Republicans file new lawsuit against Brunner

The Columbus Dispatch ^ | Updated: Friday, October 17, 2008 06:05 PM | Mark Niquette

[dbacks]

“Remember when EVERY vote must count (the battle cry of 2000)?”

Now the lib battle cry is ‘EVERY vote must count at least twice.’

[Brown Deer]

David Myhal, a Republican from New Albany, filed a lawsuit this afternoon

but the headline says:

Republicans

[highlander_UW]

If Obama wins he'll just lead the illegitimate government...the US will be, in reality, anarchist.

So why hasn't this criminal politician been arrested?

[PGalt]

GRRREAT news! Thanks for posting.

[unspun]

What, are they nuts? Can’t they read? The SCOTUS said the party has no standing.

It has to be county boards or the candidates themselves, who file suit.

[Logical me]

Brunner is a member of the new Communists Party (formally Democrats). Nothing will happen and all will be on the rolls and voted. We have lost all control of a lawful America.

[bert]

......I am confused as to why Brunner can’t just do her job!? ....

She is. her job is to insure there is a mechanism in place to steal the election

[ajay_kumar]

BE SURE TO VOTE!
We need every vote to counter the Fraud.

[RandallFlagg]

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to require Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to order county elections boards not to count any absentee ballot from voters registered after Jan. 1 without first checking the statewide voter registration database to ensure there is no mismatch.

This part is important! It pulls the teeth from the fraud one at a time.
We need to do this nationwide.

[Mrs.O'Strategery]

Unspun, that is what I am confused about also. They denied the other suit... why won't they do the same thing with this lawsuit? Can anyone tell me what the differences are from this lawsuit and the other lawsuit that the Dems just won?

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

What, are they nuts? Can’t they read? The SCOTUS said the party has no standing. It has to be county boards or the candidates themselves, who file suit.

Did *you read* the article? The title is misleading.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

The republican 'party' is not filing it.

Read the article.

[eccentric]

"Obama and ACORN are stealing this election. I have never worried so much for the survival of my country."

My thoughts exactly.

[Hostage]

No it wouldn’t be a hoot. Because it wouldn’t be possible.

Once the ballot is counted you can’t overturn an election based on discovered fraud. Because there is no way to know how the fraudulent votes were cast. The fraud votes are mixed in with legit votes and there is no way to sort them after the counting.

There can be circumstantial evidence of fraud, even direct evidence but such evidence won’t be enough.

The only evidence that can invalidate a vote is the voter coming forward and admitting fraud. That’s not going to happen. Even so, if a person commits fraud, and comes forward to admit it, then they would be admitting to commit a felony. So a felon could say I voted ‘Republican’ as a lie and further fraud.

The above reason is why the registrations have to be checked NOW NOW NOW!

If you think I am exagerrating, then just ask the people of Washington State where I live what they saw in the 2004 governor’s election.

[MrChips]

In short, and in simple English, for us non-lawyer types, what does this new move by the Republicans mean?

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Whether it’s “a Republican”, “some Republicans”, or “the Republicans”, I’m still glad to see it.

[Just A Nobody]

LOL! Love it

[Verginius Rufus]

Of course in 2000 they didn't want every vote to count--they did their best to throw out votes from overseas military.

Bill Sammon pointed out that with the fraudulent registrations, even if no one shows up claiming to be the non-existent person, local officials could cast votes in their names.

The modern version of stuffed ballot boxes.

[ozzymandus]

The RATS have reached the point of openly cheating, and refusing to stop cheating when caught in the act. This was really only a small step for them, but it is very signifigant. It means they are in total control of our country, and can do anything they want. If this stands, it’s all over.

[Mrs.O'Strategery]

Thanks for your help, McCainPalin. I did read the article, thank you for being concerned about that.

However, my little ol' brain still doesn't understand why this ONE Republican will have more of a chance in court than a whole BUNCH of Republicans like the GOP were denied.

"....Rather, the court said it was unlikely that as a private entity, the GOP had the legal authority to sue Brunner on the issue or that the lower court had the power to issue its order in this case...."

"The justices did not disagree with our argument that Jennifer Brunner has failed to comply with federal election law. They merely said we don't have a right to bring a private challenge against her under this particular provision."

I'm not a lawyer. I was hoping that someone here who understands this issue could explain to me why this one republican will be able to prevail in this suit. Why does he have the right when the GOP didn't?

Regardless, I pray and hope he wins.