Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kansas court says Democrats need not provide nominee for U.S. Senate race
Kansas City Star ^ | 10/01/2014 3:53 PM | Dave Helling

Posted on 10/01/2014 10:21:58 PM PDT by Olog-hai

A three-judge panel in Topeka ruled Wednesday that Kansas Democrats need not nominate a candidate for the 2014 Senate race.

The ruling is expected to help independent Senate candidate Greg Orman’s campaign against incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.

Chad Taylor, the Democrat nominated for the seat in August, dropped from the race Sept. 3. The Kansas Supreme Court later ruled the withdrawal followed state rules. …

(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: chadtaylor; democrats; gregorman; kansas; patroberts

1 posted on 10/01/2014 10:21:58 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"Laws? Laws???... hahahaHAHAHA... Laws aren't for Democrats! Laws are the peasants!!"
2 posted on 10/01/2014 10:23:21 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

More shenanigans by the commie ‘RATS and their “judges”.


3 posted on 10/01/2014 10:24:32 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Stop flooding our schools with unaccompanied illegal aliens. Do it for the children!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Oh but wouldn’t those Democrat voters be disenfranchised if they had no one to vote for? (see judge Surrick in Berg v. Obama)


4 posted on 10/01/2014 10:29:53 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Back a few years in New Jersey, a democrat cadre of judges insisted that the citizens deserved an option to vote for a democrat after the torch dropped out of the race. Now, a new group of democrat judges reject the right of democrats to vote for a member of their party. What a collection of corrupt individuals.


5 posted on 10/01/2014 10:31:15 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

We don’ need no steenkin’ laws!


6 posted on 10/01/2014 10:44:03 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It is amazing how Democrats always win in the Courts.


7 posted on 10/01/2014 10:45:00 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

1. The Plaintiff didn’t show up in Court. That was the deathknell.

2. Any other cases in any other States are irrelevant. This is a State case. I don’t care what happened elsewhere it means nothing here.

3. I read the statute and it’s pretty clear that the Dims are NOT required to run anyone. It says who is to appoint someone but not that they have to appoint someone.

This was a pretty easy case. It’s all well and good to run screaming “Dim judges! Laws don’t apply! etc etc etc”. But that doesn’t get us anywhere. You have to analyze facts and not just run around screaming. If you don’t, you don’t know who caused your problem. It wasn’t the Dims here. Not one bit. It was the GOP and it’s raging incompetence. The AG was absolutely brain dead on this one. And the Plaintiff not showing? (a supposed Dim) ... I mean come on.

No wonder the GOPe ignores us. They could drop an anvil on our car, we could see them do it, and we would blame the Dims.

I wouldn’t take us seriously either.


8 posted on 10/01/2014 10:45:45 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
Back a few years in New Jersey, a democrat cadre of judges insisted that the citizens deserved an option to vote for a democrat after the torch dropped out of the race. Now, a new group of democrat judges reject the right of democrats to vote for a member of their party. What a collection of corrupt individuals.

Yeah, but the judges in the Torch case were clearly crack-addled corrupt machine politic whores. They had to say it was OK to break the election rules to get Torch's replacement on the ballot. Total bullshit ruling.

9 posted on 10/01/2014 11:12:15 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

But they DO have a nominee... he’s just running as an “Independent”


10 posted on 10/01/2014 11:21:11 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Thanks to RINOs, Illinois has definitely become a "red state" -- we are run by Communists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Actually this is partially a case of not reading the article - they are confusing this with the original case wherein the court tossed out the SOS’s finding that the Democrat had not properly withdrawn and thus his name would remain on the ballot as the nominee.

State cases don’t apply to each other but it is still interesting to compare the actions of the Democrats and the outcome in court to the two similar situations - one wherein the Democrats do not want a nominee from their own party on the ballot to help them win an election, and the opposite in the other case, regardless of what the laws show. In the NJ case, the independent / minor party candidates didn’t count as being a choice to the judges, and here they do.


11 posted on 10/01/2014 11:23:22 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The judge ruled correctly. Of course they are not required to run anyone, hence my criticism of Surrick. (I know it’s a different state. Surricks idiotic ruling deserves scorn)


12 posted on 10/01/2014 11:23:52 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The GOP-e “ignores us” because they are liberals, leftwardho.


13 posted on 10/02/2014 7:07:44 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson