I know Article III seems to say that on its face, but it has never been interpreted that way. Otherwise, every single criminal case in America, from shoplifting to murder, would have to be tried before SCOTUS, because the State is a party. In practice, and by statute, the only cases in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction are those between two states (typically, boundary disputes or water-rights cases).
Either way that the decision went, SOMEBODY was going to file a suit against the state, and SCOTUS would have jurisdiction.
No. If a case is filed in state court, the only way to get it before SCOTUS is via a writ of certiorari. Google "Rooker-Feldman Doctrine."
The only way these crooked lawyers could get around that was to make sure there was no case, so even though there was standing and the law did not exempt this kind of case, they threw the case out.
You're not making any sense here. If someone had a right to sue the State before SCOTUS after the state court decided the case (and they don't), what would it matter on what basis the state court decided?
The AG and the judge are both claiming that the Washington statute is unconstitutional because it allows fraud to be challenged in all general elections, without exempting Presidential elections. They are also claiming that the Congressional Research Service is wrong when they say that the running of Presidential elections is up to the states.
No, they are merely interpreting the language of the state statute. Just like a state statute that gives the Superior Court jurisdiction of "all civil actions" will be interpreted to not include patent cases because those are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
If that’s what they really believe then they should have challenged the law when it was passed.
No, you can't ordinarily challenge a law when it is passed; constitutional challenges to statutes come up only when the issue arises in a case brought under that statute.
But the way to get it to the Supreme Court so it can be declared unconstitutional for anybody to challenge fraudulent election filings in state courts is if they make a ruling and the party that doesn’t like the ruling sues the state.
(a) That's not true, for reasons stated above, but (b) if it were true, the plaintiff in this case could now sue the State of Washington before SCOTUS. So your point makes no sense to me.
You do recognize that they are calling the state statute unconstitutional, right?
No.
And that that is almost the entire basis for their ruling?
No.
You do realize that they decided that because they mistakenly believed that this was about ELIGIBILITY when the law specifically says it is about FRAUD, right?
No.
So they took the law that was in front of them and ignored it, and took the affidavit that was in front of them and pretended it said something else.
If it wasn't about eligibility, what was it about? I don't recall Obama filing a copy of his birth certificate with the State of Washington.
And then they called the FILER a moron who wanted to be counted among the people making noise.
Maybe because she was?
Project much?
Do you?
Sheesh. I can’t think of any respectable words to say that express my utter and absolute disgust with these sad sacks.
I happen to think that Obama is a lousy President and I voted for Governor Romney, but I have an utter and absolute disgust for people who give conservatives a bad name by making baseless and horrible accusations of criminality against honest judges who are merely following the law and the Constitution by not sticking their noses into matters which are to be decided by the voters and their elected representatives. Judicial activism is not a conservative value.
Mickey Mouse files to be on the Presidential ballot in Washington. He posts a PDF online that is immediately recognized as a C&P job, and when asked whether it is true that Mickey Mouse, male, was born in Omaha, NE, in Douglas County, to Louise Disney and Walt Mouse, the Nebraska state registrar will not say the claims are true (as he is required to do if those claims are made on a valid record) but instead will only say that they’ve got a piece of paper that claims that.
In his biography Mickey Mouse claimed to be born in Tanzania, his social security number is from Alaska where he never lived, his draft registration has a postal date stamp on it that has never been in existence anywhere, and his passport was breached 3 times - the last time being 2 days after a photo was taken of a fake birth certificate with no seal on it.
So Mickey files to be on Washington’s ballot. Everybody knows the fishy stuff with his records. Washington law requires all candidates placed on the ballot to be qualified, and allows any person to report fraud and/or non-qualified candidates in time to stop a name from being on a ballot.
What has to happen in order to keep Mickey off the Washington ballot? There is no federal ballot. Or do Washington’s laws guarantee that Mickey has to be on the ballot?
What if Mickey’s name was Osama Bin Laden, and everybody knew that he was born in Afghanistan? What has to happen to keep Osama off the Washington ballot? Or do Washington’s laws guarantee that Osama has to be on the ballot? Again, there is no federal ballot.
Let’s start there. Tell me how it is supposed to work.