Lynn S. Adelman
Posted on 07/20/2016 7:29:15 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
Vote early, vote often.
Will they get enough people to out vote us?
Judges legislating again, and again, and again...
Especially when you need it to buy your booze and weed after your EBT grocery run.
Hasn’t SCOTUS upheld the voter ID requirement in several states? These political hacks in black robes will make up anything to thwart this totally reasonable law and allow continued voter fraud anywhere they can.
One has to basically NOT WANT to do this, out of petulance.
Just have Mr. Trump DEMAND a recount BEFORE election day. Those that are ineligible will be prosecuted. That will scare them off.
Appeal to a higher court.
Why didn’t he order the state to issue an ID to all citizens at no charge?
Prove you are a citizen and get a free ID.
That’s why they love “early voting” ... lets them vote a half-dozen times under a half-dozen identities in a half-dozen precincts without interfering with meth-cooking, siesta and midnight basketball.
Plus the democrats who have been in control of the major cities for decades and like to promote all they have done for the black people, yet according to them, they can’t get basic ID? So the democrats are liars in either case.
Yep, plus if we to believe the democrats, then how is it they can spout doing so much for the black community when they supposedly have no way to get basic ID? Flies in the face of logic either way you look at it.
While we cannot require IDs or even ask for them, people in our precinct willingly offer them as a sign of silent protest. Our workers thank them graciously and note that it actually speeds up the process . . . no need to ask them to spell it for instance.
Our only thin line of security is that first time or reactivated voters must show ID. All others sign-in. We can't even question if the signature is illegible or missing; just ask them to sign an affidavit with a clean, updated signature.
—another thread on the topic—different source—
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3450925/posts
But, but, but — it was Tommy Thompson who encouraged this appointment to get Adelman out of the legislature so that Republicans could have a majority. Unfortunately it did not last long and we went back to Dem control within a year, I think. Remember when Adelman was caught taking a petition into the bathroom, out of the sight of the circulator?
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Some kinds of folks don’t want to share their information with “the man”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.