The Supreme Court and guns

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Sorry for hijacking the thread again TTE.

Mentions of "sauce" and levels of "fertility" for arguments (while quite odd) are simply a diversion from facts and are your standard MO when there's nothing but spin and distortion to support your position.

Those aren't arguments, those are merely added for my own entertainment. My arguments were actually laid out via quotation from the link you provided.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this:
‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online=

1) The Bush Admin. only dropped the criminal case, not the civil case (link explains why in detail).
2) Although it was under the Bush Admin. The career chief of the section responsible for filing of criminal charges was a prior ACLU attorney and liberal contributor/loyalist.
3) The same career chief is the one that decided not to pursue charges against the Minuteman in 2006 because there was no evidence, only allegations.

So let's recap...We can't convict them criminally but we can peruse a civil suite. Obama's DOJ is only culpable for not pursuing a civil case against the two men and NBPP. Dropping the criminal charges is acceptable but dropping the civil charges is not. The attorney making the decision not to peruse a civil case has made similar decisions in the past and his "political leanings do not have an affect" on his decision. You have a video of two NBPP guys standing there with batons. You have a Republican poll observer claiming he heard "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." You have no voters filing a complaint with the DOJ regarding their civil rights being violated. You have no actual poll workers filing a complaint.

I really don't know what you guys think could happen in civil suit?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

An eyewitness sworn affidavit is basically the same thing as testimony under oath. This case was investigated in detail by a team of DoJ attorneys and DoJ was awarded a default judgment. The court does not award judgments just because a defendant doesn't show. The case has to have merit.

Affidavits are not the same thing as testimony under oath. They're binding and you could perjure yourself but that is where similarities end. Testimony under oath allows for questioning where as affidavits are simply signed statements made by an individual. It lacks an investigative component and the ability to put people on the spot. Now the commission refuses to have the lone individual come in and testify but they are more than willing to have DOJ personal (Perelli, King, Rosenbaum, etc) interviewed, deposed, and testify before the commission.

Do you know why our legal system has service of process component? It's to insure that people show up to court and if they don't request and easily receive Default Judgment. Unless you are suing Darth Vader and Galactic Empire or you've made filing procedural error civil suits in America don't have to have merits. Why tomorrow I can sue you and your pizzeria for stealing my family's secret sauce recipe and if you don't show up to court I would get a Default Judgment. Obviously my suit has no merit but I can see it being a fun thing to do.

I love your pizzas man but that sauce needs, how should I say, a little more kick. Hawaiian BBQ Chicken without the Bacon is my fav.

p.s. You're thinking with your emotions.