Monday, September 13, 2010

Soros wants to take over your state's judicial branch... Has he already succeeded in Massachusetts?

The first thought that came into my mind when I read the above headline over at was, "Thats what must have happened to Massachusetts when they approved this: (see article below) ~ Storm'n Norm'n

Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff
July 27, 2010 05:09 PM -
The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.
Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."
But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.
"We've had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support," said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.
The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.
Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.
The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.
Presidential candidates now "ignore wide swaths of the country" they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.
"That's really what we're talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they're being reached out to," he said.
Opponents say the current system works. They are concerned about a possible scenario where Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.
Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.
"The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky," he said. "This is sort of an end run around the Constitution."
The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.chusetts." 

This following from: The American Thinker

Soros' latest gambit

by Ed Lasky


George Soros, patron saint of Democrats everywhere, sugar daddy of their party, early backer of Barack Obama, funder of influential think tanks (such as the omnipresent Center for American Progress, a group that has become a media mouthpiece), and the grand champion funder of 527 groups nationwide (such as has been funding the takeover of one more branch of government: states' judiciary, according to this Washington Post:
Record spending on judicial elections around the country has prompted calls for changes from a broad array of advocates, including moderate conservatives such as retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
But a report issued Thursday by a small conservative group active in judicial elections alleges that the efforts to change such elections amount to a campaign to bolster liberals, with backing from financier and philanthropist George Soros.
The report from the American Justice Partnership alleges that Soros has spent millions on "a highly coordinated, well-funded campaign" to "fundamentally alter the composition of America's state courts."
Colleen Pero, a Michigan judicial activist who wrote Thursday's report, said she combed through tax records from Soros's foundations to identify more than $45 million given within the past decade to advocacy groups dealing with judicial issues.
Of course, Soros and his allies and employees are fighting back-justifying their actions by bringing out the old bugaboo of corporate America. They justify their efforts by characterizing them as defensive and, of course, they portray themselves as the selfless good guys.
Aryeh Neier, president of Soros's institute and foundations, said he is proud of efforts to limit the influence of corporations and other special interests in state courts, noting a recent Supreme Court decision that rebuked a judge for helping decide a case benefiting a coal company that supported his election.
"Increasingly there has been corrupt influence on state judiciaries through spending in elections," Neier said. "As far as I'm concerned, this is essential work to try to protect their integrity
I don't buy what they are selling. Soros is also one of the prime movers behind the Democracy Alliance - a shadowy and powerful group that, among other goals, has been trying to pick and choose who gets elected as Secretary of States in key states. These are the officials in charge of securing the integrity of elections. Does anyone think that those officials, including Minnesota's Secretary of State who was elected with help from the Democracy Alliance and where Al Franken's election to the Senate is suspect, will be completely free of the influence of George Soros and his friends?
The latest gambit to gain control of the state courts is one more ominous chess move by Soros, While the Koch brothers are highlighted as Public Enemy number One (and Two) by the liberal media because they fund conservative groups, George Soros all but gets a pass despite his many tentacle grasp for power.


John in Waco said...

This is just another step in the movement away from the Republic established by the Founders of our country. The Democrats don't seem to understand States' Rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

toto said...

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast - just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor's race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- Massachusetts and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

toto said...

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.