Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Memphis judge blocks Senate from removing Ford [Ophelia accuses TN Senate of racism]
Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | 1-18-2006 | Rick Locker

Posted on 01/18/2006 7:21:57 PM PST by OrangeDaisy

NASHVILLE – A federal court judge in Memphis late Wednesday blocked a planned Senate vote Thursday to overturn the Senate District 29 election and expel Sen. Ophelia Ford.

After a 50-minute hearing, U.S. Dist. Court Judge Bernice Donald issued a temporary restraining order barring the state Senate from taking any action to overturn the Sept. 15 special election that Ford won by 13 votes. She set a full hearing for Jan. 25.

The Senate was all but certain to vote Thursday morning to void the election and remove Ford from the District 29 seat. Acting as a "committee of the whole," the chamber had voted 17-14 Tuesday night to vacate the election because of illegal voting and other activity.

"Obviously because there is a restraining order we will not be moving forward," Senate Republican Leader Ron Ramsey said Wednesday. "Obviously I’m disappointed but upon advice of my counsel that’s all I can say at this time."

Ford’s lawyers filed a suit challenging the planned Senate vote Wednesday afternoon.


TOPICS: US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; corruptdems; dead; deadvoters; election; ford; fraud; govwatch; memphis; ophelia; opheliaford; senate; stolenelection; tennessee; votefraud; voterfraud; voters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
Ophelia Ford cried racism to a Federal judge in Memphis, and the judge bars the state Senate from voting to overturn the fraud-ridden election. Is this guy one of the Ford family's cronies?
1 posted on 01/18/2006 7:22:02 PM PST by OrangeDaisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

....the 'guy'is named Bernice


2 posted on 01/18/2006 7:25:08 PM PST by Armigerous ( Non permitte illegitimi te carborundum- "Don't let the bastards grind you down")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

How can a judge bar a senate? Is this a dictatorship or what?


3 posted on 01/18/2006 7:26:09 PM PST by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

Article II, Section 15 (a) says "...a successor shall be elected by the qualified voters of the district represented..."

From what I understand many of the "voters" has passed on before election day.


4 posted on 01/18/2006 7:31:10 PM PST by wingman1 (University of Vietnam 1970. Forget? Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy; Blood of Tyrants; GailA; Clintonfatigued; Kuksool; AuH2ORepublican; NewRomeTacitus; ...

WTF ?!? The Frauds are using their political muscle via federal stooges-in-robes to retain an illegally-gotten Senator and INTERFERE with State Senate business. This is utterly outrageous !


5 posted on 01/18/2006 7:31:10 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Armigerous
the 'guy' is named Bernice

Well 'his' last name is Donald. I'm either from Missouri (yous guys) or easily confused!

6 posted on 01/18/2006 7:31:53 PM PST by OrangeDaisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wingman1

Tennessee State Constitution


7 posted on 01/18/2006 7:31:56 PM PST by wingman1 (University of Vietnam 1970. Forget? Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy
Honorable Bernice B. Donald
US District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee

The Honorable Bernice Donald was nominated to the U.S. District Court on December 7, 1995 by President William Clinton, confirmed by the United States Senate on December 22, 1995 and took the bench on December 26, 1995. 

8 posted on 01/18/2006 7:33:57 PM PST by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy; Blood of Tyrants; GailA; Clintonfatigued; Kuksool; AuH2ORepublican; NewRomeTacitus; ...

This PIG in a robe is a Clintoon appointee. Surprise, surprise.


9 posted on 01/18/2006 7:34:24 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

Can anyone explain what the federal cause of action here is? What part of the federal constitution deals with the election of state senators?


10 posted on 01/18/2006 7:37:55 PM PST by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

Can somebody show me in the constitution where a Federal Judge has a say in this?


11 posted on 01/18/2006 7:39:02 PM PST by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy
This is who she cried to:


12 posted on 01/18/2006 7:39:14 PM PST by SmithL (Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Lift up your gates and sing, Hosana in the highest! Hosana to your King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy
"Obviously because there is a restraining order we will not be moving forward," Senate Republican Leader Ron Ramsey said Wednesday.

That is not obvious at all. This is neither a federal nor a judicial matter. Legislators do not AFAIK need judicial permission to expel a member, which is an internal matter of theirs. I recognize that defying a judicial order is a serious matter, but a legislature interested in protecting its turf might argue that issuing such an order is a serious matter.

Disturbing on both federalism and separation-of-powers grounds.

13 posted on 01/18/2006 7:43:39 PM PST by untenured (http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy
The 10th amendment is deeply saddened.
14 posted on 01/18/2006 7:47:26 PM PST by Drango ( No animals were harmed while producing this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untenured

Does this set precedent? I don't think I've ever heard anything like this before.


15 posted on 01/18/2006 7:49:38 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189; McGruff; leadpenny

I really appreciate your # 8. wouldn't you know it would be a Clinton judge in the thick of things.

Harold Ford, Jr was on Imus this morning, advising President Bush on Iran, Iraq. Now that he's a candidate for the Senate, he's an expert, dontcha know. Imus has never mentioned Ford family corruption, he's sooo in love with the slick and smooth Harold, jr.

Imus LOVES Ford, and would never ask about the Ford Mafia Family of Memphis. Aunt Ophelia ran for this Tenn seat replacing Harold's uncle who had to resign because he's indicted for, (I think) fraud and theft.

The family is corrupt to the core, but they own Memphis. Time will tell if the state of Tennessee is willing to promote Harold to the Senate knowing he's a chip off the family block.


16 posted on 01/18/2006 7:49:40 PM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Does this set precedent?

Not in the legal sense; it's not a verdict but simply a restraining order, and it's not from an appellate court. But politically, it probably does. It would be interesting to explore how much judges have done this.

17 posted on 01/18/2006 7:51:35 PM PST by untenured (http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: untenured; swheats
It seems I was wrong. In POWELL v. McCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), SCOTUS overtuned the House's refusal to seat Adam Clayton Powell, deciding that while the House had the Constitutional authority to judge "the Qualifications of its own members" (I.5), that was all they could do. They could decide whether he was 25 years old or not, for example, but not whether he didn't have the character to serve. A duly elected Representative could not be unseated for reasons other than those explicitly in the federal constitution.

Other Freepers may know better, but it looks like that is the controlling Federal law.

18 posted on 01/18/2006 8:05:37 PM PST by untenured (http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: untenured

Yes, yes. I can see the Supreme Court becoming involved in matters concerning Federal representatives, but how in the hell does a Federal judge have the authority over a State legislative body with an issue concerning a Tennessee state representative?


19 posted on 01/18/2006 8:20:25 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (What? Me worry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OrangeDaisy

Between last summer's arrest of state legislators, the mess at our highway patrol and this latest in a long series of Ford family crap, it's lookin' might embarassing for us here in Tennessee.


20 posted on 01/18/2006 8:21:01 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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