Supreme Court Sides With Ohio Sec of State.....

[krisy]

but not because she is right,because of a loophole that says private entities cannot file suit to enforce the provision of the law. Wow,it's a sad day for voters in all states.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1

What does it matter who files...that isn't the point.

[Gaffer]

It's all about getting the obamanation elected. At any cost. Without fraud I don't think he could really win.

[krisy]

Maybe one of the lawyers on the board could help me with this.Yurt or avatar4321.....

If a private entity cannot file,then who can? An average citizen voter?

[Yurt]

Maybe one of the lawyers on the board could help me with this.Yurt or avatar4321.....

If a private entity cannot file,then who can? An average citizen voter?

i have not read the opinion, but my guess is the issue is about "standing." standing is a term that, loosely, means you have the ability/right to bring a claim before a tribunal and the tribunal can give you redress or satisfaction. i would go more into standing, but my brief reading of your link does not convince me this was about standing.


In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

i have never heard of a "private entity" not being able to bring a claim. "like the GOP" ????? in my personal opinion only, i think the court has it wrong, but i have not read the opinion.


edit:

no, a voter, alone, does not always have the ability to sue the government. if you have a link to this ruling, i would like to see it.

[retiredman]

It's all about getting the obamanation elected. At any cost.

oh yeah...and the Roberts court is really onboard with THAT agenda! ROFLMFAO!

[krisy]

i have not read the opinion, but my guess is the issue is about "standing." standing is a term that, loosely, means you have the ability/right to bring a claim before a tribunal and the tribunal can give you redress or satisfaction. i would go more into standing, but my brief reading of your link does not convince me this was about standing.



i have never heard of a "private entity" not being able to bring a claim. "like the GOP" ????? in my personal opinion only, i think the court has it wrong, but i have not read the opinion.


edit:

no, a voter, alone, does not always have the ability to sue the government. if you have a link to this ruling, i would like to see it.



Thanks yurt,I will see what I can find. Doesn't seem right to me either.altho,I obviously no absolutely nothing about the law. I'm just having trouble grasping why the GOP cannot file this.

I'm making dinner too,so it might take me a little while.:coffee:

[Yurt]

Thanks yurt,I will see what I can find. Doesn't seem right to me either.altho,I obviously no absolutely nothing about the law. I'm just having trouble grasping why the GOP cannot file this.

I'm making dinner too,so it might take me a little while.:coffee:

no worries and avi might have something else to say.

[Gaffer]

I don't think this will be laid to rest too easily. If they won't let the GOP file it than someone else can pick it up. It just shows the extent the libs will go too to cover it all up.

[krisy]

O.K. Yurt....does this do anything for ya

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf

[avatar4321]

Sounds like a standing issue to me. But the question is who could bring the suit if the average citizen can't. Thats one thing thats always bothered me about the standing issues. There should be issues that anyone can challenge.

[Gaffer]

Sounds like a standing issue to me. But the question is who could bring the suit if the average citizen can't. Thats one thing thats always bothered me about the standing issues. There should be issues that anyone can challenge.

I'm not familiar with standing issues, but this sounds like government immunity bullshit.

[Yurt]

Sounds like a standing issue to me. But the question is who could bring the suit if the average citizen can't. Thats one thing thats always bothered me about the standing issues. There should be issues that anyone can challenge.

yes....

so who has "standing?"

what is standing?

the taxpayer? oh but not that individual taxpayer....then who?

what is standing?

[Yurt]

O.K. Yurt....does this do anything for ya

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08A332.pdf

wow, pathetic..

to understand that "opinion"/ruling, you have to read all those cases the court cited and with the presumption, that the court was right.

if that is the ruling, sorry krisy, i have no opinion as to the court's no opinion, pretty sad from what i see

[krisy]

wow, pathetic..

to understand that "opinion"/ruling, you have to read all those cases the court cited and with the presumption, that the court was right.

if that is the ruling, sorry krisy, i have no opinion as to the court's no opinion, pretty sad from what i see


Thanks Yurt......

You and avatar must be pretty smart guys,because I'm having trouble following all this legal talk:laugh2: Had to read it couple of times to grasp it

[PostmodernProphet]

I would say the answer is here, in Section 401 of the act....


TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15511.>> ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or
jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such
declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining
order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be
necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election
technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, and
303.

SEC. 402. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15512.>> ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE-BASED
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES TO REMEDY GRIEVANCES.

(a) Establishment of State-Based Administrative Complaint Procedures
To Remedy Grievances.--
(1) Establishment of procedures as condition of receiving
funds.--If a State receives any payment under a program under
this Act, the State shall be required to establish and maintain
State-based administrative complaint procedures which meet the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Requirements for procedures.--The requirements of this
paragraph are as follows:
(A) The procedures shall be uniform and
nondiscriminatory.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1716]]

(B) Under the procedures, any person who believes
that there is a violation of any provision of title III
(including a violation which has occurred, is occurring,
or is about to occur) may file a complaint.
(C) Any complaint filed under the procedures shall
be in writing and notarized, and signed and sworn by the
person filing the complaint.
(D) The State may consolidate complaints filed under
subparagraph (B).
(E) At the request of the complainant, there shall
be a hearing on the record.
(F) If, under the procedures, the State determines
that there is a violation of any provision of title III,
the State shall provide the appropriate remedy.
(G) If, under the procedures, the State determines
that there is no violation, the State shall dismiss the
complaint and publish the results of the procedures.
(H) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> The State shall make a
final determination with respect to a complaint prior to
the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the
date the complaint is filed, unless the complainant
consents to a longer period for making such a
determination.
(I) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> If the State fails to meet
the deadline applicable under subparagraph (H), the
complaint shall be resolved within 60 days under
alternative dispute resolution procedures established
for purposes of this section. <<NOTE: Records.>> The
record and other materials from any proceedings
conducted under the complaint procedures established
under this section shall be made available for use under
the alternative dispute resolution procedures.


http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

apparently the state was required to set up procedures under which individuals COULD file complaints, but has not done so.....the federal Attorney General is the only one with standing to file a complaint seeking injunctive relief.....

[Gaffer]

Seem like a certain dem sec. of state is not doing her job and the SC is backing her up.

[retiredman]

Seem like a certain dem sec. of state is not doing her job and the SC is backing her up.

seems like a certain secretary of state IS doing her job and the republican dominated supreme court was forced to agree with her and disagree with the republican state committee.

damn the bad luck, eh gaffer?

[Gaffer]

seems like a certain secretary of state IS doing her job and the republican dominated supreme court was forced to agree with her and disagree with the republican state committee.

damn the bad luck, eh gaffer?

Hey once again justice is not served. The dems skate again and cover everything up. Can't say I'm surprised in this state. Do nothing rino's followed by crooked dems. And acorn will go scot free. At most they will prosecute a few of the hired help.

[avatar4321]

seems like a certain secretary of state IS doing her job and the republican dominated supreme court was forced to agree with her and disagree with the republican state committee.

damn the bad luck, eh gaffer?

You obviously didnt read the opinion then, which is kind of sad because it's a paragraph long. The Court didnt decide the case on the merits. It vacated the decision because it said the Court lacked jurisidiction over the case because of the lack of standing of the litigant who brought the action.

So, coming as no surprise to anyone who knows you, you are wrong. The Secretary of State is not doing her job. She still isnt complying with the law. The individual who sued for her to comply with the law simply isnt the correct person to do it.

[retiredman]

You obviously didnt read the opinion then, which is kind of sad because it's a paragraph long. The Court didnt decide the case on the merits. It vacated the decision because it said the Court lacked jurisidiction over the case because of the lack of standing of the litigant who brought the action.

So, coming as no surprise to anyone who knows you, you are wrong. The Secretary of State is not doing her job. She still isnt complying with the law. The individual who sued for her to comply with the law simply isnt the correct person to do it.


that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it. sorry.

[CockySOB]

You obviously didnt read the opinion then, which is kind of sad because it's a paragraph long. The Court didnt decide the case on the merits. It vacated the decision because it said the Court lacked jurisidiction over the case because of the lack of standing of the litigant who brought the action.

So, coming as no surprise to anyone who knows you, you are wrong. The Secretary of State is not doing her job. She still isnt complying with the law. The individual who sued for her to comply with the law simply isnt the correct person to do it.

To be fair, and if I remember correctly, her predecessor (Republican, I think) failed to implement the process as well.

And from my reading, the court ruling as correct as determining a lack of standing.

[avatar4321]

that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it. sorry.

Im just telling you what the court said. You dont have to agree with it, but you cant deny its what the Court did.

[krisy]

that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it. sorry.


avatar is right,mfm. The court is only saying that the right person(s) didn't file the suit,not that she is right for not checking voter registration. The had no comment on that part,because I guess they couldn't.

[retiredman]

avatar is right,mfm. The court is only saying that the right person(s) didn't file the suit,not that she is right for not checking voter registration. The had no comment on that part,because I guess they couldn't.

They did not say that she had failed to do her job. that is avatar's opinion, and I do not share it.

[avatar4321]

They did not say that she had failed to do her job. that is avatar's opinion, and I do not share it.

No, the federal courts said she didnt do her job. Their decision is just rendered meaningless because the wrong person brought the suit.

[retiredman]

No, the federal courts said she didnt do her job. Their decision is just rendered meaningless because the wrong person brought the suit.


the supreme court did not say that she had not done her job.

[Kathianne]

No, the federal courts said she didnt do her job. Their decision is just rendered meaningless because the wrong person brought the suit.

Exactly and the court ruling says they think the issue IS IMPORTANT. With that said, their 'opinion' is not given. The wrong people questioned it.

[avatar4321]

the supreme court did not say that she had not done her job.

i never said the Supreme Court did. I specifically said they hadnt made a ruling.