Serious Question for Leftists

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:31:56 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888









spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:19:00 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
they followed the instructions.

Some were turned away at the door as well.

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

Indeed!  The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
die"... bring it on.



Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But
in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very
gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some
Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

How can anyone be so utterly clueless? One of my sons-in-law is third
generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American. The legal Hispanic
community does NOT want the illegals voting.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 11, 9:32 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:31:56 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888









spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:19:00 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
they followed the instructions.

Some were turned away at the door as well.

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

Indeed!  The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
die"... bring it on.

Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But
in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very
gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some
Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

How can anyone be so utterly clueless?  One of my sons-in-law is third
generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American.  The legal Hispanic
community does NOT want the illegals voting.


The state of Florida generated a list of 180,000 potential non
citizens on its voting rolls. After they checked with Homeland
Security, their list was cut down to some 2700. Of these, there were
some 1100 voters who couldn't prove citizenship. So 1600 voters were
unnecessarily hassled.
The non-citizen percentage of voters was 1100 out of 11.4 million
voters, or 0.01%

Crap! Homeland Insecurity! Everywhere I travel, hotel maids are
Hispanic (even NY State) and obviously non-citizens... they can't
speak English at all and I startle them with a little Arizona
"Spanish" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
<UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!


Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual

state.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot
<UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwhimp@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!


Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
state.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

 

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 11, 9:32 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:31:56 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888









spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:19:00 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
they followed the instructions.

Some were turned away at the door as well.

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

Indeed!  The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
die"... bring it on.

Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But
in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very
gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some
Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

How can anyone be so utterly clueless?  One of my sons-in-law is third
generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American.  The legal Hispanic
community does NOT want the illegals voting.

The state of Florida generated a list of 180,000 potential non
citizens on its voting rolls. After they checked with Homeland
Security, their list was cut down to some 2700. Of these, there were
some 1100 voters who couldn't prove citizenship. So 1600 voters were
unnecessarily hassled.
The non-citizen percentage of voters was 1100 out of 11.4 million
voters, or 0.01%

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot









UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb.  That was his point.

 There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot.  THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one?  Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong.  There is no right to vote for President AT ALL.  Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!

 Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
state.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

The dude is always wrong, isn't he? Florida controls if and when
felons can vote.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/04/2880650/ex-felons-need-voting-rights-restored.html

That's why he's known as AlwaysWrong. He's dumber than a stump, which is why
he's known as "DimBulb" and he has a couple of hundred nyms, so also goes by
the name "Nymbecile".

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot









UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb.  That was his point.

 There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot.  THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one?  Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong.  There is no right to vote for President AT ALL.  Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!

 Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
state.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

The dude is always wrong, isn't he? Florida controls if and when
felons can vote.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/04/2880650/ex-felons-need-voting-rights-restored.html

You must have been sleeping.

While IN prison or on parole, you are NOT a citizen.

After your price is paid, you ARE.

Regardless of what some retarded state like Florida tries to impose.
They may succeed with *their own* convicts.

 

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 11, 12:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot









UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb.  That was his point.

 There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot.  THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

Some one?  Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong.  There is no right to vote for President AT ALL.  Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!

 Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
state.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

The dude is always wrong, isn't he? Florida controls if and when
felons can vote.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/04/2880650/ex-felons-need-voting-rights-restored.html

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 11, 8:12 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888









spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 11, 9:32 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:31:56 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:19:00 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
they followed the instructions.

Some were turned away at the door as well.

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

Indeed!  The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
die"... bring it on.

Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But
in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very
gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some
Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

How can anyone be so utterly clueless?  One of my sons-in-law is third
generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American.  The legal Hispanic
community does NOT want the illegals voting.

The state of Florida generated a list of 180,000 potential non
citizens on its voting rolls. After they checked with Homeland
Security, their list was cut down to some 2700. Of these, there were
some 1100 voters who couldn't prove citizenship. So 1600 voters were
unnecessarily hassled.
The non-citizen percentage of voters was 1100 out of 11.4 million
voters, or 0.01%

Crap!  Homeland Insecurity!  Everywhere I travel, hotel maids are
Hispanic (even NY State) and obviously non-citizens... they can't
speak English at all and I startle them with a little Arizona
"Spanish" ;-)

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson seems to miss the point that
non-citizens who aren't on the electoral rolls aren't a problem. If
they aren't on the electoral roll they aren't going to vote illegally.
There may be a lot of non-citizens working as hotel maids, but this
would only be relevant if there was some evidence that they were
trying to vote.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

I think his answer to your question was, "No."


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/11/2012 07:33 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

I think his answer to your question was, "No."

I think you two were left dumbstruck by his answer.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 08/11/2012 07:33 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

I think his answer to your question was, "No."

I think you two were left dumbstruck by his answer.

That's why you're silly. His 2 answers were baseless and anyone who takes
them seriously has the kind of ignorance that can only be achieved by
ignoring anything the other side says, so responding is a waste of time, as
is this.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[flipper]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
<llaassllaaass@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
dupe donkey dung.

By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
George Bush.

There is not one word in the Court's opinion making an 'appointment'
of any kind, nor any declaration of 'who won', nor, contrary to myth,
did the ruling prohibit the Florida Supreme Court from devising a
constitutional recount. To quote "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion."

Remand means the Florida Court is free to rehear the case and make any
'proper' judgments.

The ruling did two things. First, by 7 - 2, it declared the Florida
Supreme Courts absurd fabrication to be unconstitutional and that
alone exposes the remainder of your dung pile on this topic. "Seven
Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy."

Second, the SCOTUS explained
"--->The Supreme Court of Florida has said<--- [emphasis added]
--> that the legislature intended<--- [emphasis added]
the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral
process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at
27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434,
*13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy
or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of
electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there
is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order
that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is
evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be
unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to
proceed."

It is this, acknowledging the safe harbor deadline, that is falsely
construed as the SCOTUS 'ending all recounts' but it does not since
The Florida Supreme Court, as 'interpreter' of Florida Law, could have
conceivably reversed itself and declared the deadline 'not' the
'legislative intent' or, by sheer genius, devised a 'recount' plan
that met the deadline. But, in any event, and contrary to your dung
heap, it was the SCOTUS following the Constitution's declaration that
the state LEGISLATURE shall direct the election process and the SCOTUS
was merely repeating what the FSC had declared the legislative intent
to be.

This is also why Justice Breyer's dissenting 'remedy', itself, would
be a constitutional violation because he proposed that the SCOTUS
should, on it's own, vacate the FSC determination of legislative
intent, which WOULD be the SCOTUS 'interfering in the election
process'.

"The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain
the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed
remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action
in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part
of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8)
(2000)."

Only the FSC, or the Florida Legislature, could constitutionally
'reinterpret' the legislative intent, not Justice Breyer.

But, again, that paragraph explains "Because the Florida Supreme Court
has said." The remand left the FSC free to "say" whatever it deemed to
be the legislative intent, as long as such a determination was
constitutional.

Now, if one wants to argue it 'had the effect of' stopping recounts
then so be it but that was the FSC's fault, not the SCOTUS, in
fabricating a nonsensical and unconstitutional recount non-procedure
only four days before the federal "safe harbor" deadline.

The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.

A typical left wing strategy of declaring their 'rewording' of a thing
to be the thing. The Constitution does NOT make elections "a state
issue." The Constitution explicitly says the means of choosing State
electors (for President) shall be "as the LEGISLATURE thereof may
direct." [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
the election process.

The SCOTUS 'ignored' nothing and nothing could be more obvious than it
being the case the Florida Supreme Court literally threw State
election law, duly passed by the Constitutionally directed
LEGISLATURE, to the wind and fabricated an absurdity, that no
legislature would ever devise, as its substitute.

On top of that our purveyor of donkey dung apparently prefers to pick
and choose which 'parts' of the Constitution are 'the constitution'
because the 14'th Amendment explicitly provides for equal protection
under the law and that, 'surprise', includes voters.

The Florida Supreme Court's own opinion in their final ruling 2 days
after the SCOTUS ruling stated "Moreover, upon reflection, we conclude
that the development of a specific, uniform standard necessary to
ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe
best equipped to study and address it, the Legislature."

A little late to the fold but at least they finally 'got it', which
puts them ahead of whatever political propaganda outlet you parrot
this partisan gibberish from.

Clearly showing their right wing bias and
willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

Stare decisis in quotes? That 'special', eh, or is it to 'impress'.

The SCOTUS has enforced 14'th Amendment equal protections and
prohibited vote-denial and vote-dilution for well over 40 years in a
host of precedents and your own citing of stare decisis 'demanded'
they do the same in Bush v. Gore.

The only argument that could be made is they'd never before considered
a State Supreme Court ruling, which precludes any notion of stare
decisis visa vie 'a Court', but that's because no Court had ever been
so blatantly ludicrous before.

That the Florida Supreme Court's absurdity was unconstitutional came
in at 7-2, not even close.

As but one simple example, which even a liberal 'might' be able to
get, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a partial count of precincts
known to be heavily democrat, and therefore presumably skewed to Gore,
to be certified. This had the effect of saying 'to hell' with
potential 'republican' votes (indeed, democrat votes too since there
certainly were some in the 'don't bother to count' set) in the
remainder of that district. And anyone who thinks that's 'equal
protection under the law' needs to have their head examined.

The statewide remedy of reexamining "undervote" ballots had not been
requested by any of the parties, had no source in Florida statutes,
and the court provided no meaningful instructions for conducting it.
The court’s decision, moreover, came only four days before the federal
"safe harbor" deadline that was pointedly discussed in the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Bush I opinion. It was perfectly obvious, as the three
Florida Supreme Court dissenters insisted, that the majority was
"departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a
remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead
to chaos." And, as Chief Justice Wells pointed out in his dissent, the
lawlessness was so obvious that it seemed likely to "eventually cause
the election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts
or Congress."

With respect to what constituted the 'voters intent', an ad hoc
fabricated on the spot non-standard with no basis in law, the decision
essentially said to each board "do whatever you like" so that whether
a person's vote 'counted' was totally arbitrary, which is anything but
'equal protection under the law', especially since there was NO LAW
with the Florida Supreme Court having tossed it to the wind.

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one.

This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
uses.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
be considered a 'tax'.

That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
part, be sued and held liable.

I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
--> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
ho, you can 'execute it'.

Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
decisis god, forever inviolate.

It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
abundant precedent, historical order.

Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.

However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW...
abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
"except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"

Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.

The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
UNTOUCHED.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
(contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”)."
[majority opinion]

I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
441e.

Nor did Citizens United change limits in direct contributions. All it
said is you can't flat out BAN speech (during any particular 'time')
simply because you 'don't like' the speaker or the, so called,
'special interest' of the speaker. And we're going to be in sorry
shape, indeed, if the government can decide what 'interests' are
'allowed' to speak.

And by way of illustration, I propose we first ban the 'special
interest' of anyone who disagrees.

Now, I don't know if the President is a 'liar' or not. I mean, 'liar'
requires knowledge that the thing said is false and he may, instead,
actually be nothing more than an ignorant doofus, but one can
certainly see how someone might come to the 'liar' conclusion,
especially since I can't think of anything, off hand, he doesn't claim
Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius" status in, including instantly knowing,
even though admitting he didn't have the facts, who 'acted stupidly'
in a local law enforcement matter to running an automobile company to,
of course, Constitutional Law and SCOTUS decisions he either didn't
bother to read or was incapable of comprehending.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it;

You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.

though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job.

Hackneyed partisan gibberish.

To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.

He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

More hackneyed partisan gibberish.

Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
stuff'."

He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither
of those are 'useless' outcomes. Which is in stark contrast to this
administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."

The second gave us the Tea Baggers.

I thought what a person did in the bedroom... Oh, wait, I see. Hurling
sexual innuendoes is one of your "civil discourse between persons of
different views" examples.

That "free speech" thing really pisses you off, don't it?

They are paid for by the Koch
brothers

You'd prefer George Soros funding, no doubt.

and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
views.

At least you ended on a real knee slapper of a joke. I mean, what
could be more hilarious than the party of "you want to kill people"
and "throw grandma over a cliff" (and that's when they're 'polite')
pontificating about "civil discourse between persons of different
views?"

Larry


In article <8dsst6ln3jiju9vbip95t1d47hi15ogcqp@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

 

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 13, 4:23 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
llaassllaa...@gmail.com> wrote

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision.  As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one.

This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
uses.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
be considered a 'tax'.

That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
part, be sued and held liable.

I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
--> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
ho, you can 'execute it'.

"flipper" acknowledges the fundamental problem here -- that the
doctrine of corporate personality, one separate from the owners/
shareholders/members, was evolving during the 19th century. In 1789
when the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the framers could not have
contemplated that the voice of a corporation was anything beyond the
individual voices of its owners/shareholders/members. Even the
fundamental doctrine of limited liability was not established at that
point. In Letson, a half-century later, the Court decided that the
state of residence of a corporation did not depend on the states of
residence of the owners/shareholders/members.

 Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
decisis god, forever inviolate.

It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
abundant precedent, historical order.

Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.

However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make   NO   LAW...
abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
"except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"

Fine, just don't -- as Scalia does -- pretend to be an originalist,
reading the text of the Constitution as one who lived in 1789 would.
No separation between the joint stock company and its owners/
shareholders/members meant the corporate form did not speak with its
own voice.

Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.

The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
UNTOUCHED.

Sure, because, for example, British Petroleum is an AMERICAN
corporation, because it has a US subsidiary. All the foreign companies
who operate in the US do so through American subsidiaries, even if all
the profits go right back to the homeland.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
(contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”)."
[majority opinion]

I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
441e.

But the Court did reach the wholly unnecessary question of freedom of
speech for giant megacorporations. A small outfit like Citizens United
is under the direct control of its owners/shareholders/members --
ExxonMobil and IBM are not.

A reasonable rule would be to require giant megacorporations to poll
its shareholders before spending the shareholders' money on political
campaigning, as they do every year regarding the electing of
directors, compensating upper management, etc.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it;

You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.

though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job.

Hackneyed partisan gibberish.

To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.

 He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

More hackneyed partisan gibberish.

How about this: Every eighty minutes, a veteran of the war in Iraq or
Afghanistan kills himself. Bush had no idea of the total cost would be
-- whether in dollars or in lives -- as a consequence of his
administration's lying about WMDs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-veterans-death-the-nations-shame.html?pagewanted=all

Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
stuff'."

So you agree the US had no objective reason to invade Iraq. The
justification that makes the most sense is that, unable to get Bin
Laden, Cheney wanted to show that the US was nobody to fuck with by
making a show of strength against Muslims.

He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither
of those are 'useless' outcomes.

And, as a result, W. spent more borrowed Chinese money on rebuilding
Iraq's infrastructure than he did on our own. Just how far should our
kindness to strangers extend?

Which is in stark contrast to this
administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."

So you admired Reagan's decision to send 1500 missiles to the
Iranians? How did arming terrorists fit into a coherent Middle Eastern
policy?

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:09:30 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5@trix.com> wrote:

On 08/11/2012 07:33 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

I think his answer to your question was, "No."

I think you two were left dumbstruck by his answer.

I doubt it since they're probably just as used to seeing liberal dupes
post ignorant, partisan propaganda, donkey dung as much as I am.

 

On Aug 13, 7:23 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
llaassllaa...@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
dupe donkey dung.

[...]

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision.  As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one.

This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
uses.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
be considered a 'tax'.

"for purposes of this section the term ‘person’
includes any corporation" --Obamacare / unACA [H.R. 3590 sect.
9006(a)]

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Lawrance A. Schneider]

In article <4g4h28di07h5lfn9hmr6nv74801pmbt5s5@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
llaassllaaass@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
dupe donkey dung.

By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
George Bush.

There is not one word in the Court's opinion making an 'appointment'
of any kind, nor any declaration of 'who won', nor, contrary to myth,
did the ruling prohibit the Florida Supreme Court from devising a
constitutional recount. To quote "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion."

Remand means the Florida Court is free to rehear the case and make any
'proper' judgments.

The ruling did two things. First, by 7 - 2, it declared the Florida
Supreme Courts absurd fabrication to be unconstitutional and that
alone exposes the remainder of your dung pile on this topic. "Seven
Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy."

Second, the SCOTUS explained
"--->The Supreme Court of Florida has said<--- [emphasis added]
--> that the legislature intended<--- [emphasis added]
the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral
process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at
27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434,
*13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy
or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of
electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there
is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order
that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is
evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be
unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to
proceed."

It is this, acknowledging the safe harbor deadline, that is falsely
construed as the SCOTUS 'ending all recounts' but it does not since
The Florida Supreme Court, as 'interpreter' of Florida Law, could have
conceivably reversed itself and declared the deadline 'not' the
'legislative intent' or, by sheer genius, devised a 'recount' plan
that met the deadline. But, in any event, and contrary to your dung
heap, it was the SCOTUS following the Constitution's declaration that
the state LEGISLATURE shall direct the election process and the SCOTUS
was merely repeating what the FSC had declared the legislative intent
to be.

This is also why Justice Breyer's dissenting 'remedy', itself, would
be a constitutional violation because he proposed that the SCOTUS
should, on it's own, vacate the FSC determination of legislative
intent, which WOULD be the SCOTUS 'interfering in the election
process'.

"The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain
the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed
remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action
in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part
of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8)
(2000)."

Only the FSC, or the Florida Legislature, could constitutionally
'reinterpret' the legislative intent, not Justice Breyer.

But, again, that paragraph explains "Because the Florida Supreme Court
has said." The remand left the FSC free to "say" whatever it deemed to
be the legislative intent, as long as such a determination was
constitutional.

Now, if one wants to argue it 'had the effect of' stopping recounts
then so be it but that was the FSC's fault, not the SCOTUS, in
fabricating a nonsensical and unconstitutional recount non-procedure
only four days before the federal "safe harbor" deadline.

The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.

A typical left wing strategy of declaring their 'rewording' of a thing
to be the thing. The Constitution does NOT make elections "a state
issue." The Constitution explicitly says the means of choosing State
electors (for President) shall be "as the LEGISLATURE thereof may
direct." [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
the election process.

The SCOTUS 'ignored' nothing and nothing could be more obvious than it
being the case the Florida Supreme Court literally threw State
election law, duly passed by the Constitutionally directed
LEGISLATURE, to the wind and fabricated an absurdity, that no
legislature would ever devise, as its substitute.

On top of that our purveyor of donkey dung apparently prefers to pick
and choose which 'parts' of the Constitution are 'the constitution'
because the 14'th Amendment explicitly provides for equal protection
under the law and that, 'surprise', includes voters.

The Florida Supreme Court's own opinion in their final ruling 2 days
after the SCOTUS ruling stated "Moreover, upon reflection, we conclude
that the development of a specific, uniform standard necessary to
ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe
best equipped to study and address it, the Legislature."

A little late to the fold but at least they finally 'got it', which
puts them ahead of whatever political propaganda outlet you parrot
this partisan gibberish from.

Clearly showing their right wing bias and
willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

Stare decisis in quotes? That 'special', eh, or is it to 'impress'.

The SCOTUS has enforced 14'th Amendment equal protections and
prohibited vote-denial and vote-dilution for well over 40 years in a
host of precedents and your own citing of stare decisis 'demanded'
they do the same in Bush v. Gore.

The only argument that could be made is they'd never before considered
a State Supreme Court ruling, which precludes any notion of stare
decisis visa vie 'a Court', but that's because no Court had ever been
so blatantly ludicrous before.

That the Florida Supreme Court's absurdity was unconstitutional came
in at 7-2, not even close.

As but one simple example, which even a liberal 'might' be able to
get, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a partial count of precincts
known to be heavily democrat, and therefore presumably skewed to Gore,
to be certified. This had the effect of saying 'to hell' with
potential 'republican' votes (indeed, democrat votes too since there
certainly were some in the 'don't bother to count' set) in the
remainder of that district. And anyone who thinks that's 'equal
protection under the law' needs to have their head examined.

The statewide remedy of reexamining "undervote" ballots had not been
requested by any of the parties, had no source in Florida statutes,
and the court provided no meaningful instructions for conducting it.
The court’s decision, moreover, came only four days before the federal
"safe harbor" deadline that was pointedly discussed in the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Bush I opinion. It was perfectly obvious, as the three
Florida Supreme Court dissenters insisted, that the majority was
"departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a
remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead
to chaos." And, as Chief Justice Wells pointed out in his dissent, the
lawlessness was so obvious that it seemed likely to "eventually cause
the election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts
or Congress."

With respect to what constituted the 'voters intent', an ad hoc
fabricated on the spot non-standard with no basis in law, the decision
essentially said to each board "do whatever you like" so that whether
a person's vote 'counted' was totally arbitrary, which is anything but
'equal protection under the law', especially since there was NO LAW
with the Florida Supreme Court having tossed it to the wind.

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one.

This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
uses.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
be considered a 'tax'.

That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
part, be sued and held liable.

I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
--> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
ho, you can 'execute it'.

Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
decisis god, forever inviolate.

It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
abundant precedent, historical order.

Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.

However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW...
abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
"except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"

Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.

The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
UNTOUCHED.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
(contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”)."
[majority opinion]

I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
441e.

Nor did Citizens United change limits in direct contributions. All it
said is you can't flat out BAN speech (during any particular 'time')
simply because you 'don't like' the speaker or the, so called,
'special interest' of the speaker. And we're going to be in sorry
shape, indeed, if the government can decide what 'interests' are
'allowed' to speak.

And by way of illustration, I propose we first ban the 'special
interest' of anyone who disagrees.

Now, I don't know if the President is a 'liar' or not. I mean, 'liar'
requires knowledge that the thing said is false and he may, instead,
actually be nothing more than an ignorant doofus, but one can
certainly see how someone might come to the 'liar' conclusion,
especially since I can't think of anything, off hand, he doesn't claim
Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius" status in, including instantly knowing,
even though admitting he didn't have the facts, who 'acted stupidly'
in a local law enforcement matter to running an automobile company to,
of course, Constitutional Law and SCOTUS decisions he either didn't
bother to read or was incapable of comprehending.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it;

You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.

though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job.

Hackneyed partisan gibberish.

To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.

He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

More hackneyed partisan gibberish.

Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
stuff'."

He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither
of those are 'useless' outcomes. Which is in stark contrast to this
administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."

The second gave us the Tea Baggers.

I thought what a person did in the bedroom... Oh, wait, I see. Hurling
sexual innuendoes is one of your "civil discourse between persons of
different views" examples.

That "free speech" thing really pisses you off, don't it?

They are paid for by the Koch
brothers

You'd prefer George Soros funding, no doubt.

and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
views.

At least you ended on a real knee slapper of a joke. I mean, what
could be more hilarious than the party of "you want to kill people"
and "throw grandma over a cliff" (and that's when they're 'polite')
pontificating about "civil discourse between persons of different
views?"

I've read your reply.  Interesting!  I disagree.  I don't want to spend
more time on this as Mr. Thompson,  other than hurling invective drivel,
seems unable to reply in a cogent way.

By the way, I'm a Republican.  My name was given to me by my mother.

Larry

 

[flipper]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:45:51 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
<llaassllaaass@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <4g4h28di07h5lfn9hmr6nv74801pmbt5s5@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
llaassllaaass@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
dupe donkey dung.

By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
George Bush.

There is not one word in the Court's opinion making an 'appointment'
of any kind, nor any declaration of 'who won', nor, contrary to myth,
did the ruling prohibit the Florida Supreme Court from devising a
constitutional recount. To quote "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion."

Remand means the Florida Court is free to rehear the case and make any
'proper' judgments.

The ruling did two things. First, by 7 - 2, it declared the Florida
Supreme Courts absurd fabrication to be unconstitutional and that
alone exposes the remainder of your dung pile on this topic. "Seven
Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy."

Second, the SCOTUS explained
"--->The Supreme Court of Florida has said<--- [emphasis added]
--> that the legislature intended<--- [emphasis added]
the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral
process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at
27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434,
*13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy
or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of
electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there
is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order
that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is
evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be
unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to
proceed."

It is this, acknowledging the safe harbor deadline, that is falsely
construed as the SCOTUS 'ending all recounts' but it does not since
The Florida Supreme Court, as 'interpreter' of Florida Law, could have
conceivably reversed itself and declared the deadline 'not' the
'legislative intent' or, by sheer genius, devised a 'recount' plan
that met the deadline. But, in any event, and contrary to your dung
heap, it was the SCOTUS following the Constitution's declaration that
the state LEGISLATURE shall direct the election process and the SCOTUS
was merely repeating what the FSC had declared the legislative intent
to be.

This is also why Justice Breyer's dissenting 'remedy', itself, would
be a constitutional violation because he proposed that the SCOTUS
should, on it's own, vacate the FSC determination of legislative
intent, which WOULD be the SCOTUS 'interfering in the election
process'.

"The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain
the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed
remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action
in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part
of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8)
(2000)."

Only the FSC, or the Florida Legislature, could constitutionally
'reinterpret' the legislative intent, not Justice Breyer.

But, again, that paragraph explains "Because the Florida Supreme Court
has said." The remand left the FSC free to "say" whatever it deemed to
be the legislative intent, as long as such a determination was
constitutional.

Now, if one wants to argue it 'had the effect of' stopping recounts
then so be it but that was the FSC's fault, not the SCOTUS, in
fabricating a nonsensical and unconstitutional recount non-procedure
only four days before the federal "safe harbor" deadline.

The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.

A typical left wing strategy of declaring their 'rewording' of a thing
to be the thing. The Constitution does NOT make elections "a state
issue." The Constitution explicitly says the means of choosing State
electors (for President) shall be "as the LEGISLATURE thereof may
direct." [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
the election process.

The SCOTUS 'ignored' nothing and nothing could be more obvious than it
being the case the Florida Supreme Court literally threw State
election law, duly passed by the Constitutionally directed
LEGISLATURE, to the wind and fabricated an absurdity, that no
legislature would ever devise, as its substitute.

On top of that our purveyor of donkey dung apparently prefers to pick
and choose which 'parts' of the Constitution are 'the constitution'
because the 14'th Amendment explicitly provides for equal protection
under the law and that, 'surprise', includes voters.

The Florida Supreme Court's own opinion in their final ruling 2 days
after the SCOTUS ruling stated "Moreover, upon reflection, we conclude
that the development of a specific, uniform standard necessary to
ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe
best equipped to study and address it, the Legislature."

A little late to the fold but at least they finally 'got it', which
puts them ahead of whatever political propaganda outlet you parrot
this partisan gibberish from.

Clearly showing their right wing bias and
willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

Stare decisis in quotes? That 'special', eh, or is it to 'impress'.

The SCOTUS has enforced 14'th Amendment equal protections and
prohibited vote-denial and vote-dilution for well over 40 years in a
host of precedents and your own citing of stare decisis 'demanded'
they do the same in Bush v. Gore.

The only argument that could be made is they'd never before considered
a State Supreme Court ruling, which precludes any notion of stare
decisis visa vie 'a Court', but that's because no Court had ever been
so blatantly ludicrous before.

That the Florida Supreme Court's absurdity was unconstitutional came
in at 7-2, not even close.

As but one simple example, which even a liberal 'might' be able to
get, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a partial count of precincts
known to be heavily democrat, and therefore presumably skewed to Gore,
to be certified. This had the effect of saying 'to hell' with
potential 'republican' votes (indeed, democrat votes too since there
certainly were some in the 'don't bother to count' set) in the
remainder of that district. And anyone who thinks that's 'equal
protection under the law' needs to have their head examined.

The statewide remedy of reexamining "undervote" ballots had not been
requested by any of the parties, had no source in Florida statutes,
and the court provided no meaningful instructions for conducting it.
The court’s decision, moreover, came only four days before the federal
"safe harbor" deadline that was pointedly discussed in the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Bush I opinion. It was perfectly obvious, as the three
Florida Supreme Court dissenters insisted, that the majority was
"departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a
remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead
to chaos." And, as Chief Justice Wells pointed out in his dissent, the
lawlessness was so obvious that it seemed likely to "eventually cause
the election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts
or Congress."

With respect to what constituted the 'voters intent', an ad hoc
fabricated on the spot non-standard with no basis in law, the decision
essentially said to each board "do whatever you like" so that whether
a person's vote 'counted' was totally arbitrary, which is anything but
'equal protection under the law', especially since there was NO LAW
with the Florida Supreme Court having tossed it to the wind.

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one.

This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
uses.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
be considered a 'tax'.

That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
part, be sued and held liable.

I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
--> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
ho, you can 'execute it'.

Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
decisis god, forever inviolate.

It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
abundant precedent, historical order.

Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.

However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW...
abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
"except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"

Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.

The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
UNTOUCHED.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
(contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”)."
[majority opinion]

I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
441e.

Nor did Citizens United change limits in direct contributions. All it
said is you can't flat out BAN speech (during any particular 'time')
simply because you 'don't like' the speaker or the, so called,
'special interest' of the speaker. And we're going to be in sorry
shape, indeed, if the government can decide what 'interests' are
'allowed' to speak.

And by way of illustration, I propose we first ban the 'special
interest' of anyone who disagrees.

Now, I don't know if the President is a 'liar' or not. I mean, 'liar'
requires knowledge that the thing said is false and he may, instead,
actually be nothing more than an ignorant doofus, but one can
certainly see how someone might come to the 'liar' conclusion,
especially since I can't think of anything, off hand, he doesn't claim
Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius" status in, including instantly knowing,
even though admitting he didn't have the facts, who 'acted stupidly'
in a local law enforcement matter to running an automobile company to,
of course, Constitutional Law and SCOTUS decisions he either didn't
bother to read or was incapable of comprehending.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it;

You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.

though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job.

Hackneyed partisan gibberish.

To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.

He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

More hackneyed partisan gibberish.

Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
stuff'."

He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither
of those are 'useless' outcomes. Which is in stark contrast to this
administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."

The second gave us the Tea Baggers.

I thought what a person did in the bedroom... Oh, wait, I see. Hurling
sexual innuendoes is one of your "civil discourse between persons of
different views" examples.

That "free speech" thing really pisses you off, don't it?

They are paid for by the Koch
brothers

You'd prefer George Soros funding, no doubt.

and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
views.

At least you ended on a real knee slapper of a joke. I mean, what
could be more hilarious than the party of "you want to kill people"
and "throw grandma over a cliff" (and that's when they're 'polite')
pontificating about "civil discourse between persons of different
views?"



I've read your reply.  Interesting!  I disagree.

'Disagree' with what? Not that it matters because even if you
'disagree' with the rationale for one or more of the decisions, in
whole or in part, I've proved nothing was 'ignored' nor is it
plausible to, for example, suggest an outright BAN on certain speech
is somehow 'more prima facie constitutional' than adhering to the "NO
LAW" text. Any 'limit' would have to be a clever construction, not
'clear text'. And the same goes for equal protection that the SCOTUS
recognized 7-2, and even the FSC finally came around to 'officially'
admitting in their final decision.

In short, whether you 'agree' with the totality of the decisions it
was absurd of you to hurl those claims and doubly absurd to toss
'partisan' on top. That bastion of Republicanism, The Civil Liberties
Union, filed an amicus brief supporting the Citizen's United decision
and was intimately a part of Buckley v. Valeo 1976 (money=speech), one
of the prior precedents Austin broke stare decisis with.

Btw, I could probably make a plausible case for limiting corporate
'speech' expenditures myself but that doesn't mean the Citizen United
case 'ignored' anything because, for one, they were dealing with the
specific law that was a flat out BAN on everyone from the 'big boys'
to a local plumping supply, as long as they're incorporated.

 I don't want to spend
more time on this as Mr. Thompson,  other than hurling invective drivel,
seems unable to reply in a cogent way.

By the way, I'm a Republican.

Then act like it.

 My name was given to me by my mother.

Larry