Posted on 11/04/2016 2:16:11 PM PDT by i88schwartz
First-time voter Stephanie Rodriguez, the daughter of illegal immigrants, told an MSNBC reporter Friday she is the only person in her family that can legally vote. Rodriguez, a voter in Arizona, said she cast her vote because of immigration.
"I was motivated to vote by my mother, who is not able to vote, as soon as my ballot arrived at home," Rodriguez said. "She was like here it is, Stephanie, you can do it!"
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
A judge just tossed out AZ voter ID law today.
Poster child for the *end* of birthright citizenship.
“I was motivated to vote by my mother, who is not able to vote, as soon as my ballot arrived at home,”
Little do they know....
Sounds like gaslighting to me. Saying all these new voters are NOT Trump voters.
I don’t see that.
Bingo. A citizen and still doesn’t grasp our system.
A judge just tossed out AZ voter ID law today.
I strongly disagree.
A federal Judge Conspired to Commit VOTE FRAUD in the STate of Arizona.
That is what these States need to see when this crap happens, and then ARREST AND CHARGE THE JUDGE!!!
An “inferior” Court CREATED BY CONGRESS has NO AUTHORITY IN STATE MATTERS!
Article 3, Section 2:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
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.”).
For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that an Alabama probate judge may deliver his own considered opinion, subject to review, on the issues raised in Searcy and Strawser and is not required to defer to federal district and circuit court rulings on the same questions.
“..as soon as my ballot arrived at home...”
It she was at home why did she receive a ballot at “home.” Absentee ballots are for those who are away from home and unable to come to the place of election.
Awww, what a heartwarming story. /S
Exactly why AZ has gone from bright Red to dull Blue.
The globalist plan is working.
That's their plan...
Here you go, Stephanie. You can do it. Keep the free shit from the government flowing
An attack now favors Trump. It ain’t gonna happen.
Hillary is going down.
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.