@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe judge already did:
explain how the save act is in violation of SS act
"the system discloses both Social Security numbers and related records maintained by SSA."
RIF.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy do you think this administration is free to ignore laws passed by Congress?
Marauder strikes again!!!! He is against everything. Pitiful. no common sense, no rationale, only a one-way track that opens up everything to all.
For those of you that have the same philosophy, how long do you think it could last if Marauder would get his way??
Read any of his posts, all go against common sense, the constitution, even his own natural law.
...[text shortened]... T say yes, which is the only common sense answer.
and, so it will go. Make up your own question..
3 edits
@Earl-of-Trumps saidYou got spanked AGAIN. Your link is old; in May, 2025, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court Order tossing the case: https://publicinterestlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/24-1255_Documents.pdf
I got spanked on that, and I dare say, I sorta' earned it lol. Also:
https://publicinterestlegal.org/election-frontline/%F0%9F%91%BBa-haunt-mess-michigans-voter-rolls-haunted-by-more-than-25000-deceased-registrants-%F0%9F%91%BB/
This Halloween, Michiganders should look out for ghosts on the state’s voter roll
PILF has found the graves and obituaries [b](o ...[text shortened]...
Note, it is against the law to continue to leave deceased people on the voter rolls
peace out
The petition to the SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari was DENIED on March 2, 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/public-interest-legal-foundation-v-benson/
Michigan has 8.2 million registered voters and even the PILF's alleged 27,000 deceased voters would comprise only 0.3% of that total. The State's efforts to remove deceased voters was found to be "reasonable" which is all that is required by Federal law:
"Like Florida, Michigan “relies on [the Social Security Death Index] and state health records in order to identify and remove deceased registrants, in addition to other tools to capture both in-state and out-of-state deaths.” Summ. J. Order, R. 180, Page ID #3659.
"“federally collected data shows that Michigan is consistently among the most
active states in the United States in cancelling the registrations of deceased individuals.” Id.
at pp. 15-16
One wonders how many times you are going to be duped like this.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidLMAO!
Dumb question, dude.
The dems will arrange to have someone vote in that name.
That is why we need to have voter ID
"Michigan requires voters to present photo identification (ID) while voting. "
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Michigan
You're beginning to challenge for "dumbest poster" on RHP though the competition is steep.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThe SS Act allows disclosure of the information. As you showed in your previous posts. The SS Act names the people the info can be disclosed to…⬇️
The judge already did:
"the system discloses both Social Security numbers and related records maintained by SSA."
RIF.
“An “authorized person” is “an officer or employee of the United States, an officer or employee of any
State, political subdivision of a State, or agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, and any other person” who has access to such records”
YOU and the judge fail on this.
@no1marauder saidRequiring and fulfilling are two different things…
LMAO!
"Michigan requires voters to present photo identification (ID) while voting. "
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Michigan
You're beginning to challenge for "dumbest poster" on RHP though the competition is steep.
https://www.mifairelections.org/post/investigation-millions-of-failed-voter-verifications-expose-a-fractured-system-dependent-on-sos-rec
BTW…don’t worry, your position as dumbest poster is secure!
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidDid you miss the "no authorized person shall disclose" language in the prior sentence? They are authorized to have access to the records but not to disclose them.
The SS Act allows disclosure of the information. As you showed in your previous posts. The SS Act names the people the info can be disclosed to…⬇️
“An “authorized person” is “an officer or employee of the United States, an officer or employee of any
State, political subdivision of a State, or agency of a State or political subdivision of a State, and any other person” who has access to such records”
YOU and the judge fail on this.
The Judge can read an entire provision which you apparently can't.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThe save act doesn’t require any person to disclose any information. 🤡
Did you miss the "no authorized person shall disclose" language in the prior sentence? They are authorized to have access to the records but not to disclose them.
The Judge can read an entire provision which you apparently can't.
Besides that, that is not what this activist judge based the ruling on.
Why do you want noncitizens voting in our elections?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou are confused; SAVE in this case is some sort of computer algorithm that the Feds are trying to force the States to use in violation of the law. The SAVE Act was never passed.
The save act doesn’t require any person to disclose any information. 🤡
Besides that, that is not what this activist judge based the ruling on.
Why do you want noncitizens voting in our elections?
@no1marauder saidYou never say how it is in violation of a law…go
You are confused; SAVE in this case is some sort of computer algorithm that the Feds are trying to force the States to use in violation of the law. The SAVE Act was never passed.
Democrats are anti-US as you are.
You want illegals voting in our elections, cheating of several sorts to get power over legal citizens. All because you are a pervert and democrats bow down for perverts. That’s it in a nutshell
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou're certifiably insane if you actually believe that.
You never say how it is in violation of a law…go
Democrats are anti-US as you are.
You want illegals voting in our elections, cheating of several sorts to get power over legal citizens. All because you are a pervert and democrats bow down for perverts. That’s it in a nutshell
@no1marauder saidDon’t try to hedge here…
You're certifiably insane if you actually believe that.
How is the save act in violation of law?
@Earl-of-Trumps saidYou write that they will, but they don't.
Dumb question, dude.
The dems will arrange to have someone vote in that name.
That is why we need to have voter ID
The presence of a dead person on the voter rolls is not evidence of voter fraud.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIt's laid out clearly in the Breitbart article that Earl posted to start this thread.
“This executive order violates multiple laws”
Example?
Apparently you and Earl didn't read it?
Also important to note that this is the 9th time in a row that this executive order has been slapped out of court. So it's not a lib or conservative thing, it's just plain illegal.