|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 17, 2008, 11:08 AM | #1 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 15, 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,558
|
SCOTUS Decides Ohio GOP Voter Challenge
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Quote:
Quote:
This should allow all those illegally registered voters in Ohio (Thanks ACORN! :barf to cast votes for Obama. That said, let's try to keep the discussion on the topic of SCOTUS involvement and the salient points of the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) and Ohio Secretary of State Brunner. Surprisingly, after a quick perusal, I tend to side with Sec. St. Brunner and don't believe that the ORP has standing to bring this case. Still, Brunner isn't obeying the spirit of the law in providing sometimes worthless information to the local elections boards.
__________________
-Dave Miller ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection. Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10 |
||
October 17, 2008, 11:29 AM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This may have dire consequences, nationwide.
If bona-fide voters cannot have the secure knowledge that their vote actually counts, this may end up much, much worse than Bush v. Gore (2000). |
October 17, 2008, 03:29 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2006
Location: Southwest US
Posts: 277
|
The decision still allowed for those registrations that fail the database check to be removed.
No news here.
__________________
It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean "He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque. |
October 19, 2008, 11:13 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
So, if I read this right....
SCOTUS vacated the TRO because they say the issuing court doesn't have authority over the issue? And they make no judgement about whether or not the issue is valid, only that the court involved doesn't have the authority to decide it (and issue a TRO)? Is that correct?
I'm not a lawyer, and never claimed to be, so sometimes the finer points, and even the underlying principles of these thing get past me in the legal jargon. SO, am I understanding this right, or have I missed something? Anyone...? Anyone?....Bueler?.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
October 20, 2008, 12:21 AM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In this per curiam* order, does not answer the question of whether or not the Ohio Secretary of State is in compliance with the "motor voter law." The opinion states that the respondents (the Ohio Republican Party) are not likely to have standing to sue.
The TRO was thrown out and the Ohio Secretary is able to do as she was doing before. After reviewing the Statute in question and the relevant CFR's, I've come to the conclusion that only a higher authority within the State or the Federal Election Commission has standing to sue for relief (Since I'm not an attorney, I could very well be wrong). * per curiam: "by the court." An unsigned order of which the whole court agrees. |
October 20, 2008, 07:53 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Quote:
The meat of the matter, possibly hundreds of thousands of false voter registrations, is troubling to say the least but certainly not new. Remember the great quote from Chicago, "Vote Early, Vote Often." Bottom line is we as a nation need to do something to address voter fraud. Sadly I doubt it will happen.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
|
Tags |
brunner , election , ohio , scotus , vote |
|
|