If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Federal judge cites Bush v Gore to block Ohio's new early voting laws   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 133
    More: Ironic, Bush v. Gore, Ohio, Ohio Secretary of State, federal judges, Ohio General Assembly, President Obama, laws  
•       •       •

3642 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Aug 2012 at 2:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 01:30:02 PM  
Funny, it says right in the BvG majority opinion that the case is "limited to the present circumstances" and should not be cited as precedent. I think a lot of right wing judges would like to pretend it never happened. So citing it in a ruling that you know is going to be reviewed by a right wing appeals court might be asking for trouble.
 
2012-08-31 01:55:17 PM  
Funny, it says right in the headline that the judge UNblocked early voting.
 
2012-08-31 02:00:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Funny, it says right in the headline that the judge UNblocked early voting.


The judge blocked the law, therefore unblocked the early voting
 
2012-08-31 02:15:25 PM  

NowhereMon: Funny, it says right in the BvG majority opinion that the case is "limited to the present circumstances" and should not be cited as precedent.


The exact phrasing is "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities" ...but it's not explicit that it can't be used as precedent.

On the other hand, doing it sounds like Judge Economus is pretty much trolling the SCOTUS.
 
2012-08-31 02:23:03 PM  
Suck it Republicans, democracy is still legal.
 
2012-08-31 02:23:16 PM  
I bet Scalia is pissed right now. So mad that Clarence Thomas just shook his head.
 
2012-08-31 02:23:26 PM  

NowhereMon: Funny, it says right in the BvG majority opinion that the case is "limited to the present circumstances" and should not be cited as precedent. I think a lot of right wing judges would like to pretend it never happened. So citing it in a ruling that you know is going to be reviewed by a right wing appeals court might be asking for trouble.


The idea that a judge (or judges) can say a case cannot be cited as precedent is merely a charming theory. Once a case has been ruled on, and especially by the Supreme Court, it IS binding precedent, and will be used as such by any attorney who can find a way to politely say "OK, you said this case couldn't be used as precedent, now explain why in THIS case." At the very worst, the court must disregard the precedent and still decide the case on its merits.
 
2012-08-31 02:23:51 PM  
How dare an unaccountable federal judge strip the brave military men of their right to early votings?! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! I want my America back, damnit!

www.roxysusa.com
 
2012-08-31 02:24:15 PM  
Romney campaign ad: "Obama administration successful in stripping early voting rights from soldiers!"
 
2012-08-31 02:24:33 PM  
Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.
 
2012-08-31 02:24:34 PM  

NowhereMon: Funny, it says right in the BvG majority opinion that the case is "limited to the present circumstances" and should not be cited as precedent. I think a lot of right wing judges would like to pretend it never happened. So citing it in a ruling that you know is going to be reviewed by a right wing appeals court might be asking for trouble.


I never understood that. Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling. All cases are based on it's circumstances and those need to be accounted for but that shouldn't be a special exception to toss everything out.
 
2012-08-31 02:25:40 PM  

Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military?


[notsureiftrollingorstupid.jpg]
 
2012-08-31 02:26:30 PM  

Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.


Huh?? No one is asking for "Early voting, except for members of the military".

Obama admin wants early voting for everyone including military.
 
2012-08-31 02:27:09 PM  
Meh, it's probably a wikipedia-type thing. I.e. you can't cite wikipedia itself, but you can cite the source wikipedia cited.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-08-31 02:27:38 PM  
I found a picture of the judge:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-31 02:29:57 PM  
subby could have included "restrictive" in headline to avoid confusion.

/subby
 
2012-08-31 02:30:51 PM  
Corvus
Obama admin wants early voting for everyone including military.

Sounds like Obama is a supporter of democracy.
Anyone who would be against voting would be a fascist.
So who is trying to prevent people from voting in Ohio?
 
2012-08-31 02:31:16 PM  

Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.


Other way around slick, used to be only early voting for the military, now it's early voting for everybody.

but I think you knew that already
 
2012-08-31 02:31:39 PM  
Sorry about screwing up my tags.
 
2012-08-31 02:32:10 PM  

Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.


Ladies and gentleman, this is the GOP base.
 
2012-08-31 02:33:39 PM  

bulldg4life: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military?

[notsureiftrollingorstupid.jpg]


Why can't it be both?
 
2012-08-31 02:34:18 PM  

Jackson Herring: Romney campaign ad: "Obama administration successful in stripping early voting rights from soldiers!"


Obama campaign ad: "But Romney's position would have blocked early voting for several hundred thousand veterans, just because they're not active military!"
 
2012-08-31 02:34:30 PM  
As long as every county has to play by the same rules, no matter which party has control, I'm OK with this.

//I'm sure the Ohio ballots will still end up on the back of a truck with a "Rmoney/Ryan" sticker only to disappear.
 
2012-08-31 02:34:33 PM  
dammit why can't we just have 100% absentee ballots?
 
2012-08-31 02:35:11 PM  

Corvus: Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling.


There's sometimes going to be extreme, unique circumstances that go beyond the scope of what the existing system was meant to or is capable of handling. The 2000 election was one of them.

*Someone* had to be inaugurated on January 20 (?), and there was clearly no way to make the decision of who in a way that was going to be 110% accurate and fair, so the SCOTUS basically stepped in and gave the election to the one who seemed more likely to win if such a fair decision were possible.

Now if we had a functional, responsible government, there would've been useful, rational procedures put in place to handle such situations - including possibly a constitutional amendment - between 2000 and 2004. But, alas, we don't. And it's only gotten worse since.
 
2012-08-31 02:35:39 PM  
...like rain on your wedding day?

/oblig
 
2012-08-31 02:37:13 PM  
While the citing of Bush v. Gore is a little strange, the quote quoted stands for a long established proposition that once the franchise is extended to a population, it cannot be arbitrarily limited. For example, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Court said "[f]or it is enough to say that, once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

I suspect this court here is quoting BvG simply because it was available. They just as easily could have quoted from Harper.
 
2012-08-31 02:37:26 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.

Ladies and gentleman, this is the GOP base.


talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2012-08-31 02:43:36 PM  
And another one bites the dust.
 
2012-08-31 02:45:52 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: HotWingConspiracy: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.

Ladies and gentleman, this is the GOP base.


Wow, that skinny guy looks exactly like Mike Huckabee.
 
2012-08-31 02:48:09 PM  

skullkrusher: dammit why can't we just have 100% absentee ballots?


It will totally ruin that "decisions are made by those who show up" aphorism.
 
2012-08-31 02:48:12 PM  
Zing!

Also known as "live by the sword, die by the sword."
 
2012-08-31 02:48:24 PM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-31 02:48:45 PM  

dookdookdook: Corvus: Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling.

There's sometimes going to be extreme, unique circumstances that go beyond the scope of what the existing system was meant to or is capable of handling. The 2000 election was one of them.

*Someone* had to be inaugurated on January 20 (?), and there was clearly no way to make the decision of who in a way that was going to be 110% accurate and fair, so the SCOTUS basically stepped in and gave the election to the one who seemed more likely to win if such a fair decision were possible.



You're so cute. Reality is much worse - it was because a right leaning court handed the victory to a Republican but if the situation was reversed they wouldn't want it used as precedent to hand victory to a Democrat. The court would have loved to write "you can use this as precedent if it helps a Republican but not if it helps a Democrat" but that was too obvious.
 
2012-08-31 02:57:32 PM  

Corvus: NowhereMon: Funny, it says right in the BvG majority opinion that the case is "limited to the present circumstances" and should not be cited as precedent. I think a lot of right wing judges would like to pretend it never happened. So citing it in a ruling that you know is going to be reviewed by a right wing appeals court might be asking for trouble.

I never understood that. Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling. All cases are based on it's circumstances and those need to be accounted for but that shouldn't be a special exception to toss everything out.


I think I found the solution to the paradox.
 
2012-08-31 02:58:00 PM  

GAT_00: Suck it Republicans, democracy is still legal.


I can just picture Karl Rove rubbing his hands together and saying "Just give us time." Then breaking out in an evil laugh
 
2012-08-31 02:59:23 PM  

jso2897: And another one bites the dust.


Now if Pennsylvania's could be struck down, I'd be happy.
 
2012-08-31 02:59:42 PM  

lennavan: You're so cute. Reality is much worse - it was because a right leaning court handed the victory to a Republican but if the situation was reversed they wouldn't want it used as precedent to hand victory to a Democrat. The court would have loved to write "you can use this as precedent if it helps a Republican but not if it helps a Democrat" but that was too obvious.


While I admit I voted for Bush in 2000 (I was still young and naive enough to think lying about an affair was pretty high up there in terms of evil shiat presidents could do), I've been a hardcore dem since about October 2001, but I still believe Bush v. Gore was the right decision.

At the time, the best available evidence showed Bush slightly ahead, and Gore just refused to give in. If time wasn't an issue, Gore should've had all the recounts he had a right to, but the whole process needed to end immediately. SCOTUS bodged together some half legit/half bullshiat legal justification for giving it to the candidate most likely to have won, covered their asses as best they could, and just unilaterally ended the whole process. It sucked, but it needed to be done. The constitution isn't foolproof.
 
2012-08-31 03:01:54 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: HotWingConspiracy: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.

Ladies and gentleman, this is the GOP base.

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 320x240]


Shouldn't that be a banjo?
 
2012-08-31 03:03:53 PM  

Corvus: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.

Huh?? No one is asking for "Early voting, except for members of the military".

Obama admin wants early voting for everyone including military.


Should have read "only members of the military"
 
2012-08-31 03:05:42 PM  

dookdookdook: but I still believe Bush v. Gore was the right decision.


It wasn't.

dookdookdook: the whole process needed to end immediately.


It really didn't. They had another month before Bush was inaugurated.

dookdookdook: SCOTUS bodged together some half legit/half bullshiat legal justification for giving it to the candidate most likely to have won, covered their asses as best they could, and just unilaterally ended the whole process


On a 5-4 decision. The conservative justices decided to unilaterally end the process and select Bush. If Bush was a Democrat, do you actually believe they would have come out with the same ruling?
 
2012-08-31 03:05:44 PM  

dookdookdook: While I admit I voted for Bush in 2000


no one has ever said this on Fark
 
2012-08-31 03:06:19 PM  

dookdookdook: Corvus: Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling.

There's sometimes going to be extreme, unique circumstances that go beyond the scope of what the existing system was meant to or is capable of handling. The 2000 election was one of them.

*Someone* had to be inaugurated on January 20 (?), and there was clearly no way to make the decision of who in a way that was going to be 110% accurate and fair, so the SCOTUS basically stepped in and gave the election to the one who seemed more likely to win if such a fair decision were possible..


Yeah but that's still setting precedent. I never said judges can't make up rules in gray areas. That's what their job is often as SCOTUS. But it should be a good ruling still and not arbitrary therefore making good precedent.

I don't think you get what my point is. Even if it is a one time every possible circumstance (which G v B was not) you could still have it set precedent for that unique situation.

dookdookdook: Now if we had a functional, responsible government, there would've been useful, rational procedures put in place to handle such situations - including possibly a constitutional amendment - between 2000 and 2004. But, alas, we don't. And it's only gotten worse since.


You think as a government you could have codified law that would cover every possible situation to come up with in court. Good luck with that. It would be intractable (if not infinite) and people are not perfect.
 
2012-08-31 03:06:27 PM  

SilentStrider: jso2897: And another one bites the dust.

Now if Pennsylvania's could be struck down, I'd be happy.


Yeah, but Texas, Florida, and Ohio - just in this week.
Doesn't look like voter suppression is going to fly, and the convention bump turned out to be a ditch.
Where do they go from here?
 
2012-08-31 03:07:36 PM  
MISS ME YET?
i280.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-31 03:07:43 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Degenz: Early voting, except for members of the military? Hahaha! Let me put on some lip stick...I want a kiss with that ass f*cking.

Ladies and gentleman, this is the GOP base.


Bah, I totally farked that up. I meant to say it was only members of the military.

I'll go back to the vodak and cat posts now.
 
2012-08-31 03:07:44 PM  

dookdookdook: Corvus: Are you following law and precedent or not? If you are then it should be a consistent good ruling that others should be able to use. If it's not then it's a BS ruling.

There's sometimes going to be extreme, unique circumstances that go beyond the scope of what the existing system was meant to or is capable of handling. The 2000 election was one of them.

*Someone* had to be inaugurated on January 20 (?), and there was clearly no way to make the decision of who in a way that was going to be 110% accurate and fair, so the SCOTUS basically stepped in and gave the election to the one who seemed more likely to win if such a fair decision were possible.

Now if we had a functional, responsible government, there would've been useful, rational procedures put in place to handle such situations - including possibly a constitutional amendment - between 2000 and 2004. But, alas, we don't. And it's only gotten worse since.


I keep submitting my proposal for Mortal Kombat between the two leading candidates, but my Congresscritter just ignores it.
 
2012-08-31 03:08:44 PM  
Mitt Romney should think long and hard about the implications of the fact that a lawsuit extending the ability of people to vote is considered a blow to his campaign.
 
2012-08-31 03:09:57 PM  
So if it goes back to the Supreme Court and they overturn their original decision, does Al Gore retroactively become the former President?
 
2012-08-31 03:11:48 PM  

CokeBear: So if it goes back to the Supreme Court and they overturn their original decision, does Al Gore retroactively become the former President?


What part of lockbox don't you understand?
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report