Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Joe Mansky (Justice Alito NAILS the Leftist Defender)

Supreme Court Argument Transcript ^ | 2/28/2018 | Supreme Court Arguments

[rlmorel]

Dan Bongino (at The Dan Bongino Show) discussed it in his podcast yesterday, and provided a link to the transcript of the oral arguments, and I was so intrigued by Dan Bongino's description of the events that I read the entire thing. It was fascinating reading to me.

I suspect that what sent this to the Supreme Court was a conservative voter showing up at a polling place wearing a NRA hat and denied entry, while they waved someone with a "Black Lives Matter" hat right on through. (Just a guess on my part)

I am not familiar with these things, so it was hard for me to figure out when I started in who was arguing for what. The first attorney represented the Minnesota Voters Alliance (Mr. Breemer) and while I was trying to figure it out, realized Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, and (when she wasn't nodding off) Ginsberg were ALL over this guy. They were interrupting what he said, ganging up one after the other, and I figured out pretty quick which side Mr. Breemer was arguing for!)

But I loved it when guy representing the State of Minnesota (Mr. Rogan) came up, Justice Alito got right to the heart of the matter and drilled right into it...specifically with his comment about a shirt with the text of the 2nd Amendment, immediately followed by his question about the same shirt with the text of the 1st Amendment!

If you listen to the audio of this exchange at Audio for the Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Joe Mansky at about the 30 min. mark is just great! He makes the guy start to stutter...:)

BRILLIANT!

[Sopater]

Don’t any of these dolts see the absurdity of their position banning anything by such subjective measures? When their answers are “I think...”, “I don’t think”, “I don’t know”, “it depends on...”

Good God, please help us all.

[Repeal 16-17]

The attorney should have just said, “I know when I see it” (quoting Justice Stewart regarding obscenity). The guy clearly lost the case, so he might as well go out with a laugh.

[MeganC]

“Brilliant!”

I certainly agree!

[ptsal]

“I know when I see it”

The corollary: If you are for it, I am against it.

[1L]

>>The guy clearly lost the case

The sad thing is that he probably hasn’t lost it. 3-5 justices probably think his idiotic and bumbling “answers” are essentially correct.

[jeannineinsd]

Thank you for posting this. Justice Alito makes a very good point.

It is also a very good website. I like how we can listen to the actual audio exchange, how the transcript is highlighted with the text currently being spoken, and how the picture of the Supreme Court Justice speaking is highlighted.

[rlmorel]

I was impressed with it too! I had never seen it before today.

[rlmorel]

Heh, I didn’t really see it that way, but that is a funny take on it!

[NutsOnYew]

Thanks for the audio link. That was amazing. Every right-wing issue would not be allowed in the polling place, but every left-wing issue could walk right in.

[dp0622]

Well 3 and 4 are fine.

You know how the SC works, right? :)

[rlmorel]

I haven’t been able to find out exactly what kicked this off...but I will bet that was exactly it, and they pissed off some patriot who decided to sue.

[NutsOnYew]

I haven’t been able to find out exactly what kicked this off...

I scanned an article about this recently. IIRC, he was wearing a pin that said "Please ID Me" and a shirt with a political message. All passive. He never opened his mouth to try to influence any votes.

[rlmorel]

The way Dan Bongino described it just made me grin in my car as I listened to the podcast...especially the part where he read the part where Justice Alito said: "How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?" and when the guy said no, that couldn't be worn, he said "How about the First Amendment? "

Personally I can do a decent job (I think) of framing my point of view and responding when I have time to do so. I can write.

I am, however, pretty slow on my feet when it comes to actual discourse. I SO admired his retort about the First Amendment!

So quick, and like a rapier right to the EXACT point, all in five simple words: "How about the First Amendment? "

Just wow. I miss both Scalia and Rehnquist. But this guy seems like he could live up to their example.

[rlmorel]

Thank you!

[NTHockey]

I’m against it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

[Fred Hayek]

I was in Minnesota for the 2010 general election. The SoS stated that anyone wearing anything with “Please ID Me” would be arrested. I had no such apparel, but presented my Minnesota driver’s license without being asked. I got a major stink eye from the election judge. Then I found out that someone voted for me.

[NutsOnYew]

Then I found out that someone voted for me.

That's funny! Unless you're the Hayek from the Austrian School of economics, in which case, I'd vote for you also. :)

[texas booster]

And we’re you allowed to challenge the fake vote?

Is there a link to a FR post about your adventure, so we can all read about it?

Thanks!

[SoConPubbie]

I just love the whole process.

Simply amazing all that has to be taken into consideration.