Comments on: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Barr Request for Louisiana Ballot Access

By: Brandon H.

Brandon H. — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:53:19 +0000

“Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.”

Which Justice was that?

By: ralph a. applegate

ralph a. applegate — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:54:05 +0000

Yes, these are relevant words:dumber than average,untested low IQ’s, fascist,socialist,morons,equal signatures for all, same deadlines for all, same fees for all. It is very doubtful that lawyers and/or judges will get any smarter in 4 more years, or at any time. Judge Sargus said my case was not “moot” and actually believes I will go thru this “crap” one more time in 2010, and I have no idea why he believes I would do that, knowing the fascist bent of our courts?

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:10:59 +0000

#5 For non-MORONS –

Separate is NOT equal was NOT brought up in the first *modern* ballot access cases in the Supremes in 1968.

Result – a mere 40 years of armies of MORON lawyers losing ballot access cases for third party and independent candidates in the Supremes.

The obvious equal remedy -

Equal nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area — with equal/same deadlines, petition checking, etc. etc.

Sorry – third party and independent candidates can NOT get on the ballots easier than D/R candidates.

Sorry – separate is NOT equal must be brought up in each original case. It is TOO LATE if brought up in appeals.

On to 2010 and 2012 ballot access cases — hopefully with fewer lawyer MORONS involved.

By: Coming back to the LP

Coming back to the LP — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:57:36 +0000

We have a troll living among us. His life is separate from us and his IQ is quite low and therefore not equal to ours.

By: Eric Prindle

Eric Prindle — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:17:58 +0000

What on earth does “separate is not equal” have to do with this case?

By: Coming back to the LP

Coming back to the LP — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:52:19 +0000

This is amazingly bad news.

The US Supreme Court is obviously a fascist-socialist institution.

Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.

By: Casual Observer

Casual Observer — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:01:57 +0000

Based on the 2000 and 2004 elections, it’s a loss of about 3,000 votes for the Libertarian ticket.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:32:40 +0000

One more losing case by the armies of MORON lawyers for third party candidates and independents — doing the same old stupid stuff and getting the same old results — the very definition of legal INSANITY — if not ACTUAL insanity.

Separate is NOT equal.

Much too difficult for MORON lawyers to understand — and the many juveniles and *experts* on this list.

The W-A-R for Democracy continues — regardless of MORONS and the party hack Supremes.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:21:08 +0000

wow McCain is desperate, I am so upset
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5127.html
more than ever I will work as hard as I can to convince people not to vote for McBama and I don’t care which Third Party candidate they pick