Posted on 10/26/2016 10:44:32 PM PDT by Revel
The Dems are trying to rig the rigging. They are concerned that as people become more aware and outraged, that their vote fraud will be EXPOSED.
Hate speech is a way to stop people from stopping a minority from doing whatever it damn well pleases.
Ike, like Colin Powell, was looked up to by BOTH national parties and BOTH wanted him to be their candidate, prior to the primary season of '52.
I don't know how old you are, nor when you first became interested in politics, but the Ike V. Stevenson election season was the first one that I paid concentrated interest in and I was but a rather little kiddo. OTOH, my family and their friends were VERY involved, and I enjoyed listening to them discuss and debate it all and it was also around that time, that my mother got me hooked on watching the news.
Ooooooh.
They don’t want to do that.
The discover process could be completely disastrous for the Democrats. There would be no more ‘consent decree’ to protect them from investigations into vote fraud.
It is my hope and dream that just as Putin threw Sotos out of Russia, so shall America toss him out forever. Him and his sons as well.
One word: O’Keefe.
World comes to an end. Minorities hurt worst.
Oh for...
“Mommy, make him stop!”
The way it looks to me is that if the Republicans gave up the right to sue, they would not have given up the right to countersue.
Seems like the Dims have open the floodgates for the Republicans to fight back. Well, assuming that the GOP has the balls to fight back.
I couldn’t write a script this outlandish.
“Impossible.”
No, it is an easily verifiable fact.
I recommend engaging brain BEFORE putting mouth into gear.
So a new “Constitution Party” needs to be formed. That party can then sue and report fraud.
Bingo...new “Constitution Party”/
Restore
Our
American
Republic
R.O.A.R
ROAR!!!
I suggest you review the constitutional powers of Congress over the judicial branch - “BEFORE putting mouth into gear.”
-PJ
Um, what? I don’t understand the legal basis for this suit or what they are asking for.
In theory, a Congressman could “take on” voting fraud.
I suppose they could make a speech or something (that the media would not broadcast). Maybe they could hold a hearing, which the media would not broadcast (and for which Republican leadership might strip them of their chairmanship or assignment). Republican leadership, which consented to this decree in 1982, has shown no tolerance of serious attempts (legislation) to address it, even when they held both houses and the Presidency under Bush 43.
In practice, it takes a lot of people on the ground to prevent (or substantially enact) voter fraud. They have to be organized and trained - it is a long term sustained effort. The Democrats have a variety of such groups, the Republicans do not, coordinated through their national committees. This is the REALITY, and has been for decades.
Get real.
Believing it is impossible, is living in an alternate reality.
I fail to see how “the constitutional powers of Congress over the judicial branch” has any effect. It does not allow Congress to make or overturn court decisions. They just establish courts. The ruling in question was a consent decree anyway (RNC consented to it).
Keep researching. Congress cannot only establish and abolish courts, it can also limit the subjects the court can review.
“It does not allow Congress to make or overturn court decisions.”
Not only can Congress overturn or modify judicial decisions, it can completely ignore them. Congress is sovereign; the court is not. The Founders never intended for the courts to be a super legislature. The Courts have no constitutional authority to legislate, meaning it cannot create or nullify law. All it can do constitutionally is issue opinions and oversee its singular dominion - the courts.
They know they will lose - and they don’t care. It’s pure public relations.
“Not only can Congress overturn or modify judicial decisions, it can completely ignore them.”
“The Courts have no constitutional authority to legislate”
Nice theories, which obviously don’t hold up in practice.
In theory, Congress could pass a new law, or disband a court. In practice, as I remind you again, they have not in this case, despite having decades of opportunity.
They are afraid of being called racist.
Do you still claim that the 1982 consent decree is “impossible”, after it being in force for 34 years?
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.