Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Changing The Rules

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday threw out part of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, but left standing a portion requiring registered voters to present proof of identification to cast a ballot.
A split three-judge panel ruled that the voter-registration portion of Proposition 200, which was approved by voters in 2004, was void as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act, otherwise known as the “Motor Voter’ law. However, the panel unanimously held that the identification requirement did not violate the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.

Sitting by designation, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority that the NVRA’s comprehensive national system for registering federal voters superseded the Arizona law’s conflicting voter registration requirement given “the paramount authority delegated to Congress by the Elections Clause.”

"Sitting by designation"?? - If you can't handle the highest Court in the land, you go to a lower court that hears more cases? Shame on Sandra O'Connor for not just retiring and shutting up. It would be like Terry Bradshaw showing up on a high school's field - "Hey - I wanta play some more".


Evil_Klown said...

The ninth circuit has long been the laughing stock of appeals courts. The Supreme Court overturns them all the time. You'd think they'd have enough of the embarrassment already, but remember, libs are not capable of feeling embarrassment or humiliation.

Meanwhile, if you don't have to prove citizenship to vote, is it illegal to vote if you aren't a citizen? If so, how does the ninth circuit expect for that law to be enforced?

The fact is that the ninth circuit INTENDS for illegals to vote and they don't give a damn WHAT the law says nor do they care WHAT our founding fathers or the Constitution intended. Nor do they care what the people think. They're in that job for life and it doesn't matter WHAT they do.

Mark Levin offered a possible solution to this type of idiocy. He thinks the legislature should be allowed to overrule the Supreme Court with a super-majority similar to overriding presidential vetoes. I'd support that.

ragweed said...

count me in

Post a Comment