Comments on: Sandra Day O’Connor Participates in 9th circuit Oral Argument in Voting Rights Case http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/10/19/sandra-day-oconnor-participates-in-9th-circuit-oral-argument-in-voting-rights-case/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:15:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3218 By: natural born citizen party http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/10/19/sandra-day-oconnor-participates-in-9th-circuit-oral-argument-in-voting-rights-case/comment-page-1/#comment-779645 natural born citizen party Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:43:22 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=8612#comment-779645 http://www.albionmonitor.com/9702a/fusionparty.html [Editor's note: According to a December 5 New York Times story on the Supreme Court hearing, the Court was clearly troubled at the prospect of declaring unconstitutional the election laws of 40 states. "We're talking about a major effect," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted in the Times, in a comment echoed moments later by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who said, "If we were to rule for you, it would result in quite sweeping changes in a great many states." The Times reported that Justice Souter said he was having trouble accepting the state's modern-day justifications for the prohibition. The ban was adopted as part of a "very widespread effort simply to maintain the hegemony of the two parties," Justice Souter said. "They weren't worried about voter confusion. They didn't want new parties." A legal overview of the case is available on the Internet. The New Party has a web page with links to articles about fusion, and the Center for a New Democracy also has a fusion resource page.] http://www.albionmonitor.com/9702a/fusionparty.html

[Editor's note: According to a December 5 New York Times story on the Supreme Court hearing, the Court was clearly troubled at the prospect of declaring unconstitutional the election laws of 40 states. "We're talking about a major effect," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted in the Times, in a comment echoed moments later by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who said, "If we were to rule for you, it would result in quite sweeping changes in a great many states."

The Times reported that Justice Souter said he was having trouble accepting the state's modern-day justifications for the prohibition. The ban was adopted as part of a "very widespread effort simply to maintain the hegemony of the two parties," Justice Souter said. "They weren't worried about voter confusion. They didn't want new parties."

A legal overview of the case is available on the Internet. The New Party has a web page with links to articles about fusion, and the Center for a New Democracy also has a fusion resource page.]

]]> By: Sandra Day O’Connor Participates in 9th circuit Oral Argument in Voting Rights Case — Tempe in Motion http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/10/19/sandra-day-oconnor-participates-in-9th-circuit-oral-argument-in-voting-rights-case/comment-page-1/#comment-779624 Sandra Day O’Connor Participates in 9th circuit Oral Argument in Voting Rights Case — Tempe in Motion Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:01:48 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=8612#comment-779624 [...] by Tempe Guy on October 19, 2009 … Supreme Court sometimes participate in panels of U.S. Courts of Appeals in their home states. The hearing was held in Tempe, Arizona, on the campus of the State University. The hearing seemed to go well for the attorneys who are representing the … Go to Source [...] [...] by Tempe Guy on October 19, 2009 … Supreme Court sometimes participate in panels of U.S. Courts of Appeals in their home states. The hearing was held in Tempe, Arizona, on the campus of the State University. The hearing seemed to go well for the attorneys who are representing the … Go to Source [...]

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/10/19/sandra-day-oconnor-participates-in-9th-circuit-oral-argument-in-voting-rights-case/comment-page-1/#comment-779621 Demo Rep Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:45:04 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=8612#comment-779621 Since when in the English language is any restitution or fine the same as a poll tax or other tax ??? This is the New Age of MORONS -- doing nonstop frivolous cases. When will the Supremes hammer some MORONS as an example -- as if the FL govt morons in Bush v. Gore in 2000 were not hammered enough ??? Since when in the English language is any restitution or fine the same as a poll tax or other tax ???

This is the New Age of MORONS — doing nonstop frivolous cases.

When will the Supremes hammer some MORONS as an example — as if the FL govt morons in Bush v. Gore in 2000 were not hammered enough ???

]]>