Democrats sue in 20 states to get Nader off ballot.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Bobcat37, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #1
    Source 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html

    Source 2: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002030794_dige09m.html

    Source 3: http://www.wftv.com/news/3702779/detail.html

    Source 4: http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0904/172109.html

    There are just 4 states it's happening in, just so you guys don't accuse me of lying. They just talked about it on the news here in Colorado and said that it is happening here and in 19 other battleground states.

    I have one word for this: Pathetic
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    I've said it before, this is not how I think the Democratic Party should spend its time and money. However, it goes with the turf that petitions get challenged and political opponents get held to the letter of the law. I know, I worked on petitions that didn't make it because of too many signatures getting invalidated for all kind of crazy reasons. But, Bobcat, if you really want to see something pathetic look at the actions of the Florida administration in putting Nader's name on the ballot over a judge's injunction. I guess helping your brother win the state is more important than a silly ole thing like the rule of law.

    Reuters
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Surprise surprise... The dems are pulling out all the stops to win. What did you expect?

    Plus the GOP is funding and assisting Nader with the sole aim of winning the election themselves, so hopefully you aren't claiming this as some kind of moral high ground for the GOP.
     
  4. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #4
    It has been said "Politics make strange bedfellows".
     
  5. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    Is it as pathetic as the following?


    Source 1: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160148/posts

    Source 2: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/

    Source 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/p...?ex=1095307200&en=4a3c4a5bbc067dc6&ei=5070&hp

    Source 4: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/aug04/252825.asp


    My position is this: if Republicans and conservative groups are so ideologically bankrupt that they would help a candidate whose positions they totally disagree with just to help Bush win, then the Democrats have an obligation to fight back.

    Yes, suing to keep a third party candidate off the ballot is slimy. But so is promoting a third party candidate simply because he is a spoiler for your opposition. The major parties (and many of their supporters) suck. Welcome to America!

    Taft
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    So Bobcat, if you had to sum up the GOP tactics with regard to promoting someone who's views they detest because it helped them win in one word, what would that word be?

    I'm guessing it's not 'pathetic', huh?
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    And how do you feel about the GOP ignoring a court order to remove Nader's name from the ballot in Florida and blaming the need to do so on the possibility that Hurricane Ivan will disrupt the hearing to resolve the matter?

    Does Jeb Bush helping his brother out in an election year give you a warm fuzzy about the GOP?
    http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1095138900150430.xml
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    More electoral hanky-panky in Florida. Who'd a thunk it?
     
  9. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #9
    Well here is the other side

    http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/9636349.htm

    concerning the appeal.....


    Could it be this is a democratic judge, justice is blind, or is it myopic?

    I'll bet if you shop you can find a republican one partial as well, I concede, but this matter is in appeal, stay tuned....... :rolleyes:
     
  10. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #10
    It could be that he is a democratic judge, but where in the heck did you come up with that? It is simply wild speculation without the benefit of the context of Florida election law. No where in that article does it mention that this judge is Democratic or that the emergency injuction was somehow improper, unethical, or contrary to election law.

    Care to substantiate your speculation?

    Taft
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Who needs substantiation when you can have allegation?
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    Wait just a minute. What does the political background of the judge got to do with anything? He could be partisan as hell and it doesn't matter. The point is, even if the judge is wrong, the Florida administration doesn't get to ignore a judicial order! Even if that order is inconvenient for the President's election plans. Do we really have to go back to basic civics to understand that?
     
  13. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #13
    I never said he was a Democrat, but guess what, I am allowed to speculate! Call me names if it helps you feel better, but I speculate that there is partisan behavior here. The question is whether the reform party is a National Party or not, that would alllow Nader to be on the ballet and cirumvent many of the other obsticles. I am not a lawyer, I am not a constituitional scholar, but it is what I understand the issue to be. But once again I never said the judge was a Democrat, only speculated he could be a republican or an independant, I COULD BE WRONG! THERE ARE PARTISAN JUDGES DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN! BIG SURPRISE!!!!

    Sayhey-injunction
    n. a writ (order) issued by a court ordering someone to do something or prohibiting some act after a court hearing.

    My understanding of the issue is that the judge issued a preliminary injunction (please read article) so the state is not stomping on the heads of justice.

     
  14. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    I read the article. I know what an injunction means. When a judge issues an injunction it is illegal to ignore that injunction, which is exactly what the State of Florida has done. If the judge is wrong, then the legal next step is to appeal to a higher court to lift the injunction, not proceed as if the judicial order were not binding. This is basic "balance of powers" stuff that anyone who took high school civics should understand.
     
  15. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #15
    I was wrong. I apologize.
     
  16. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #16
    I think this is what I was attempting to say...



    from here

    I believe the issue of a national party or not will be resolved by weeks end. If I remeber correctly, absentee ballots are typically skewed to the right, so this should not be a major factor, but then again it could a one vote margin.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Yeah, I mean if I opened a business and called it "Apple PC sales" and a judge issues an injunction stopping me from calling myself that because of copyright issues, I can't simply decide to wait until next year because I just bought a new sign for my building. I'd be fined and/or arrested.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    let's say that the absentee ballots do go out w/ nader's name on them, but later the injuction is upheld and nader's name is removed from the 11/2 ballots.

    what happens to the absentee votes that are cast to nader? tossed out? that still hurts kerry, yes?

    even if they are "skewed to the right," as you say (not sure i agree, since not all absentee ballots are overseas military ballots), remember how close 2000 was in FL. a few hundred here, a few hundred there, pretty soon were talking about real votes!
     
  19. Bobcat37 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    Hehe, all I have to say is that I am baffled at some of you guys and your "two wrongs make a right" mentality. Of course I fully expected that when posting this here I would get plenty of responses that said "Well yeah but Republicans are doing _____ so ha! It isn't any worse than that is it?!?!"

    Maybe it's not any worse or better, but I don't subscribe to that theory of thought...

    This would be like if Republicans tried to get the Libertarian or American Constitutional Party candidates thrown off the ballot, because I guarentee you guys that BOTH of them will be taking Bush votes this November (I've even talked to people who have told me that they were voting for them over Bush). I see no difference, and regardless of what "horrible things" Republicans are doing, that doesn't excuse the Democrats of trying to jack with the Democratic process.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Hehe... They're both 'jacking with the Democratic process'. If you have a problem with one, then you should have a problem with the other. Are you arguing that both parties have sunk to new lows? 'Cause I'll agree with you there.

    If you are trying to claim the moral high ground for the right here, then I disagree.
     
  21. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #21
    Sayhey, sorry I used the wrong phrase before, I was thinking it was the injunction against the ruling to remove nader, :eek: .

    But I will admit I was wrong. Quick question though.

    Previously, here you were upset with courts when they were invalidating illegal marrages by a California mayor?
    It seems you can't have it both ways! Wouldn't you be upset that the judge would remove a candidate before the process was complete? Much like you were upset the marrages were null before the courts could decide?

    ;)
     
  22. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    As I said in my first post, and I've said in numerous posts responding to jello, I don't think the Democratic Party should be wasting its time and effort with this stuff. I think it would be much better off making a greater effort to reach voters who voted for Nader last time and explaining the danger of voting for him in November. My argument isn't with those in the Nader campaign who want to get the injunction lifted or with people who want the broadest possible choices on the ballot. My argument is with the State of Florida which ignores basic law to advance the interests of one party over the other. That is much more a threat to the democratic process than one judge who makes a decision I might well disagree with.

    As to the decision of the California Supreme Court, my main problem with their decision was that the invalidating of the marriages did not need to take place. The constitutional question of whether gay couples rights to equal protection is being violated by a marriage code that discriminates against them was not before the Court. That is still in process in the lower courts. They went out of their way to do damage to the thousands of couples who were married in San Francisco. It was cruel and unnecessary, if not unexpected from this Court. Totally off topic I know, but I thought I'd respond fully.
     
  23. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #23
    Well making a play to remove Nader hours before the ballots are final was ugly, the printing of the absentee ballots will not make any difference, mailing them will.
    Lets wait, but if I understand it, the appeal removes the injunction for a short period, and is completely legal in a "tit for tat" enviornment.
    I don't know how Floridians define a national party and it is too late in the evening for me to care, with Ivan baring down on our fellow macusers in the Gulf states, florida will have ample opportunity to dis-enfranchise more voters, this time before the election. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page