this decision, the rationale is straight unwavering Scalia. In fact, the liberals probably saw Scalia's doctrine as a way to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish in any case.
In this particular case, however, folks have to understand that those principles cut deeply and in this case disappointed conservatives.
The one area where I strongly criticize Scalia is that he tends to follow stare decisis and the plain language of the statute he is looking at than broader constitutional principles. For instance I would argue that in this case, between the constitution, as ammended, and the Civil Rights Act, there is a clear private right to litigate one man one vote issues and enforce laws on the books that are designed to protect that right. The Court as a whole, following Scalia's favorite line of argument, stays between the left lane and right lane of the specific law in consideration without consideration of all the other laws and the Constitution itself.
The liberal Democrats insist that it’s racist to expect people to show photo ID to vote, because it creates some kind of insurmountable economic barrier to people (many blacks, apparently) without the means to obtain such ID—even though such a law is always proposed with the stipulation that ID’s would be paid for by others/the state, etc!
Bummer
O’Brunner on boyly rachel maddow’s show(msnbc)now
by the way msnbc is lying about the SCOTUS ruling
saying that SCOTUS agreed with Brunner even though they did not rule on the merits of the case, merely ruled that the GOP has no standing.
big difference but then it is the national barack channel of sorts
worse... precedence has been set.
Hmmm... ok... so a state level court doesnt have standing to bring action against the secretary of state on voting, but SCOTUS can interject itself into a State’s election laws, and dictate how they will conduct elections. (Florida 2000)
Yeah... makes a lot of sense to me.
Seems to me that Ohio Sec of State jumped the chain... shouldn’t she have appealed to the state supreme court???
Why didn’t SCOTUS reject to hear the case on that basis?????? HMMMM????
What’s going on is a character test for conservatives.
Fact is she has to run her mailing list through Move Update anyway, and she's going to have a ton of bad addresses. If she attempts to mail the voter registration cards anyway she will need to be prepared to pay the full First-Class single piece rate of postage (to be lawful).
I doubt she has considered that. I'll make sure to file a complaint so she gets tagged with a deficiency. Should cause her some degree of consternation to get the money from the state budget.
And, don’t forget, the Supreme Court.
Okay, it was decided on the technicality of standing. For some reason, the Ohio GOP doesn’t count as voters. Who has to bring this case to the court?
I am not a lawyer so I am not certain. Perhaps a citizen.
At least in that galaxy, a long, long time ago, far far away, they had Yoda.
Did Bush tell them never mind? I wouldn’t be surprised.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Democratic Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, granting her a stay on Friday to a decision from a lower court that ordered her to provide a system for implementing voter fraud prevention methods.
The decision by the full court repudiates the lower court's ruling siding with the Ohio Republican Party and ordering Brunner to verify records of about 200,000 of 666,000 new voters this year whose driver's license and Social Security records don't match information in other government databases.
In an unsigned order, the high court ruled that it could not say whether Ohio was properly enforcing the Help America Vote Act. However, it said the Ohio GOP doesn't have the standing to file the suit.
"They didn't deal with the merits of the case," said Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett. "What they dealt with was a technicality on whether we had standing or not to bring the action."
YES, IS THAT PETITION CIRCULATION YET?
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.