Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JLAGRAYFOX

Not sure how to accomplish this. Florida had passed laws to address many of these issues but election officials just find a judge to let them have their way. If unable to do that, they just ignore the law without consequence. Attempts to get them to comply are met with claims of “voter suppression” which are amplified by the press.


12 posted on 11/18/2018 7:58:01 AM PST by GMMC0987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GMMC0987

That is easy to fix...just change the legal laws so that election issues can only be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration...period!!! Voting in the USA has become the joke of the world!!!


15 posted on 11/18/2018 8:02:04 AM PST by JLAGRAYFOX (Defeat both the Republican (e) & Democrat (e) political parties....Forever!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: GMMC0987
Attempts to get them to comply are met with claims of “voter suppression” which are amplified by the press.
. . . which simply emphasizes that without reform of journalism, nothing else will have a big effect. Journalism reform is mandatory and, fortunately, possible. Give SCOTUS the right case, and it can do it.

"But wouldn’t that run afoul of the Constitution? What about the First Amendment?”
My answer is that 1A intends to assure that the people will have access to an unrestricted (other than by libel law, which 1A legitimately does not repeal) variety of expressed opinion. The way it assays to do so is by prohibiting the government to restrict the variety of opinions published/spoken. But the issue now is that the wire services in general and the AP in particular have done what 1A forbids the government to do. The AP (primarily) has created a monopoly on the expression of political opinion. Not in the editorial pages of the nation - not completely, at any rate - but by systematically libeling Republicans and stonewalling news uncongenial to Democrats in the “news” portion of the paper.

It is not journalism alone, but also the FCC enabling broadcast journalism which postures as objective, and “educators” - mostly government sponsored - who assist in that same project. In fact, SCOTUS itself fell for the con in its 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision - which made it difficult for politicians to sue for libel on the theory that if some news outlets attacked a politician, others would defend him. But, empirically, if one news outlet attacks a Republican, the others pile on with abandon. And in an instance when a news outlet attacks a Democrat, that journalist will be read out of the fraternity as “not a journalist, not objective.”

My conclusions are that

SCOTUS can do it all - perhaps not in a single case, but the facts and the law are in place.


32 posted on 11/18/2018 1:37:50 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson