Ultra Libtard super psycho bimbo Chief Justice gets unseated. by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ultra Libtard super psycho bimbo Chief Justice gets unseated.

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 21:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2808
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, May 1, 2015 3:57 PM

Yes, I am aware that across the fruited plain, many States have renamed their most delusional insane asylums as their State Supreme Courts.
In Wisconsin, voters a month ago enacted a Constitutional Amendment, and the State Supreme Court performed one of it's finest acts in decades, and voted our new Chief Justice Roggensack. But the ultra libtard delusional super psycho Shirley Abrahamson is refusing to relinquish her chair. As Libtard Entitled Elite, she feels she is above the Laws of the State, or it's Constitution. Obeying the Laws of the State is only for the little people, the unwashed masses, the unliberated non-libtards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2015 6:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/30/ema
ils-patience-roggensack-cast-key-vote-to-become-wisconsin-chief-justice/26639197/

MADISON — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack cast the deciding vote in her favor to replace longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the first-of-its kind action, emails released Thursday to The Associated Press show.

Because vote-rigging is the republican way!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 4:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/30/ema
ils-patience-roggensack-cast-key-vote-to-become-wisconsin-chief-justice/26639197/

MADISON — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack cast the deciding vote in her favor to replace longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the first-of-its kind action, emails released Thursday to The Associated Press show.

Because vote-rigging is the republican way!

Yes, delusional Libtards (but I repeat myself) consider honest unadulterated elections in full accordance with the Constitutional Law to be "vote-rigging" while fraudulent illegal corrupt ballot-rigging and election-rigging intentionally violating every facet of Law is the "Democrat Way" to them.

As one of the 7 Supreme Court Justices, Justice Roggensack is obligated to vote in the election of the Chief Justice. Other Justices had already nominated her, and seconded the motion. Curiously, Shirley Abrahamson did not cast a vote, effectively also voting for Shirley Abrahamson, yet you fail to point this out - hypocrite much, 1kookoo?

Perhaps 1kookoo was implying that there are Democrat Officeholders who voted for their opponent in their election, thus holding ethical superiority. Does anybody have anecdotes of this occurring in America?

As a very wise man keeps saying: you can't make this stuff up, folks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 4:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Not at all.

If you read my post (you CAN read - can't you?) the issue I have is someone being able to decide a vote by voting in favor their own personal interests. In this case it was by Roggensack voting for herself. In normal, honest dealings having a personal stake in the outcome of a vote is called 'conflict of interest' and there are rules to prevent that from happening. In the justice system judges and justices are required to recuse (look it up) themselves when they have one.

The honest and legal thing for Roggensack to have done was recuse herself.

But honesty isn't a republican virtue. I don't think anyone has ever accused a republican of that.

Not even other republicans.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 5:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not at all.

If you read my post (you CAN read - can't you?) the issue I have is someone being able to decide a vote by voting in favor their own personal interest.

Except when mandated by Constitutional Law. Besides, recusal is for JUDGING a CASE, not for voting in an election.
Quote:

In this case it was by Roggensack voting

YES. She VOTED, not judged. There was no case before the court. No Judgement.
Quote:

for herself. In normal, honest dealings having a personal stake in the outcome of a vote

Wrong. You are confusing vote with Judgement of a Case. Get a clue.
Quote:

The honest and legal thing for Roggensack to have done was

Follow the Constitutional Law and participate in the vote. But following the Law is not something Libtards are fluent with. The Law directs that she not:

Quote:

recuse herself.

But honesty isn't a Democrat virtue. Despite all of the Justices being nonpartisan, in accordance with the Democrat shenanigans following the Hatch Act.

If she is a Justice then serving on the Court, she is legally directed to vote.
How much more clarity was needed for it to penetrate a Libtard delusion:

Question 1: "Election of chief justice. Shall section 4 (2) of article VII of the constitution be amended to direct that a chief justice of the supreme court shall be elected for a two-year term by a majority of the justices then serving on the court?"[8]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 7:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The caveat - which is always true, even if not explicitly stated - is that conflict of interest is excepted.

DoJ
Conflicts
Financial Conflicts
An employee is prohibited from participating in any matter in which he has a financial interest. In addition to an employee's own financial interest, certain interests are considered his (“imputed” to him), such as those of his spouse, minor children and business partners.
Personal Conflicts
Generally, an employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which her impartiality could be questioned.

US Courts
CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

American Bas Association

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client ...

SCR CHAPTER 60

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (Wisconsin)

Because it is not possible to address every conceivable conduct of a judge that might erode public confidence in the integrity, independence and impartiality of the judiciary, some of the binding rules of the Code are cast in general terms setting forth the principles their specific provisions are intended to foster.

(4) "De minimis" means an insignificant interest that does not raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality or use of the prestige of the office.

(7) "Impartiality" means the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties, or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the judge.

SCR 60.03 A judge SHALL avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in ALL of the judge's activities.

(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and SHALL act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 9:39 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest or the appearance of one. Unfortunately Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, who have both performed gay wedding ceremonies, chose not to recuse themselves from the gay marriage case the Supreme Court heard last week. Pathetic!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 2, 2015 10:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

WASHINGTON — When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

A leading liberal group is now trying to use that connection to argue that Mr. Scalia and Mr. Thomas should disqualify themselves from hearing campaign finance cases because they may be biased toward Mr. Koch, a billionaire who has been a major player in financing conservative causes (and their benefactor).

Scalia and Thomas received TANGIBLE BENEFITS. That does NOT look like they're impartial.

Mother Jones is out with a new story today about a group of prominent conservatives, including the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, meeting weekly to plan a “30-front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation,” according to documents obtained by the magazine.

And involving family ...

Justice Clarence Thomas ruled on Bush vs. Gore while his wife was collecting candidates' resumes to recommend to a new Bush administration.

... and again ...

Justice Antonin Scalia was part of the court majority siding with anti-abortion advocates who said a Massachusetts law allowing a buffer zone around abortion clinics violated the 1st Amendment — even though his wife had been on the board of a pro-life organization and served as a "crisis counselor" to pregnant women.

... and again.

There are direct ties to big business.

Political heavymonsanto.jpgweight Monsanto took on an Indiana soybean farmer today in the U.S. Supreme Court over Monsanto’s patents of its Roundup-resistant seed.
And, once again, Justice Clarence Thomas was on the bench, hearing the case with the other justices. Thomas worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970s.

There are direct ties with individials who have cases before the court.

The ducks were all in a row for Justice Antonin Scalia and Vice President Dick Cheney after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case where the Vice President was one of the parties. Soon after the decision, the men went duck hunting in Louisiana. After questioning Scalia about this possible conflict of interest, the press, opposing parties, and amicus urged him to recuse himself from the case. He refuse ...

And this doesn't even cover page one of a google search supreme court conflict of interest.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2015 4:07 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The caveat - which is always true, even if not explicitly stated - is that conflict of interest is excepted.

DoJ
Conflicts
Financial Conflicts
An employee is prohibited from participating in any matter in which he has a financial interest. In addition to an employee's own financial interest, certain interests are considered his (“imputed” to him), such as those of his spouse, minor children and business partners.
Personal Conflicts
Generally, an employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which her impartiality could be questioned.

Since both Roggensack and Abrahamson would need to be discounted, your delusional point is rendered mute.
Quote:

US Courts
CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Exactly why she should follow the Constitutional Law and fulfill her legal obligation to vote.
Quote:

American Bas Association

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client ...

Earth to 1kookoo: she has no client. Get a clue.

Quote:

SCR CHAPTER 60

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (Wisconsin)

Because it is not possible to address every conceivable conduct of a judge that might erode public confidence in the integrity, independence and impartiality of the judiciary, some of the binding rules of the Code are cast in general terms setting forth the principles their specific provisions are intended to foster.

(4) "De minimis" means an insignificant interest that does not raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality or use of the prestige of the office.

(7) "Impartiality" means the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties, or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the judge.

SCR 60.03 A judge SHALL avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in ALL of the judge's activities.

(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and SHALL act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

Yes, Abrahamson has long destroyed the illusion of integrity or impartiality of the Court, and now Roggensack has restored it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2015 4:12 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
If you read my post (you CAN read - can't you?) the issue I have is someone being able to decide a vote by voting in favor their own personal interests. In normal, honest dealings having a personal stake in the outcome of a vote is called 'conflict of interest' and there are rules to prevent that from happening.

In an ideal world, this would be the case. Many conservatives have proposed this, but libtards always rail against it. The elections would be far more honest when every person employed by the government, receiving a paycheck from the government, or subsistence check from the government were excluded from voting. Even Heinlein suggested that the right to vote should be reserved for those who served in the Armed Forces.

But whiny libtards are adamantly opposed to such reasonable ethical, honest, patriotic ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2015 4:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The elections would be far more honest when every person employed by the government, receiving a paycheck from the government, or subsistence check from the government were excluded from voting. Even Heinlein suggested that the right to vote should be reserved for those who served in the Armed Forces.

But whiny libtards are adamantly opposed to such reasonable ethical, honest, patriotic ideas.

You seem to disagree with the Constitutional Amendments. If you're proposing we get rid of them on a whim, well, there goes the Second Amendment then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 3, 2015 4:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, back to the topic.

Julie here seems to think that Roggensack is exempt from the Wisconsin CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, SCR CHAPTER 60, which is written into the state code of law. Those laws require:

SCR 60.03 A judge SHALL avoid impropriety and the APPEARANCE of impropriety in ALL of the judge's activities .

(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and SHALL act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

These statutes contain the word SHALL - not should, or may. The word SHALL means must, no exceptions. They also contain the word ALL - not restricted to a subset like cases, but all dealings, which includes votes. And finally, they apply to even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, or undermining public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

What say you, julie? Do state laws apply to Roggensack?

ETA: yanno, if you're tired of looking like an idiot and a hypocrite you could always stop being them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2015 6:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

The elections would be far more honest when every person employed by the government, receiving a paycheck from the government, or subsistence check from the government were excluded from voting. Even Heinlein suggested that the right to vote should be reserved for those who served in the Armed Forces.

But whiny libtards are adamantly opposed to such reasonable ethical, honest, patriotic ideas.

You seem to disagree with the Constitutional Amendments.

No, you were. You kept repeating that voters of an election where they had an interest, including fiscal interest, should not be allowed to vote. You seem to think that a sitting judge should forfeit their right to vote.
I keep agreeing with the Constitution - State and Federal - and you keep disagreeing with it and arguing against it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2015 6:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, back to the topic.

Julie here seems to think that Roggensack is exempt from the Wisconsin CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, SCR CHAPTER 60, which is written into the state code of law. Those laws require:

SCR 60.03 A judge SHALL avoid impropriety and the APPEARANCE of impropriety in ALL of the judge's activities .

What say you, julie? Do state laws apply to Roggensack?

1kookoo here seems to think that Roggensack is exempt from the Wisconsin STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VII SECTION 4(2), in favor of some trivial code tripe which better suits 1kookoo's position. State Legal Codes are subject to, not superseding of, the Constitution.

ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2015 7:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/scr

SCR are laws of the state of Wisconsin.

What say you, julie? Do state laws apply to Roggensack?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2015 7:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/scr

SCR are laws of the state of Wisconsin.

What say you, julie? Do state laws apply to Roggensack?

State laws do not trump the clear language of the State Constitution, regardless of who they are applied to.
I like the image of Forward as much as anybody, but throttle back your space thrusters and return to earth, any day now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2015 7:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Election of chief justice. Shall section 4 (2) of article VII of the constitution be amended to direct that a chief justice of the supreme court shall be elected for a two-year term by a majority of the justices then serving on the court?"[8]

This does not REQUIRE that they ALL vote, just that a vote be taken. As usual your reading skills are lacking.

Meanwhile:

SCR 60.03 A judge SHALL avoid impropriety and the APPEARANCE of impropriety in ALL of the judge's activities .

(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and SHALL act at ALL times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

These statutes contain the word SHALL - not should, or may. The word SHALL means must, no exceptions. They also contain the word ALL - not restricted to a subset like cases, but all dealings, which includes votes. And finally, they apply to even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, or undermining public confidence in the integrity and IMPARTIALITY of the judiciary.

What say you, julie? Do state laws apply to Roggensack?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 8:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 10:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2015 7:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

Perhaps the reading skills of 1kookoo are lacking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 9, 2015 2:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2015 7:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:44 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

Cite? Include the section that states all MUST vote.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

You know, wouldn't it make sense for the good people of the State of Wisconsin to practice safe religion, since we've had many twisters hop around the state of Texas recently.

I'm not making light of the tragedy there, just following right wing logic, since God punishes the wicked and the abnormal (you call them Libtards). Only thing is that God's aim has been concentrated in the Sun Belt region of late. God forbid we call what's happening there as science because, as we all know, there's no such thing as climate change and global warming.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Yes, I am aware that across the fruited plain, many States have renamed their most delusional insane asylums as their State Supreme Courts.
In Wisconsin, voters a month ago enacted a Constitutional Amendment, and the State Supreme Court performed one of it's finest acts in decades, and voted our new Chief Justice Roggensack. But the ultra libtard delusional super psycho Shirley Abrahamson is refusing to relinquish her chair. As Libtard Entitled Elite, she feels she is above the Laws of the State, or it's Constitution. Obeying the Laws of the State is only for the little people, the unwashed masses, the unliberated non-libtards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 7:14 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Yes, delusional Libtards (but I repeat myself) consider honest unadulterated elections in full accordance with the Constitutional Law to be "vote-rigging" while fraudulent illegal corrupt ballot-rigging and election-rigging intentionally violating every facet of Law is the "Democrat Way" to them.

As a very wise man keeps saying: you can't make this stuff up, folks!

Yes, you can make this stuff up. All the time Republicans change voting laws in their favor:

WASHINGTON — The Republicans on the US Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday (May 26, 2015) to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question by Republicans about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The Republican controlled court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Republican Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.

The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. To apportion the voting districts for Congress, the US Census counts every person every ten years, including non-voting slaves back when there were slaves and including women back when they could not vote. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote, including children and immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.

A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas controlled by Republicans.

Such a decision would be most significant in border states, like California, Texas, Arizona and Nevada, that have the largest proportions of noncitizens and children.

The Supreme Court over the past nearly 25 years has turned away at least three similar challenges, and many election law experts expressed surprise that the justices agreed to hear this one. But since Republican Chief Justice John G. Roberts has led the court, it has been active in other voting cases.

Continue reading the main story here
www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/supreme-court-to-weigh-meaning-of-one-pe
rson-one-vote.html

http://methos84.deviantart.com/art/Shiny-535790514

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

Still no cite julie? Include the section that states all MUST vote.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 7:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

Still no cite julie? Include the section that states all MUST vote.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

Still no cite julie? Include the section that states all MUST vote.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 4, 2015 8:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

It would seem 1kookoo has conceded my point, offering no argument to follow it. Only offering a claim to precede it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 5, 2015 11:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 7:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

It would seem 1kookoo has conceded my point, offering no argument to follow it. Only offering a claim to precede it.

Yep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:19 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2015 7:51 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

It would seem 1kookoo has conceded my point, offering no argument to follow it. Only offering a claim to precede it.

Still conceded. Even her concession speech has no point, just repeating her lack of point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2015 11:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

It would seem 1kookoo has conceded my point, offering no argument to follow it. Only offering a claim to precede it.

Still conceded. Even her concession speech has no point, just repeating her lack of point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:29 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Constitutionally obligated duties

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2015 7:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Yes, I am aware that across the fruited plain, many States have renamed their most delusional insane asylums as their State Supreme Courts.
In Wisconsin, voters a month ago enacted a Constitutional Amendment, and the State Supreme Court performed one of it's finest acts in decades, and voted our new Chief Justice Roggensack. But the ultra libtard delusional super psycho Shirley Abrahamson is refusing to relinquish her chair. As Libtard Entitled Elite, she feels she is above the Laws of the State, or it's Constitution. Obeying the Laws of the State is only for the little people, the unwashed masses, the unliberated non-libtards.

The bimbo filed suit against the Constitutionally obligated action.
Her case was just dismissed.

http://www.rightwisconsin.com/perspectives/Obama-Appointed-Federal-Jud
ge-Dismisses-Shirley-Abrahamsons-Suit-320444462.html

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3319227/posts?page=2

http://watchdog.org/232332/federal-shirley-abrahamson-civil-rights/

http://www.theconservativevoices.com/topic/96691-wi-breaking-federal-j
udge-dismisses-shirley-abrahamson%E2%80%99s-civil-rights-case/

http://fox11online.com/news/state/abrahamson-lawsuit-dismissed

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2015 8:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And yet - not a response to my post.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Constitutionally obligated duties

Still no cite julie? How are we to know those things you claim are 'constitutionally obligated duties' and not yet another one of your bogus claims? Post a cite - and include the section that states all MUST vote. Because if it's not a requirement for all, it's not an obligation - it's optional.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:58 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
ikookoo still fails to address the problem of having her version of disregarding Constitutionally obligated duties resulting in the same election outcome.

??
crickets.

It would seem 1kookoo has conceded my point, offering no argument to follow it. Only offering a claim to precede it.

Still conceded. Even her concession speech has no point, just repeating her lack of point.

And still she has nothing to add, nothing to validate her claims, nothing to explain the obvious problem with her lack of logic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE