Comments on: Roundup of Election Law Cases in US Supreme Court http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:59:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: matt http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162420 Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:59:15 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162420 I should clarify. Many mambers of the court throughout history have stated that (A) isn't their problem and they only focus on (B). I should clarify. Many mambers of the court throughout history have stated that (A) isn’t their problem and they only focus on (B).

]]> by: matt http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162172 Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:53:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162172 As I understand it, the Supreme Court takes cases for 2 reasons: A) to right especially grevious injustices B) to expand and clarify confusing points in existing law. Since they get loads and loads of cert writs each year, by taking this one, they are saying either that Anna Nicole is one of the 10 most oppressed people in the country or that conflicting state court decisions relating to wills and bankrupcy create a problem we can't deal with accurately with existing legal precedent. That, or else the Bush Justice Department (sic) was trying to expand the jurisdiction of federal courts and found a celebrity-laden case to do it with. One or the other. As I understand it, the Supreme Court takes cases for 2 reasons:

A) to right especially grevious injustices

B) to expand and clarify confusing points in existing law.

Since they get loads and loads of cert writs each year, by taking this one, they are saying either that Anna Nicole is one of the 10 most oppressed people in the country or that conflicting state court decisions relating to wills and bankrupcy create a problem we can’t deal with accurately with existing legal precedent.

That, or else the Bush Justice Department (sic) was trying to expand the jurisdiction of federal courts and found a celebrity-laden case to do it with.

One or the other.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162076 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:32:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162076 I guess I don't know enough about the case. It was an inheritance dispute. What should have been the ruling? I guess I don't care. But it was a pretty serious case involving a LOT of money. I guess I don’t know enough about the case. It was an inheritance dispute. What should have been the ruling? I guess I don’t care. But it was a pretty serious case involving a LOT of money.

]]> by: matt http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162037 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:13:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162037 The Marshall v. Marshall case was all about federal interference into a state-level judicial issue, and it was almost certainly helped along by the famous name and the large amount of money involved. Civil liberties writs are being ignored so that this type of thing can go through? Ridiculous. The Marshall v. Marshall case was all about federal interference into a state-level judicial issue, and it was almost certainly helped along by the famous name and the large amount of money involved. Civil liberties writs are being ignored so that this type of thing can go through? Ridiculous.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162009 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:53:46 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-162009 How was Anna Nicole's case "not worthy" of the court's time? How was Anna Nicole’s case “not worthy” of the court’s time?

]]> by: matt http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-161604 Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:45:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-161604 Both of those cert positions are worthy of the court's time. Much more so than the stupid Anna Nicole case they dickered around with a few years back! Both of those cert positions are worthy of the court’s time. Much more so than the stupid Anna Nicole case they dickered around with a few years back!

]]> by: SovereignMN http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-161533 Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:35:15 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/12/roundup-of-election-law-cases-in-us-supreme-court/#comment-161533 Kidwell vs Union,OH sounds interesting. I've often wondered that question myself. Our city recently spent taxpayer money to promote a tax levy (which passed). So they spent our money to convince people to take more of it. Greeeeeeeeeeat. Kidwell vs Union,OH sounds interesting. I’ve often wondered that question myself. Our city recently spent taxpayer money to promote a tax levy (which passed). So they spent our money to convince people to take more of it. Greeeeeeeeeeat.

]]>