Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

et_al

Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

It will all be detailed in the AZ report.

Of course it will, by design. "Arizona Audit's Major Procedural Flaws Will Create Conflict With Official Tally" www.nationalmemo.com

Then you and the other Buffoon sycophants will swarm to it like flies on s**t without ever considering that it's s**t, by design.

An article that better explains what and why the court declined to issue an injunction in the midst of an ongoing election, it includes a copy of the simple and straightforward 11 page opinion. Pay particular attention to what the court did not do. www.ajc.com

1 and 2. Now that you have expressed your political opinion perhaps you could address the legal issue that constrained the court's discretion. Namely, the "Purcell Principle" that creates a presumption that courts should not effect last-minute changes to election procedures. www.scotusblog.com

Insurrection is a legal term for a federal crime with a specific set of elements.

Yes. Two statutes I find enlightening on the subject.

18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, ..." www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons ... conspire to ... or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States ..." www.law.cornell.edu

You won't see those severe charges. The First Amendment plays to integral a role. After all, why should there be when some lesser charges carry the same or equivalent penalty without the baggage.

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI

Thomas's opinion should be viewed as irrelevant to the law as should be SC decisions that overrule laws passed by Congress.

D**n, you're obstinate.

drudge.com

drudge.com

There have been many more over the years. But you never address the stalemate. What happens when Nixon says no to the tapes and the SC says, "Hey, don't ask us. It's not our job."

SC members should not voice political statements in public ever. That is a privelege [sic] they should sacrifice when appointed to high positions on our courts.

Jesus, this was not a political statement. It's his official opinion about the Commerce Clause as a United States Supreme Court Justice on a "case and controversy" arising under "... th[e] Constitution [and] the laws of the United States...".

He was never elected to any office ...

Yet, he was nominated by an elected President and confirmed by an elected Senate as provided by the Constitution. Thus resides the power of a United States Supreme Court Justice.

Because of their lifetime appointments some members of the SC actually start believing that they are anointed by God to rule this nation as royalty.

Well, I'm sure you can surmise I disagree. However, there's an old lawyer joke; "What's the difference between a federal judge and God?"

codes.findlaw.com

That should work to the Penal Code, then follow the title and chapter references above through the drop down menus.

To get to the Transportation Code, at the top of the page hit the Texas link, navigate to the code then follow intuitive drop downs.

#54

Findlaw has better formatting and navigability than the official government page. codes.findlaw.com!tid=N3E05DC2EB16745FC9BB7FA6191CC80FB

In addition to Penal Code title 5 chapter 22 see also title 9 chapter 42. That's just the Penal Code there are a myriad of potential traffic related offenses that would be found under the Transportation Code. codes.findlaw.com!tid=N1A52891FFA8F4B1B92F5A4B7DEF31310

Fifty plus posts b****ing about the effects of voter ID, etc. None consider the evidence. Generally, voter ID has no significant effect on voting behavior, good, bad, positive, negative, whatever. www.google.com

Certainly not enough to affect a national election.

There's also the false inference that voter ID only addresses in person voter fraud. As Justice Stevens observed while upholding the constitutionality of voter ID,

(b) Each of Indiana's asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses"in-person voter impersonation at polling places"has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana's own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election's outcome. There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes. Finally, Indiana's interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. Pp. 7"13.www.law.cornell.edu [*]
*That's from the syllabus, read the opinion for the full version.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable