Home » A blow against proof of citizenship in federal elections

Comments

A blow against proof of citizenship in federal elections — 26 Comments

  1. I’m missing something here.
    How often do federal elections occur without a concurrent state ballot?
    So the proof to vote on the fed ballot confers to the fed portion.

  2. Neo,

    Could it be one of the conservatives realizes Kennedy and perhaps even Roberts would side with the left block if cert was granted; thus, he doesn’t want to create national precedent?

  3. Cert votes are secret unless someone writes a dissent from granting cert which is very, very rare.

    This ruling sets up the Dems to steal the 2016 election for HRC.

    Neo is spot on that the current system is “the honor system.” When one has broken the law to get and stay in this country what matter is it to lie on a silly form in order to payback the Dems?

    HRC campaign is in full vote stealing mode RIGHT now with grass roots organizing.

    If the GOP had a brain in its collective head it would enact strict voter and citizenship ID laws NOW to stop the theft of what’s left of our democracy. But probably cowards and afraid to be called racists.

    And in light of the profiundly undemocratic decisions by the Supreme Court last week, a true and fair election is absolutely critical.

    Walker is out front on this issue, but he does not hold federal office. Jeff Sessions is the next logical leader, but the country club Republicans will probably backstab him.

    Let’s see who is smart enough to figure this out and lead on this existential issue. Watch Carly.

    Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
    Carthage must be destroyed.

  4. “A blow for proof of citizenship in federal elections” . . .

    “A blow *for*”; do we mean “a blow against”, or perhaps “a blow to”?

    (Am I missing something?)

  5. Ackler:

    That’s possible.

    But not granting certiorari has more or less the same effect, unless the idea is that someday with more of a conservative majority on the Court the ruling would go differently.

    I say, dream on, if that’s the thought process. Because this sort of ruling can make it so that the left takes permanent control in this country. I think that this is a very, very big decision–unfortunately—and it snuck up on us.

  6. “If the GOP had a brain in its collective head it would enact strict voter and citizenship ID laws NOW to stop the theft of what’s left of our democracy. But probably cowards and afraid to be called racists.” Cornhead

    The GOP is well aware of the left’s maneuvers to steal what’s left of our democracy(republic). I suspect that cowardice and fear of accusations of racism are decidedly secondary in the GOP’s political calculus. Evidenced by their collaborative support for the democrats and Obama even when polls show that a large majority of Americans oppose the left on a particular issue.

    “this sort of ruling can make it so that the left takes permanent control in this country.” neo

    Permanent control equals permanent responsibility, a reality and consequence, that the left cannot deny forever.

  7. Neo,

    While it is admittedly unlikely, there is a small possibility the Court will move right, if the GOP wins the presidency and maintains the Senate next year. If this occurs, I’m sure Ginsburg will try to hold out until 2021 even if it means being on life support with a nurse attendant at her side, akin to William O. Douglas circa 1975. Still, mortality may result in President Rubio (or Cruz, Walker, etc) naming her successor. The question then is will he find an Alito or a Roberts?

  8. Anyone else besides me starting to think Obama has something on the SCOTUS justices? I think they’ve had something on Roberts for awhile, but I’m guessing they also have blackmailed others. It’s the Chicago way…or am I just being paranoid? Too many wins for the hard left (not even the liberal wing) this week; certainly makes one wonder.

  9. physicsguy, 5:36 pm —

    I think that at this point, given recent history, it’s a perfectly reasonable question to be asking.

  10. @physicsguy and MJR

    While it’s not outside the realm of possibility, I think it’s highly unlikely. Let’s not stray into the realm of conspiracy. A much more plausible explanation, in regards to Roberts specifically (but Kennedy to a certain extent too):

    1. He never was as conservative as was assumed during his confirmation.

    2. Years on the Court, partuclarly amongst the liberal bloc, have markedly impacted his jurisprudence.

    3. In regards to Obamacare he fears (with some justification) what Obama might attempt if the Court had eviscerated the exchanges.

  11. Allowing large numbers of people from the rat holes of the world to enter the country and vote is the way to become a rat hole.

  12. Ackler, 7:08 pm —

    I’m going to stick to my guns and insist it’s a reasonable question. Given

    – the willingness of the left to do anything-and-I-mean-*any*thing to advance the Agenda;
    – the utter viciousness and ruthlessness of the left in carrying out that Agenda;
    – the dogged determination of the left to bring about their utopia on earth, come hell or high water;
    – the fact that that Agenda in fact functions as a fundamentalist religion whose utopia is a jealous God, tolerating no other gods before it; and
    – the backgrounds of the operatives in Arkansas- and Chicago- (and other-) style means of accomplishing at whatever cost what has to be accomplished . . .

    I do not believe I’m “stray[ing] into the realm of conspiracy.” I’d be doing that if I were making assertions without evidence, but I’m only agreeing, in light of my bullet points above, that “at this point, given recent history, it’s a perfectly reasonable question to be asking.”

    Your mileage may vary (and evidently does).

  13. MJR:

    I agree it is a reasonable question to ask, given the points you raised (with which I largely agree). I don’t think the left in general (and Obama in particular) has any compunction over the tactics employed to achieve their agenda. They are restrained primarily by what they reasonably conclude they can get away with and what they cannot. So, while they (and Obama specifically) would have no moral problem with blackmailing Supreme Court justices, the risk of exposure (even with a largely obsequious MSM), is just too high. This is particularly true given, in my opinion, they can get most of what they want out of SCOTUS regardless.

  14. After $14 trillion in debt, and with a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy, there are still unidentified Americans?

    The lack of positive identification to ensure eligibility is a civil rights violation. I’ll guest that the ACLU et al will not sue to protect Americans’ civil rights.

    Still, even with positive identification, there is a question if votes cast and counted have a one-to-one relationship with American citizens eligible to vote.

  15. Ackler, 8:37 pm —

    Nice to be on the same page!

    Concerning the “risk of exposure”, geeez, after Lois Lerner, Jonathan Gruber, Hillary Benghazi, etc., etc., etc., I just don’t see it as a terribly great risk.

  16. Roberts does vote on conservative fashions sometimes.

    But his legal opinion on O Care is not consistent, I am told, with his other for or against legal views. Which implies that the deal is that Roberts is contacted before a vote, and he will vote on the side of the Left, should there be a tie. If there is no tie, then Roberts can vote his conscience.

    This is the “trigger” then. Petraeus was put under a similar system, but he went and did seppuku instead of letting it run its course. Perhaps because the damage was only to his marriage and his own reputation. Whereas Roberts… may have something more important on the line.

  17. M J R Says, at 8:45 pm — “Concerning the ‘risk of exposure’, geeez, after Lois Lerner, Jonathan Gruber, Hillary Benghazi, etc., etc., etc., I just don’t see it as a terribly great risk.”

    I wish to clarify.

    Lois Lerner’s and Jonathan Gruber’s reputations and financial well-being are not what I was referring to when I spoke of “risk of exposure”. (We all know too well about Hillary Benghazi.) Lerner and Gruber — indeed, almost all individuals — are expendable in service of The Agenda. Hillary, of course, is needed at least now for her vagina, but even that will have a shelf life.

    Rather, my point was that The Agenda was in no “risk of exposure”, in that

    – the IRS is proceeding with business as usual, as far as we know — I suppose they’re a little more cautious in their targeting of the “other” than they were, because the “scandal” is still recent; look for them to be back to business as usual before too very long, in time for 2016 and especially once Hillary Benghazi is crowned Emperor;

    – Obamacare is proceeding with business as usual, with a little help from the Supreme Court; and

    – Benghazi is yesterday’s news in a citizenry with an attention span measured in nanoseconds; “what difference, at this point, does it make??”

  18. I’ve been paying more attention to gun rights cases and from what I’ve learned about how public policy court cases work… I think there could be strategy issue going on here. Better to not hear a case you think your side will lose… and have a terrible precedent decision from the Supreme Court come down…. than vote to not hear it at all… fight it another day when you’re in a position to win.

  19. Ymarsakar:

    Acutally, Roberts’ opinion on Obamacare is extremely consistent with his legal views. It is even consistent with views he expressed during his confirmation hearing years ago.

    I have the draft of a post I’m writing on that. But the gist of it is that he doesn’t think justices should overrule legislation (or general legislative intent, which he believes in the case of Obamacare was to set up federal subsidies as well as state ones) except in highly highly extraordinary circumstances. From his confirmation hearing, here’s what he said about judicial activism re the legislature:

    The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform. … It’s a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

    Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.

    He did NOT want to overturn or destroy Obamacare, and tried very hard not to. In King v. Burwell, he decided that the overriding intent of Congress was to preserve Obamacare rather than destroy it, and that’s why he ruled as he did (he says as much in his opinion). And that is very very consistent with his expressed judicial philosophy during his confirmation hearing.

    That is why I don’t think anyone is blackmailing Roberts—not because they wouldn’t if they needed to, but because they don’t need to.

  20. It’s obvious: Raise $1,000,000 and start an organization which will pay immigrants $10 for every ballot to vote Republican in the 2016 Presidential election in New York State.

    Watch how quickly ID checks become an issue for Democrats.

  21. In other words, he is a Pinhead.

    I heard Michael Goodwin speak recently: he’s a conservative Democrat, writes for the NY Post. He said he voted for Comrade Zero (my term) in 2008 because McCain was so erratic and was a rebel and just didn’t have the “temperament” to be president; also, he was hoping against hope that Comrade Zed would do what he lyingly claimed he would do.

    That, Goodwin realized too late, was a Mistake. But his explanation sheds some light on how some of the not entirely brain-dead ended up voting for Obama. (I agree that McVain was a horrible candidate, and I still think it was pusillanimous of him to throw Sarah Palin to the wolves: no real man would have allowed that. Sorry.)

  22. VL

    That is one of the most brilliant ideas ever. The GOP just needs to state – out front and for all the world to see – that they are going to cheat and break the law.

    It is so, so brilliant because it turns the Progs usually law breaking against them and because it flips the normal presumption that the GOP will follow the law.

  23. I’m sad to say that I think Hit a truth that for most Americans wuld be anathema: paying illegals (aiies,whatever one calls it — it means ineligible to vote. that’s NOT racist. It refers to all people who have comehere and stay without documentation asrequired by law. Every time I here the phrase ” our”system is broken,” especially as the basis for CHANGING THE LAWS, I get a surge of anger. No. We have laws. They exist because they were written that way to achieve specific goals and passed thusly (a word?). Our problem is they are NOT ENFORCED. Most delinerately.

    To that end, those that believe they will not win at the polls, resort to machinations that will insure victory. Paying for votes is an easy thing to do. Specifically, paying those here illegally, especially when those people have an agenda and feel they are wrongly not sllowed to vote because they live
    here are easy to persuade with a few dollars. Most people here illegally have limited income for obvious reasons. And it is also a way of re-enforcing their belief that they have the right to vote: we are legal citizens telling you we think you are right and should be able to vote so we are going to tell you how to.
    I’ve long suspected that it is indeed possible that Obama did not win the 2012 election. It was very close. But as anyone who has lost an election knows: a miss is as near as a mile. For some on the left, particularly, who believe the ends justify the means (and it has been made clear to all in this country that the current Administration indeed thinks that way and justify their especially when the Left controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, justify their “means” with “we are here and in charge because the people elected us and put us nere for a reason and therefore WANT what we want). It’s a very small leap to a accept that there are those willing to pay to ensure certain “ends.” After 2012 election there was ample evidence of “funny stuff,” especially when vote counts in key precincts that would turn the tide of the election exceeded the number of legally eligible voters. (Add to that the fact that nowhere does every eligible voter go to polls, whether it be lack ofdesire, unhappiness with the choices, disabilities…it is even more reason to be certain there were. otes illegally cast. Further, there is only one reason their are many who oppose proof of citizenship laws so vociferously: they count on certain blocs of voters to achieve their goals. The excuses for opposition — racism, disenfranchising certain voters, blah, blah, blah are so flimsy, especially because to get the many entitlements these same people want, they must show I.D.!!!)
    Where I vote in NC, my jaw dropped when not only did poll workers pooh-pooh me when I automatically took out ID (only recently moved here) telling me that they just meed an address, there was a huge sign out front advertising that “WE DO NOT REQUIRE ID AS PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP,” it is practically telling non-citizens, “Come and vote here!”) ( The area in which I live is quite conservative. Many poll workers were almost apologetic.)
    Bottom line: those who oppose proof of citizenshiphave a most certain agenda.

  24. He did NOT want to overturn or destroy Obamacare, and tried very hard not to.

    What does this have to do with forcing Americans to buy Obamacare because it’s now supposed to be a tax?

    If one believed the SC aren’t supposed to make up rights and powers that the legislature can’t or haven’t put into law, where is the law that overrides the Constitution on this matter?

  25. Ymarsakar:

    I am not defending Roberts. I think he’s wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m merely pointing out that his Obamacare decisions are consistent with one of his previously-stated and strongly-held judicial philosophies. His Obamacare decisions are inconsistent with other judicial philosophies of his. But that is because in the Obamacare cases, his judicial philosophies end up conflicting with each other. He chose to follow the one of most importance to him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>