turbinetree
turbinetree's JournalLawsuit challenges Arizona state Rep.-elect Raquel Tern's citizenship, cites no evidence
Source: The Arizona Republic
Dustin Gardiner
Arizona Republic Published 12:45 p.m. MT Nov. 9, 2018 | Updated 2:35 p.m. MT Nov. 9, 2018
An anti-immigrant activist has filed a lawsuit falsely claiming that Arizona state Rep.-elect Raquel Terán isn't qualified to hold public office because she is "not a legal citizen of the United States."
The lawsuit, which cites no evidence for the claim, was filed by Alice Novoa on Monday in Maricopa County Superior Court. Terán has a U.S. birth certificate, according to court records from a similar lawsuit that Novoa filed against her in 2012.
Terán, D-Phoenix, was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in Tuesday's midterm elections. She posted on social media Thursday night to protest the lawsuit after she said she was served with the papers at home.
"This is obviously upsetting, but not surprising," Terán wrote in a widely shared Facebook post. "It is just another attempt to silence me and the community I fight for. #bringit"
Read more: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/09/arizona-state-rep-elect-raquel-teran-citizenship-challenged-lawsuit-alice-novoa/1943446002/
.Marbury v. Madison (1803.....one of the most important decision of this republic..........revisited
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government on par with Congress and the executive.
The facts surrounding Marbury were complicated. In the election of 1800, the newly organized Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. In the final days of his presidency, Adams appointed a large number of justices of peace for the District of Columbia whose commissions were approved by the Senate, signed by the president, and affixed with the official seal of the government. The commissions were not delivered, however, and when President Jefferson assumed office March 5, 1801, he ordered James Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver them. William Marbury, one of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, or legal order, compelling Madison to show cause why he should not receive his commission.
In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury have a right to the writ for which he petitioned? Second, did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court issue such a writ? With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even against the president of the United States. At the time, Marshall's thinly disguised lecture to President Jefferson about the rule of law was much more controversial than his statement about judicial review (which doctrine was widely accepted).
It was in answering the third question -- whether a writ of mandamus issuing from the Supreme Court was the proper remedy -- that Marshall addressed the question of judicial review. The Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted it the right to do so, was unconstitutional insofar as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme law of the land."
As a result of Marshall's decision Marbury was denied his commission -- which presumably pleased President Jefferson. Jefferson was not pleased with the lecture given him by the Chief Justice, however, nor with Marshall's affirmation of the Court's power to review acts of Congress. For practical strategic reasons, Marshall did not say that the Court was the only interpreter of the Constitution (though he hoped it would be) and he did not say how the Court would enforce its decisions if Congress or the Executive opposed them. But, by his timely assertion of judicial review, the Court began its ascent as an equal branch of government -- an equal in power to the Congress and the president. Throughout its long history, when the Court needed to affirm its legitimacy, it has cited Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison.
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_marbury.html
-snip-
In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury have a right to the writ for which he petitioned? Second, did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court issue such a writ? With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even against the president of the United States. At the time, Marshall's thinly disguised lecture to President Jefferson about the rule of law was much more controversial than his statement about judicial review (which doctrine was widely accepted).
Pictures from the Protest yesterday
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/protests-to-protect-mueller-investigatio-idUSRTS25AN8Senate Democrats weigh lawsuit over Trump's appointment of Whitaker
Source: Reuters
NOVEMBER 9, 2018 / 9:33 AM / UPDATED 14 MINUTES AGO
Senate Democrats weigh lawsuit over Trump's appointment of Whitaker
David Morgan, Jonathan Landay
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democrats are considering legal action over President Donald Trump’s appointment of a new acting attorney general, congressional sources said on Friday, as some outside experts called Trump’s move unconstitutional.
Trump on Wednesday named Matthew Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was forced out after months of being attacked by Trump for recusing himself from an ongoing probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The move made Whitaker supervisor of the investigation, which has hung over Trump’s presidency. Whitaker has criticized the probe in the past as too wide-ranging, a view that raised concerns among Democrats that Sessions’ ouster and Whitaker’s appointment might be a precursor to Trump moving to end it.
Senate Democrats were pondering suing Trump, the sources said, on the grounds that, in naming Whitaker, the president ignored a statutory line of succession at the Justice Department and deprived senators of their constitutional “advice and consent” role on some presidential appointments.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/senate-democrats-weigh-lawsuit-over-trumps-appointment-of-whitaker-idUSKCN1NE1QJ?il=0
GOP Protest Erupts Outside Broward Elections Office Amid Vote Count
Source: Talking Points Memo
By Associated Press
November 9, 2018 1:39 pm
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A group of about 30 sign-holding Republican protesters gathered outside the office of Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes, singing “The Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America.”
As the counting of ballots resumed Friday afternoon, Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz called Snipe “either incompetent or corrupt” and accused her of “spinning ballots out of nothing” in the Senate seat between Republican Gov. Rick Scott and Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson.
Gaetz, whose district is in Florida’s Panhandle, also said the state should take over the Broward elections office.
Protesters held signs that said, “Brenda Snipes has to go,” ”stop creating votes” and “don’t steal our election.”
Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-protesters-broward-county-elections-office
They pulled this same shit in 2000...................not happening this time.................and has for Gaetz....................FUCK YOU maybe its time have protesters in you district..................little fucking fascist
Air Force Academy Fails Religion Test In Wake Of Tree Of Life Massacre
11/09/18 5:00am
Two days after the Tree of Life massacre, a freshman Jewish Air Force Cadet was forced to listen as upperclassmen vilified his faith: "The 11 Jews murdered would now be burning in hell forever.”
By Paul Rosenberg
Two days the massacre at the Tree of Life Congregation synagogue, a Jewish cadet at the Air Force Academy had to listen to upperclass cadets—who outranked him—disparage the victims for their faith, saying, "The 11 Jews murdered would now be burning in hell forever because none of them had accepted Jesus as their savior prior to being shot and killed." This according to his parents, who are considering withdrawing him from the Academy.
“These upperclass cadets were ‘loud and proud about saying it’ as our son told us. We are all in tears here,” they said in a letter to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. “We had heard about the Air Force Academy’s long history of religious intolerance before our son applied and accepted his appointment. We had been assured that those days were over. As a result of what has just happened to our son we were obviously wrong.”
“The Air Force Academy is not a problem, issue or challenge, it's a constitutional—or unconstitutional—train wreck, and it's been this way, basically since February 2004, which is when we started this fight,” MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein told Crooks and Liars. In fact, Weinstein had a similar experience of open anti-Semitic prejudice as a freshman cadet in 1973.
“Please let people know about this so that other families do not have to go through what we are now going through,” the parents said in their letter. “We have Holocaust survivors in our family and if they knew of what our son had to hear from his upperclass cadets about the Pittsburgh massacre it would be a tragedy,” they said. “But not the worst tragedy. The worst would be the Air Force Academy doing nothing about the hateful atmosphere that exists there. Our son and our family do not deserve this. Nobody does.”
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/11/air-force-academy-fails-religion-test-wake
The Endangered Zinke Is Casting About For A Life Raft, Maybe At Fox News
By Kate Riga
November 9, 2018 8:41 am
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has his irons in the fire, casting about for potential employment opportunities as it becomes increasingly likely that he’ll fall under President Donald Trump’s post-midterm axe.
According to a Thursday Politico report, Zinke has inquired into positions at Fox News, boards of directors at energy companies and private equity firms.
Zinke’s spokesperson derided the rumors as “laughably false” and belonging on the satirical website “The Onion.”
Zinke may also stay in the public sphere, as Politico reports that he has his eye on the 2020 Montana governor race, after his Cabinet appointment took him out of the running for Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-MT) Senate seat.
Though Trump has great personal affection for Zinke, his ever growing heap of ethics issues has made him into a Scott Pruitt-esque headache.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/endangered-zinke-casting-about-for-life-raft-maybe-at-fox
This asshole can run anywhere he wants........................but I want the oversight committee to bring him in for questioning......................i really do hate former and past trump assholes defrauding taxpayers dimes while on the payroll................................fuck him..............
What did Susan Collins get back home for her Kavanaugh betrayal? A 9-point approval drop
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday November 08, 2018 · 9:50 PM EST
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) traded her reputation and principles away for the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court fight for an overall loss of 9 points in her approval rating. Morning Consult polled Maine and found that " the political ground has shifted beneath her ahead of a potential 2020 re-election run."
Forty-five percent of Mainers approve of her job performance post-Kavanaugh, a 9-point drop since Morning Consult last surveyed over the summer. She picked up a lot of Republicans: "68 percent approved and 25 percent disapproved—a net 43-point jump." She could make that shift because Republicans disliked her before, displeased with her general bipartisany persona and her anti-Obamacare repeal vote.
She's 32 points underwater with Democrats, having gone from a 39 percent disapproval to a miserable 63 percent bad rating. She's not likely to be able to court many of them as she has in the past. She's fared slightly better with independents, her disapproval rating jumping just 4 points from 31 to 35, but her approval dropping from 56 to 41 points. An awful lot more independents have decided they're undecided about what they think of her.
The "Kavanaugh bump" for the Republican base was pretty short-lived, so we'll see how long they still like Collins, given the hardest core of them have looked on her as a sellout for most of her career. She burned bridges with many of them long ago.
The bridges she just burned with Democrats, with Independents, and particularly with women, her staunchest supporters, aren't going to be rebuilt. Every heinous decision out of the Supreme Court that Kavanaugh signs on to is going to rebound on her, forever. Between that and the $3.7 million war chest that the grassroots has raised to hand over to her 2020 Democratic challenger, she's going to have a very uncomfortable two years. We'll make sure of that.
https://www.dailykos.com/
I think she will not run...............she will take her new husband and go visit the oligarchs in Russia that gave him money..........
And as far as I am of the opinion she is a traitor................. 
Morning Digest: With new ballot drop, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema takes the lead in Arizona Senate race
Morning Digest: With new ballot drop, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema takes the lead in Arizona Senate race
Daily Kos Elections
Daily Kos Staff
Friday November 09, 2018 · 8:30 AM ES
Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema
LEADING OFF
● AZ-Sen: On Thursday, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema took a 9,610-vote lead over Republican Martha McSally; on Wednesday, McSally held a 17,000-vote lead. Another 130,000 votes were counted in Maricopa County, which is home to three-fifths of the state, while Pima County added 24,100 to its total, with smaller counties added much-smaller batches.
There are about 500,000 uncounted ballots statewide, and about 345,000 are in Maricopa County, where Sinema currently leads 50-48. The biggest question right now is whether the remaining Maricopa County ballots will continue to trend Sinema's way, or if this was just an unusually good batch for her. The Associated Press' Nick Riccardi said that this first drop was from ballots mailed in just before Election Day at a time when Democratic turnout was at its highest. However, the county recorder says that about half of the remaining ballots come from this group. The county has another update set for 7 PM ET (5 PM local time) on Friday, so we'll hopefully know more soon about the state of the race.
With so many ballots still left to be counted, Republicans have filed a lawsuit against every county recorder, the officials who administer elections in each county, over how they're verifying ballot signatures in a state where mail ballots could make up roughly four-fifths of votes. While the GOP has sued Democratic and Republican recorders alike, they're undoubtedly doing this with one big target in mind: Democratic Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes.
The GOP is taking issue with how Fontes announced shortly before Election Day that his office would contact every voter whose signature on their mail ballot didn't appear to match the one they had on file to give them an opportunity to confirm their identity, even after Election Day, pointing out that others like Pima County have been doing this for years. While Republicans have claimed they merely want all 15 counties to have the same procedure, their lawsuit could disenfranchise roughly 5,600 voters in Maricopa County
https://www.dailykos.com/
Profile Information
Member since: Fri May 30, 2014, 03:30 PMNumber of posts: 24,695
