Dems Furious After Vote Change Gives Lead to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice

[rushmc 18]

I started following this story on Media Matters early yesterday

They have a blog that states Republican whining about loss predictable.

Then the numbers change last night

Oh the pure delicious irony of it all.

Buy the way
If you care to read you will see that a Democratic voting process observer states it is all correct and above board

Ain’t stopping the lefty loonies from going rabid however (poor babies)

Another case where money could not buy the votes



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/08/dems-foul-vote-change-gives-lead-wisconsin-supreme-court-justice/#

Here is the Media Matters link

good stuff

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104070035

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

That's pretty impressive considering the amount of money that Union Officials put into the campaign, and the amount of money they spent to bus pro union people in to register and vote at the last minute (Wisconsin is one of the few states that you can register to vote and vote the same day)

Despite all that, they couldn't pull it out. I guess we truly know where the heart of Wisconsin is.

By the way, I thought lady liberty was supposed to be wearing a blind fold? Why are they trying to get a "liberal judge" in? What kind of dumb ass would try to vote someone in who would legislate from the bench? Are judges now broken up into "law abiding" and "activists"?

Wisconsin passed a law. it's the judges duty to enforce it. Period.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 18]

Quote

That's pretty impressive considering the amount of money that Union Officials put into the campaign, and the amount of money they spent to bus pro union people in to register and vote at the last minute (Wisconsin is one of the few states that you can register to vote and vote the same day)

Despite all that, they couldn't pull it out. I guess we truly know where the heart of Wisconsin is.

By the way, I thought lady liberty was supposed to be wearing a blind fold? Why are they trying to get a "liberal judge" in? What kind of dumb ass would try to vote someone in who would legislate from the bench? Are judges now broken up into "law abiding" and "activists"?

Wisconsin passed a law. it's the judges duty to enforce it. Period.

the left can only get what it wants from orders and judges

they have a hell of a time in Congress

Untill they strong armed the HC Obamanation through

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Wisconsin passed a law. it's the judges duty to enforce it. Period.

Might wanna crack open a civics book if that's really how you think it works.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Wisconsin passed a law. it's the judges duty to enforce it. Period.

Might wanna crack open a civics book if that's really how you think it works.

Yes

But it is you that needs to do that
We already know this to be true
Yet you desire to prove it again here

Why?

(PS, no one is saying the law is not legal, they are saying it was procedurally passed is illegal and therefore not valid. The union thugs want judges to agree with them on that and they think the only way they can get that is by stacking a court)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yes

But it is you that needs to do that
We already know this to be true
Yet you desire to prove it again here

Why?

Huh?

Again in English, please. I really have no idea what you are saying, but I'll take a stab.

You think that the Judicial Branch is changed with enforcing laws. Every grade school student knows that the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing laws, and the Judicial is charged with interpreting them. Somehow, and this is where it gets confusing, your ignorance of the basic principles of government in the United States would be improved if I open a civics textbook.

- Dan G

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes

But it is you that needs to do that
We already know this to be true
Yet you desire to prove it again here

Why?

Huh?

Again in English, please. I really have no idea what you are saying, but I'll take a stab.

You think that the Judicial Branch is changed with enforcing laws. Every grade school student knows that the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing laws, and the Judicial is charged with interpreting them. Somehow, and this is where it gets confusing, your ignorance of the basic principles of government in the United States would be improved if I open a civics textbook.

Interpret, enforce, what ever.... It's on the books and it's not there job to change. If they want to take it to the supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of the law, so be it. The Constitution doesn't have any special place for unions though....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You think that the Judicial Branch is changed with enforcing laws. Every grade school student knows that the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing laws, and the Judicial is charged with interpreting them. Somehow, and this is where it gets confusing, your ignorance of the basic principles of government in the United States would be improved if I open a civics textbook.

You shouldn't be preaching about basic civics if this is what you think is reality,

When the executive branch chooses to ignore laws, or "execute" them in a half assed manner, it is in fact that courts that have to intervene to enforce it, particularly lately as the two parties have been increasingly polarized and hostile to each other (blame term limits for much of this).

A fairly accurate description is that the Executive branches of the Feds and States implements law. The Courts interpret AND enforce. An even more accurate version at the federal level is that the White House will do what the fuck it wants to (or not), and Congress and the Courts struggle to keep up.

[DanG 1]

Quote

If they want to take it to the supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of the law, so be it.

Right, which is the whole point about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election being important.

Duh.

- Dan G

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

If they want to take it to the supreme court to challenge the constitutionality of the law, so be it.

Right, which is the whole point about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election being important.

Duh.

Which brings up the point that in order for this judge to declare the law un-constitutional, he would have to ignore the constitution.

Duh.

Which also brings up the question, why would you vote for a judge that would do that?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,179]

So is it your contention that judges can't evaluate whether laws are unconstitutional?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

So is it your contention that judges can't evaluate whether laws are unconstitutional?

Wendy P.

One more time. It's the supreme courts job to determine the constitutionality of the law.

This judge has obviously been put up by the unions to strike down the law. To do that, they would have to ignore the constitution.

My question to you: are you ok with judges that are bought and paid for by groups/ political parties to ignore the constitution?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

So is it your contention that judges can't evaluate whether laws are unconstitutional?

Wendy P.

One more time. It's the supreme courts job to determine the constitutionality of the law.

This judge has obviously been put up by the unions to strike down the law. To do that, they would have to ignore the constitution.

My question to you: are you ok with judges that are bought and paid for by groups/ political parties to ignore the constitution?

It sure seemed to work well for George Bush

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One more time. It's the supreme courts job to determine the constitutionality of the law.

This judge has obviously been put up by the unions to strike down the law. To do that, they would have to ignore the constitution.

If that's the case, then it's a pretty easy appeal to get such a decision struck down.

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm confused. So when do we get to hang Chad?

[kawisixer01 0]

I hate the name of this thread. The votes weren't "found". These weren't ballots that were "lost" or anything like that. They aren't votes that were "changed". It was a simple mistake of the clerk that didn't hit "save" on a spreadsheet. And worse yet a media, party, and candidate that all relied on preliminary UNOFFICIAL vote results. In a race this close you'd have to be a flippin idiot to come out and declare victory with a lead of 200 unofficial preliminary totals. For those that pay attention the final official vote tallies aren't canvased and official for at least a day typically. The AP and media were quick to blab about how "voters sent a message" and blah blah.... they sure are silent now about the REAL majority that sent the message.

[mnealtx 0]

Several bags of ballots conveniently found in union leaders' basements or car trunks a la Franken in 3...2...1...

Meanwhile....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,179]

Quote

One more time. It's the supreme courts job to determine the constitutionality of the law

How do cases get there if none of the other courts are allowed to question the law?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

One more time. It's the supreme courts job to determine the constitutionality of the law

How do cases get there if none of the other courts are allowed to question the law?

As a general rule, as long as the particular constitutional issue has not already been decided by a higher court, any and every judge, right down to the lowliest justice-of-the-peace, has the power to rule on the constitutionality of a law at issue in a case before him/her.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]It sure seemed to work well for George Bush

[lawrocket 3]

Correct. The Supreme Court is merely the last court to examine it. The Supreme Court - except in very limited circumstances - looks at lower court decisions and either agrees or disagrees. It either affirms or reverses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

[Reply]It sure seemed to work well for George Bush

Or, it can also be viewed that by a 7-2 Supreme Court decision, it didn't work for Al Gore.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

[Reply]It sure seemed to work well for George Bush

Or, it can also be viewed that by a 7-2 Supreme Court decision, it didn't work for Al Gore.

On a court stacked by conservative republicans with conservative Republican jurors there could not have been a different outcome than we saw. Our standing in the world and our economy.... are also a historical fact where you and yours who voted for that travesty took us.

Wow...you still think W stole the election...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[Reply]It sure seemed to work well for George Bush

Or, it can also be viewed that by a 7-2 Supreme Court decision, it didn't work for Al Gore.

On a court stacked by conservative republicans with conservative Republican jurors there could not have been a different outcome than we saw. Our standing in the world and our economy.... are also a historical fact where you and yours who voted for that travesty took us.

Wow...you still think W stole the election...


The fact that you and your felloww travellers support the suppression of EVEN ONE vote goes to show just how morally depraved ande racist your party had become. Facts is facts.. but I guess in your mind any way you can lie steal or stack ballot boxes to get a WIN.... is all good.

[lawrocket 3]

The fact was the Bush camp tried to suppress all votes that were not in by the time required by the law. The Gore camp tried to suppress only those votes that he figured would be against him and give him additional time to find those votes
that would be in his favor.

I suspect that yoy have zero problem with it. Your side does it = admirable. The other side does it = repugnant. The other side says, "None of them are valid - even those that could be in my favir" = bad. Your side says, "Mine should have been valid but not his" = good.

It seems to be what you are saying.

My wife is hotter than your wife.