Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Jun 17, 2013.
First of a series of interesting decisions to come.
Saw that and thought about starting a thread.
You beat me to it.
Victory for voting!!!
Nice to see it was 7 to 2.
The 2 who voted against this should be immediately disbarred, kicked off the bench, and relegated to flipping burgers.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the two dissenters.
Burger flippers to be sure.
Just don't let the first serve your Coca-cola.
....and I nearly just spit mine out from laughing. I wonder how many here are old enough to remember that.
No surprise it's the the two most corrupt justices on the court.
I enjoyed it as well.
Spit what out?
I'm old, and I don't remember it.
Then again, I don't remember breakfast!
Let's see if I can refresh your mind.
His Long Dong Silver....
**I was a wee child at the time, but I always giggle and think about Clarence Thomas whenever I pass a Long John Silver's.**
I was just in high school and this story was one of the first inklings that adults, even in the halls of power, were really weird.
Source detailing corruption for both?
I need to be cued when I'm eating, or I forget to swallow!
Yup, definitely remember now!
Google results for Clarence Thomas
Google results for Samuel Alito
FYI, it's just that easy when try for yourself. Have a field day by taking your pick and don't bother me again.
A Google search is not evidence, it merely proves you entered in a set of search terms. Instead, you should filter the results and provide some specific claims, for instance, that Thomas and Alito should have recused themselves from the Citizens United v. FEC case because of their relationship with Charles Koch, who otherwise may have been in hot water with the FEC over his funding of various conservative causes.
Likewise, Justice Alito should have recused himself over Cheney v. U.S. District Court because he went hunting with the Vice President, and Thomas should have recused himself from a decision on "Obamacare" because his wife spent significant amount of time campaigning against it.
Ultimately, I agree that the justice's refusal to recuse themselves when they had an obvious conflict of interest is a serious problem with SCOTUS and the two justices, however, a request in this forum to provide proof is not harassment. You should be happy to prove your points.
Do you always twist the knife with a smile?
Now living in Texas, I was required to provide some proof of citizenship to register my car in the State. I had to show my birth certificate. I don't have a problem with this. I don't have a problem with voter registration along the same lines. I am registered to vote and my name appears on the registered voter list. What I have problems with is being required to show proof of citizenship or drivers license at the polls, because I all ready jumped through the hoops to register and have a voter registration card. This cross checked against the list of registered voters should be enough. If I understand what was being required, Arizona's law was too much. If I recall correctly, Texas's voter law was also over turned prior to the last Presidential election, which would have been the one requiring a drivers license to be shown along with your voter registration card.
Regarding immigration, we have a system set up for legal immigrants to enter the country. Every country has a right to determine immigration policy. I've never liked the idea, (and living in Southern California helped focus that feeling), that if you can sneak in you should not be able to use social and health services basically for free. This adds drag on the system. Take your turn and come in legally.
That said, I do support the concept of Federal Law and its requirements and support the SC decision on Arizona's law. Regarding State's rights and the Constitution, how do you all feel about individual States trying to supersede Federal Law?
SCOTUS is not bound by the same rules of ethics that lower courts are, and these two judges have repeatedly abused that fact. If you aren't aware of that, then perhaps you might want to read hulugu's post.
(edit) Oh, and add to that the fact that Justice Thomas never speaks in Court; never asks questions; and yet somehow always seems to have some pretty strong opinions. Not very fair for a litigant if you ask me.
OK, so if I understand this correctly Arizona wanted proof to be shown at time of registration that the person filling out the form was in fact a legal US citizen?
Where they also requiring that proof be brought to the polls?
I don't see an issue with either particularly. The first one should be a requirement to vote and the second... just bring your voter registration card and a form of ID (like your drivers license or some other state issued ID). Perhaps that makes it a little more tedious to vote but if you are not willing to do those 2 simple things then don't vote.
No such thing as a voter registration card in California.
Then either allow the states to require that information or, to make it all fair and equal, add it to the requirements at the federal level