pageok
pageok
pageok
Supreme Court Reverses En Banc Sixth Circuit in Voter Verification Case:
SCOTUSblog has the scoop. Very interesting, although to my mind not surprising. I plan to blog more on it later, but I wanted just to flag it for now.
Lucius Cornelius:
So, there are over 200,000 questionable registrations (including mine, since I moved and changed my voter registration), and yet the Secretary of State does not have to provide data concerning these registrations to the counties.

Ahhh....I guess the Democratic party has a right to fraudulent elections. Secretary of State Brunner has a duty to collect the data, but no duty to share it in any usable way.
10.17.2008 1:49pm
Justin (mail):
Joe the Plumber would be one of those questionable references, as his name is misspelled on his voter registration card. Maybe McCain shouldn't push so hard for his vote.
10.17.2008 1:53pm
Nunzio:
LC,

It's whether private parties have the right to demand in court that the Ohio SOC to comply with the law, not whether or not she violated it.

If the federal government brought the suit, it could be an entirely different story.

I don't like Brunner either, but the law is the law.
10.17.2008 1:55pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Restrictions on standing come back and hurt Republicans. Interesting.
10.17.2008 2:03pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
For future reference, who would have standing?
If only a government entity, then we have a possibility that, once the elected officials and their appointees are all one party, the only groups with standing are exactly the ones we would expect not to bother.
10.17.2008 2:11pm
Mark M (mail):
Would a local (township, county) election official have standing to bring an action on this matter?
10.17.2008 2:12pm
Redman:
It might be a correct decision but its a terrible outcome.

We are about to step into an America where one political party controls the government and that party will not be questioned by a syncopathic media elite.

Why not turn in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in every state? Who will be left to complain?

So long America, we hardly knew ye.
10.17.2008 2:28pm
Sarcastro (www):
Redman's right about the ends justifying the means to save America from the Democrats, though really I think mentioning the coming Obama Thugocracy is really needed to drive the point home.
10.17.2008 2:36pm
PC:
Wow, so SCOTUS is also part of the ACORN conspiracy?
10.17.2008 2:38pm
Oren:
Yes, those 7 GOP appointees to the Court are secretly controlled by the baby-eating Democratic machine.
10.17.2008 2:42pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmm.

Welcome to the 2nd American Civil War.

Oh it won't happen for a few years yet. But this is frankly the first step.
10.17.2008 2:44pm
Steve Lubet (mail):
Looking forward to your further blogging on this, Orin. I hope you also say somethning about Boyce Martin's dissent from the Sixth Circuit's en banc opinion.
10.17.2008 2:46pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Well, I can only hope that an appropriate party will bring an action.

Brunner's actions are far worse than prior SOS Blackwell. The paperstock dispute (he issued a ruling that voter registration cards would not be accepted unless they were printed on a type of paper specified by statute) was embarrassing (though Blackwell may have been right, when an Ohio statute specifies a requirement, state agencies do not have the discretion to change those requirements...I know...I work as an Ohio hearing officer and some of the rules we have to follow are perverse!).

Brunner is being cute and clever. She changed her office's procedures with respect to how it provided this information to the county boards of election and then she claims that it would be too much trouble to go back to the old procedure (in favor of her new procedure that has never yet been used).

If Senator Obama wins, I may get to look forward to yet another tainted presidency (ala Kennedy in 1960 and Bush in 2000). It will be fun challenging the legitimacy of a president...though some people will consider it to be a racist act.
10.17.2008 2:53pm
teqjack (mail):
No [or improper] "standing" so suit must be dropped. OK, I can see that it is important to find that way. Just disappointed that a party with proper credentials had not been found to bring the suit in the first place, and a bit uncertain of why plaitiffs were not such.
10.17.2008 2:54pm
Lucius Cornelius:
For what it's worth, I do not believe that the ends always justify the means. I can only hope that someone will challenge Brunner's actions now that the magnitude of the problem is apparent...over 200,000 questionable registrations. Brunner is exaggerating the difficulty her office would face in providing this info to boards of elections.

But then, she has a habit of exaggerating matters when it suits her purpose.
10.17.2008 2:57pm
Angus:
Kennedy in 1960
Kennedy's election wasn't tainted. Even if you gave Illinois to Nixon, Kennedy still would have had more than enough electoral votes to win the election.
10.17.2008 3:07pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
teqjack, I think I can help answer your confusion. The Supreme Court is agreeing with Judge Moore, the CA6 judge who wrote the original panel opinion and the principal dissent in the en banc case, that the law in question (HAVA, Help America Vote Act) does *not* provide for *any* private right of action, only an action by the US Attorney General to enforce compliance. The lack of a private right of action was a principal argument in Judge Moore's dissent, and the conservatives in the majority shamefully failed to address it in any meaningful sense. That the Supreme Court, in 9-0 per curiam order that barely exceeded one page, summarily reversed them is pretty telling. Judge Moore described the conservatives' opinion as "judicial activism in the extreme." Based on the Supreme Court's unanimous, one-page reversal, I'd say they agree.
10.17.2008 3:08pm
Jacob Berlove:
I'm quite surprised. I understand that recent case law seems to weigh against these kind of suits, but I thought that the per curiam opinion in Bush V. Gore stood for the propostition that the usual rules about applying case law can be reversed if necessary in cases like these. Of course the Bush case generated an enormous backlash, but the Supreme Court could have just denied the stay application without comment; such a routine denial would be difficult to demonstate as politically motivated. I guess the difference here is that the stay issued is so unlikely to affect the outcome of this action that Justice Kennedy (I single him out because he is the only remaining justice from the Bush court that signed onto the per curiam and not the concurrence) et al determined it wasn't worth applying the law specially in this case.
10.17.2008 3:14pm
Constantin:
Stevens really wants to retire. Thus voter fraud's ok in Ohio.
10.17.2008 3:15pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Second civil war.
Read a long, depressing thread the other day about whether it's time to "go John Galt".

If the only parties who have standing on this are the ones who are actually committing it, then we have a problem.
10.17.2008 3:18pm
U.Va. Grad:
Stevens really wants to retire. Thus voter fraud's ok in Ohio.

And Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito want him gone so badly that they're in on the fix too?
10.17.2008 3:23pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Oh so clever Constantin. Don't let the actual facts or legal issues get in your way. Or that the Supreme Court's order was 9-0.

The OH GOP was claiming that Brunner violated HAVA. HAVA does not provide for private lawsuits (private rights of action) to enforce it, only suits by the Attorney General to enforce HAVA. See Judge Moore's dissent.

It's actually rather amusing watching all of this -- conservatives have been chiefly responsible for limiting private rights of action and curtailing the circumstances in which courts may find an implied private right of action. As Judge Moore's dissent noted in a footnote, the conservatives on the Sixth Circuit routinely hold that various statutes do not create private rights of action. Yet here, when implying one could benefit the Republican party, suddenly they find a private right of action exists.

That is completely ridiculous and is a massive stain on all of the judges in the majority.
10.17.2008 3:23pm
cboldt (mail):
42 USC 15511 -Actions by the Attorney General for declaratory and injunctive relief
The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 15481, 15482, and 15483 of this title.

.
The particular provision that the Ohio GOP sought to have enforced via court mandate was 42 USC 15483(a)(5)(B)(i).
10.17.2008 3:24pm
Sarcastro (www):
Constantin is right. Stevens wants to retire SO MUCH he was able to trick the other 8 justices into going along with this travesty!

There is no justice in stuff I don't agree with!
10.17.2008 3:25pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Standing requirements are an important limitation on judicial power and I am glad to see that it is still effective, even if the result is flawed. I guess congress gets some blame for not giving more parties standing.

In 1960, it was not just Illinois but also Texas. LBJ stole (or tried to steal) every race he was ever in. I fear we may end up with a new kind of machine politics in DC with Obama as president and super-majorities for the Dems in both houses of Congress.
10.17.2008 3:29pm
cboldt (mail):
Under federal law, each participating state (the law is a cash for compliance sort of thing) is also required to establish an administrative review system for private complaints. 42 USC 15512.
.
I don't know what the relevant administrative provisions are, under Ohio law.
10.17.2008 3:34pm
pete (mail) (www):

Joe the Plumber would be one of those questionable references, as his name is misspelled on his voter registration card. Maybe McCain shouldn't push so hard for his vote.


If there is a discrepency then that is what provisional ballots are for.
10.17.2008 3:36pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Lucius Cornelius the Dems will fracture the moment they attain a supermajority. No one can fight game theory, history and human nature all at once!

If the Dems get over 60 in the Senate, this may be the end of the party.

ref: Carter's Dem Congress.]
10.17.2008 3:36pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
Angus wrote: Kennedy in 1960

Kennedy's election wasn't tainted. Even if you gave Illinois to Nixon, Kennedy still would have had more than enough electoral votes to win the election.



This is not the place to debate either the 1960 or 2000 elections but there were two very strongly contested state results in 1960: Illinois and Texas. The Nixon camp claimed both were "stolen". If the electoral votes Kennedy won in those 2 states were reversed Nixon would have been elected POTUS. So yes, the election was tainted.
10.17.2008 3:38pm
Rick_Anon (mail):
The standing issue aside, we already know the view of the en banc Court of Appeals: Brunner's actions violate HAVA.

Where is the outcry when the OH SOS violates federal election law?
10.17.2008 3:41pm
Happyshooter:
This is a mistake. I am mostly on the right, and feel bad that there will be massive amounts of questionable votes for the other guy, but this is a mistake anyway.

The Supremes got a lot of grief for Bush 2000, as they should have. They should have left the vote by vote exams running, and ordered the clinton delayed military votes counted, and otherwise stayed out of it.

This looks just as bad.
10.17.2008 3:41pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Hey, Who Are The Real Judicial Activists, since the insults and bad language I would like to use in response to your nasty attitude would just get deleted, I will just say, "Bless your heart."

Darn, it is HARD doing all this typing on a cell phone, but the State of Ohio blocks this blog. A lot more get blocked by the telecoms in response to threats from the Obama justice department.
10.17.2008 3:46pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Rick Anon -- yeah, so what if those conservative hacks on the CA6 think Brunner violated HAVA; they also have huge reading comprehension problems re: HAVA and fail to recognize that it doesn't give the OH-GOP a right to sue. Do you trust their legal "analysis" on the "merits" of the GOP's HAVA claim? I don't.

Judge Moore was correct on the lack of a private action in HAVA; the CA6 majority was stunningly wrong. She is also correct that, even on the merits, the OH-GOP is wrong about HAVA's requirements.

If you want to trust the en banc majority, which just got breath-takingly smacked down 9-0 in a 1-page order, go ahead. The CA6 conservatives look like true fools and/or hacks today.
10.17.2008 3:50pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Lucius Cornelius: "A lot more get blocked by the telecoms in response to threats from the Obama justice department"

What in the world are you talking about? Last I checked, Mukasey was still AG and the Bushies were still in charge of DOJ...
10.17.2008 3:56pm
Rick_Anon (mail):
Who...

Like it or not the en banc majority said Brunner violated HAVA. It's not a matter of them being "conservative hacks" or a matter "trust" between me and them.

There is now a decision of a federal Court of Appeals finding the state SOS in violation of federal election law.

I've disagreed with my circuit court before. Doesn't change the decision unfortunately.
10.17.2008 4:05pm
Oren:
watrja, Lucius exists independently of time. You should know that.
10.17.2008 4:05pm
Rick_Anon (mail):
Who...

I also meant to ask, how do you know that it was a 9-0 decision.

And, the short per curiam opinion certainly went out of its way to state that it was not ruling on the HAVA claim. How confident are you that a majority will reverse the 6th Circuit? If they affirm on the merits, are they just "conservative hacks?"
10.17.2008 4:09pm
Oren:

There is now a decision of a federal Court of Appeals finding the state SOS in violation of federal election law.

A decision that has been vacated because the parties did not have standing.
10.17.2008 4:09pm
U.Va. Grad:
The standing issue aside, we already know the view of the en banc Court of Appeals: Brunner's actions violate HAVA.

Where is the outcry when the OH SOS violates federal election law?


Their view in a vacated opinion is by no means conclusive evidence that Brunner violated the law.
10.17.2008 4:19pm
Oren:
Rick, I don't think you understand what has happened. Before any Art III Court can decide anything on the merits, they need to establish the standing of the plaintiff to sue. Since there pretty plainly is no standing, there will never be a ruling on the merits.

The only way we are getting a ruling on the HAVA claim is if Mukasey (or someone else with standing) brings a brand-new action that can be litigated between now and Nov 4th.
10.17.2008 4:22pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Who...

That is the problem with typing on a cellphone. What I meant to say was, "A lot more may get blocked..." If ISPs start removing blogs and posts to blogs when complaints are filed, there may be a lot less content on the web. I've already seen some commenters stating a desire for this outcome.

And you are right, the Republicans are still in charge at USDOJ (though control of the executive suites does not mean control over the agency as a whole when the rank and file become partisan and insubordinate).

Rick_Anon, I can only hope that a proper party with standing will bring an action. Then let's see what happens. The 6th Circuit can dust off its HAVA language. Brunner will complain that she won't have time to take the corrective action...but she won't explain exactly why. Especially since her predecessor was able to do it.

Grrr....I hate typing this way!
10.17.2008 4:24pm
cboldt (mail):
-- A decision that has been vacated because the parties did not have standing. --
.
Technically, only the TRO was vacated. The question of standing hasn't been closed just yet (it will be), but closing that doesn't cause the independent logic as to whether or not Ohio is in compliance with the HAVA to disappear.
.
Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.
10.17.2008 4:25pm
FantasiaWHT:
What, no talk of implied rights of action?

Come on, SCOTUS, if you can find a Bivens action in 42 USC 1983, surely you can find something here.
10.17.2008 4:28pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Sarcastro,

I don't know if the Dems will fracture immediately. They have been frustrated by their inability to deliver on their promises to their friends and supporters. They will move quickly to make their webroots happy.

We can see legislation with respect to Union card checks (doing away with secret elections for union organizing) and other liberal wish list items within the first one hundred days of the Obama administration. We can also look forward to legislation for a new "Fairness Doctrine" (and kiss goodbye to conservative talk radio and maybe even Fox News). What next? Maybe a version of net neutrality that allows ISPs and telecomms to assign blogs concerning political opinions to a high, expensive tier.
10.17.2008 4:29pm
Oren:
Lucius -- may I suggest Circumventor? Install on your home computer (requires no installation on the work comp), browse to the correct address and you get whatever you want, unfiltered by the work proxy (in fact, because it's SSL, the work proxy cannot even read what's being passed through). As always, use responsibly.
10.17.2008 4:30pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
"FantasiaWHT:
What, no talk of implied rights of action?

Come on, SCOTUS, if you can find a Bivens action in 42 USC 1983, surely you can find something here."

You clearly know nothing about 1983 or Bivens, or law, in general.
10.17.2008 4:34pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Lucius Cornelius I expect you're right re: card checks. Fairness Doctrine may see some push back. Internet regulation is right out - hackers are trouble.]

Some tips:


Stay low, don't speak out, keep the doors locked, and when THEY come to ask your party affiliation...lie, lie, lie.
10.17.2008 4:37pm
Oren:

Technically, only the TRO was vacated. The question of standing hasn't been closed just yet (it will be), but closing that doesn't cause the independent logic as to whether or not Ohio is in compliance with the HAVA to disappear.

So long as "independent logic" really means "worthless verbiage".

Fantasia, Bivens isn't found in S1983 but is 'constitutional common law'. Congress could write a law codifying some version of Bivens as they wish, including removing all monetary damages whatsoever. See Schweiker_v._Chilicky -- there is no implied right of action where Congress sets a remedy, even if the plaintiff argues the remedy is defective or insufficient.

Moreover, implied rights of action are a lot more difficult to find in a statute, where we presume Congress had a chance to write its intent, rather than in Constitutional guarantees such as the 4A.
10.17.2008 4:38pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Lucius Cornelius, it's fascinating what fears you folks have about an Obama administration. I would wager all my money in the world that *nothing* resembling your fears comes to pass in an Obama administration.

It's really rather comical; it's like you've taken everything corrupt the Bushies have done to the DOJ and somehow attributed the blame for that to Democrats and Obama and y'all are positive he will be even worse. I don't understand it at all. We dems are outraged by the kind of politicization and surveillance state tactics of Bush. I certainly have no interest in seeing Obama replicate those tactics and merely turn them back on you clowns. I am sure the vast majority of his supporters feel similarly, and I feel pretty confident he does too.
10.17.2008 4:38pm
cboldt (mail):
-- So long as "independent logic" really means "worthless verbiage". --
.
That we won't know unless and until it comes up again. There is sits, in a case "vacated on other grounds."
.
That provision of HAVA doesn't have much value anyway, in my opinion. If the SoS and head of DMV have an (sufficient) agreement to share, they've satisfied the law.
.
The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.
10.17.2008 4:45pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Who.
Well, Who, I guess what happened to Joe is an aberration. Right? Obama doesn't have to do things, nor instruct his minions to do things. Or not serious things, anyway. A reasonable tightening up of regs on gun dealers surely can't be all that contentious, can it?
Having reporters go after dissidents isn't his fault, is it?
What the Bush admin has done ref politicization and surveillance is mostly in your fever dreams. 'way out on the fringes of what is meant by the latest iteration of FISA versus whether foreign-sourced phone calls being switched by US equipment counts as spying on Americans. That's what's known as 3.2 beer.

We're worried about the real thing. Which you, since you know how the wind blows, can be sure won't apply to you. Yet.
10.17.2008 4:45pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Uh, what happened to Joe? Honestly, what? People looked through public records? Get a grip. Where was your outrage when Malkin was terrorizing a 12 year old and his family? Further, how is Obama responsible for the media or bloggers?

You live in a fevered reality, my friend. What Bush wanted to do and did was plainly illegal; it terrified John Ashcroft and Comey, for christsakes. And let's not even talk about torture -- the man is a war criminal.
10.17.2008 5:01pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Richard Aubrey campaign fervor does not equal a desire to put you into a re-education camp.

And while Joe was overinvestigated, it was by the media, not by "Obama's minions." No difference, I know, hahaha. FOX was there too. It was for ratings.]
10.17.2008 5:01pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Sarc et al.
Yeah, the MSM isn't Obama's fault. Except Joe got more attention than CAC from the MSM. Joe's liens got more attention than Obama's campaign financial director's liens.
A pile of dirt in an empty lot gets more attention than Obama's slum building failures.
And if the Fairness doctrine becomes law, one major influence keeping the MSM 5% (at most) honest goes away.

I didn't see Malkin terrorizing the Frosts. I did see a potentially wealthy family indulging themselves and trying to use the resulting cash flow issue as a way to get health care supposedly reserved for the poor. Now, their situation is part of the issue. Why should the wealthy get a free ride on the taxpayers' dime when the thing was sold as being for the poor? (ed. To buy votes, idiot.) So demonstrating that they were not poor, which is to say the whole thing was dishonest, is important.
Joe's situation is not part of the issue. Whether he's licensed or not is a distraction, deliberate, from Obama's answer. Won't work.
10.17.2008 5:11pm
PC:
Ah, Sarcastro, I guess you haven't been informed about Barack HUSSEIN Obama's real plans. Now that Obama has co-opted the Supreme Court there is nothing to stand in the way of setting up reparation camps!
10.17.2008 5:13pm
Lucius Cornelius:
I hope I am wrong. But as a government attorney, I am very familiar with the concept of political leaders regulating something they don't like to death.

As for abuses by the USDOJ under Bush, I could take comfort in the knowledge that the vast majority of employees at the DC offices are (increasingly partisan) Democrats. The scandals of this Administration are nominal compared to those in past administrations (and who knows, compared to those that may come when Senator Obama and his Chicago crowd move in).
10.17.2008 5:16pm
Sarcastro (www):
I was pretty miffed at how much McCain dwelt on Obama's campaign financial director! People were clamoring to hear more about that guy! There were like a million right wing blog posts about him as a symbol too.

And I think it's sad how much contempt Richard Aubrey editor has for him.

[the right made this Joe-centric narrative. This is the result. I agree it's ugly and badly handled, but I blame the blind seeking of ratings, not some liberal conspiracy.]
10.17.2008 5:17pm
MarkField (mail):

Except Joe got more attention than CAC from the MSM. Joe's liens got more attention than Obama's campaign financial director's liens.


And that all happened because Obama was the first to raise Joe in the debate and mentioned him 21 times before a national TV audience.

Oh. Never mind.
10.17.2008 5:17pm
Sarcastro (www):

reparation camps

Wow! Obama's even more evil than I thought! How can he get the SCOTUS to vote with him? My theory is a hypnosis power based on his half-daemon heritage.
10.17.2008 5:20pm
Oren:

That provision of HAVA doesn't have much value anyway, in my opinion.

On this, we agree. Congress dropped the ball, not Brunner.
10.17.2008 5:25pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
trust me, the fairness doctrine is not coming back. no real liberals support it; maybe a few kooks on blogs do, but not any mainstream liberals with actual legal training.

certainly, both the GOP and the Dems have some loony fringes. One of the main differences between the GOP and the Dems is that the loony fringe pretty much runs the actual machinery of the GOP -- see the hideous things being done by official GOP groups in CA (the Obama bucks food stamp thing) or comments by the GOP leader in NM (or AZ) about hispanics and blacks. The dems as a party are entirely middle of the road, mainstream milquetoast politicians. You have nothing to fear from people like Harry Reid or Pelosi or Obama. These people are not radicals. For christsake, Michelle Obama worked at Sidley Austin. Corporate lawyers generally do not marry bomb-throwing radicals.
10.17.2008 5:26pm
Jiffy:

There is sits, in a case "vacated on other grounds."


A decision may be "reversed on other grounds," but a vacated decision has no precedential authority. O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 577 (U.S. 1975).
10.17.2008 5:29pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Who

Trust you, huh? You gonna put up a billion dollar bond just in case trusting you turns out to be a bad idea?
10.17.2008 5:39pm
Oren:
Richard, you don't really have a choice in the matter.
10.17.2008 5:42pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
How about you give me one good reason to fear the fairness doctrine. Cite some democratic officeholders or candidates who support it.
10.17.2008 5:42pm
PC:
Cite some democratic officeholders or candidates who support it.

Obama's top economics adviser, Saul Alinsky.
10.17.2008 5:51pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
where? what's your evidence?
10.17.2008 6:11pm
PC:
where? what's your evidence?

Sen. Kit Bond said it so it must be true!
10.17.2008 6:27pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Oren.
Unfortunately, you're correct. I guess I just don't want people like Who thinking I believe them. It would be an ego hit if I thought they thought I believed them.
10.17.2008 6:53pm
Oren:
You aren't meant to believe anyone's predictive powers over the future.
10.17.2008 7:06pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
So I shouldn't trust him?

That's a relief.

A report comes in that Obama's campaign has asked Mukasey to investigate and, presumably, prosecute those who claim voter fraud.

Boy, I'm glad I didn't trust Who. Really wish I'd had a piece of that bond, though.
10.17.2008 7:22pm
Oren:

A report comes in that Obama's campaign has asked Mukasey to investigate and, presumably, prosecute those who claim voter fraud.

A secret report or can you fill the rest of us in?
10.17.2008 7:41pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
I'm still waiting for evidence of the impending revival of the fairness doctrine.

also, you should really understand the basic difference between registration fraud/errors and voter fraud.

Virtually every state REQUIRES people/groups registering voters to turn in ALL forms, even crazy ones. That way I can't go out to a mall and "register" voters, making people think they've succeeded in registering, when I'm really just submitting registrations of people I suspected were Democrats and shredding the likely-GOP registrants' papers (or vice versa). ACORN is thus simply following state law; further, they frequently put all the clearly crazy ones in a pile, so the election authorities can do their job and take those out. It's how the system works.

Here's the rub, and the difference between registration fraud and voter fraud. Some clown gets paid by ACORN to register people; he sits in his living room fills out 500 forms with baseball players' names. He turns them to ACORN, his employer, who are *required* typically by state law to turn those over to the election boards. That is registration fraud, and it harms primarily ACORN (who paid some idiot who defrauded them) and election authorities, who have to weed out his idiotic forms. But NO voter fraud will likely occur, because all the baseball players that the clown registered are unaware of their new Ohio registrations, so they won't be voting there illegally. And do you really think that clown is then going to go out and repeatedly try voting as Mickey Mouse or Manny Ramirez, Josh Beckett, etc etc in Ohio? I'm not too worried about that, nor should any sane person be.

It's the height of irresponsibility for McCain and Palin to act like the few clowns who are defrauding ACORN are threatening the fabric of our democracy. And for the FBI to be leaking its BS investigations frankly does border on the criminal. You just have to listen to former Republican US Attorney David Iglesias.
10.17.2008 7:56pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Here's another source denouncing the DOJ/FBI's bogus investigation of the bogus charges against ACORN:

link

That's from a former top DOJ voting rights official, who once worked with McCain in defending his campaign-finance reform bill
10.17.2008 8:00pm
Who are the real judicial activists? (mail):
Here is another interesting account of the dangers of voting fruad.

Really, conservatives pick the strangest things to throw fits over. Instead of throwing hissy-fits about groups like ACORN, who are complying with state laws that require them to submit *every* registration form they receive, maybe we should just make easier for people to be registered, so big registration drives and groups like ACORN are unnecessary?
10.17.2008 8:03pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
oren:

A report comes in that Obama's campaign has asked Mukasey to investigate and, presumably, prosecute those who claim voter fraud.


A secret report or can you fill the rest of us in?


I assume he's talking about this:

Obama Lawyer Asks for Probe Into Vote-Fraud Claims…

Barack Obama's campaign asked the U.S. Justice Department to expand a special prosecutor's investigation to include possible improprieties surrounding reports the FBI is looking into voter fraud in the presidential race.

Obama's campaign attorney said the investigation should look into a leak to the news media that the FBI is probing allegations of voter registration fraud by a grassroots organization called ACORN. The group's activities were denounced by Republican nominee John McCain in the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Obama campaign, wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey a day after the Associated Press, citing unidentified law enforcement officials, reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating ACORN.…

A special prosecutor appointed by Mukasey already is looking into whether improper political considerations influenced the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. At least one prosecutor was fired following Republican complaints that he didn't aggressively pursue allegations of voter fraud against ACORN.

Bauer said the news leaks are part of a coordinated effort by McCain's presidential campaign and Republicans. They are ``fomenting specious vote-fraud allegations and there are disturbing indications of official involvement or collusion,'' Bauer said.

``It is apparent,'' he wrote, that law enforcement officials are serving ``improper political objectives'' that could inhibit voter participation in the Nov. 4 election. The aim is to ``suppress the vote and to unduly influence investigations and prosecutions,'' Bauer wrote.
10.17.2008 8:16pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
dang, juke.
Spoiler.
Don't you have any sense of timing?

Yeah, Who. I know all about how ACORN has been doing the same thing for years and can't figure out how to stop doing it. There was an article about two groups in Harris County, TX. League of Women Voters was one and I forget the other. It'll be around someplace. Their errors were in the single digits. Not single digit percentage. Single digits.
It's much easier to vote fraudulently if you've already registered fraudulently.
If ACORN wanted to stop making these terrible errors, they'd ask the groups which don't make these terrible errors.

I don't see how tough registering is. I guess you have to make it seem like some kind of obstacle course so that the lazy and incompetent--the dems' prime demographic--can be said to be too lazy or incompetent to manage a process simpler than getting a drivers license. After all, you don't have to know anything but your own name to register to vote. Apparently, various organizers will even help you with that.
10.17.2008 8:28pm
GaryC (mail):

Who are the real judicial activists?:
You have nothing to fear from people like Harry Reid or Pelosi or Obama. These people are not radicals. For christsake, Michelle Obama worked at Sidley Austin. Corporate lawyers generally do not marry bomb-throwing radicals.

I would be more reassured by your comment if I were unaware that Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley Austin at the same time that Michelle Obama was there.
10.17.2008 8:46pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Gary.
You are aware.
Oops. There goes that meme.
Think he didn't know?
10.17.2008 8:50pm
Lucius Cornelius:
Hey WHO:

I saw a series of news reports concerning a comment by Nancy Pelosi that she would support a return of the fairness doctrine. And good old Dennis Kucinich wants it back.

As far as being a little bit unhinged, it happens to all of us from time to time. Maybe, instead of being sarcastic, you should use friendliness to talk us down when we start getting carried away.
10.18.2008 12:20am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Lucius.
WHO knows this stuff. He hopes that by snarking we'll be too embarrassed to keep talking about it.
He's under no illusions about the fairness doctrine. He simply wants us to be calm and unworried until it's too late.
10.18.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
gary:

I would be more reassured by your comment if I were unaware that Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley Austin at the same time that Michelle Obama was there.


The fact that Dohrn worked there only tends to underline the fact that Ayers and Dohrn are now mainstream. Here are some facts about Sidley Austin:

Sidley Austin LLP … is one of the oldest law firms in the world. It is the sixth-largest U.S.-based corporate law firm with over 1,800 lawyers, annual revenues of more than one billion dollars, and offices in 16 cities worldwide… Its original predecessor firm was founded in 1866 and had Mary Todd Lincoln, the widow of President Abraham Lincoln, among its earliest clients.… As of 2006, it was the 9th largest law firm in the world (and 5th in the US) by revenue.


Not the kind of outfit that is likely to pal around with terrorists.
10.18.2008 1:57pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke.
So the big law firm is...what...claiming to have rehabilitated these terrorists? Or did the law firm simply allow them to move into decent society where such things are simply not done. Therefore, the things were not done.
I believe the woman on the lam for a murder during a bank robbery and the attempted murder of cops had risen to decent society and they, despite the heinous nature of her crimes, defended her. Was it Soliah? Have to look up the name in case somebody who already knows all about it challenges me as a way of insinuating it never actually happened.
10.18.2008 11:41pm