Posted on 10/22/2006 1:24:58 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Brown is a democrat, therefore, the 9th Circus will let him run. If Brown were a Republican he would be off the ballot already.
This won't help Brown, that's for sure.
If Brown wins, it'll be because of younger voters with no memory of her performance as Governor. Those who do remember him as the man who appointed Rose Bird to the state Supreme Court.
This may be open to interpretation. While Brown has not been active for 5 consecutive years directly before his running for this office, he has obviously been for more than 5 years in total. But you could read it to mean that he should be disqualified because he has not been active for the past 5 years.
I actually disagree. This seems to me like sniping at a technicality and I think it reflects poorly on the party.
Beat him at the ballot box if you can, not this way.
Yup. All this says is that the Republicans are desperate.
Sure, we're desperate to keep Moonbeam out of the AG office, but rules are rules. If he doesn't meet qualifications, then what's the use of codifying qualifications?
Right. Which is why Schwarzenegger should run for President. That pesky "born in America" requirement is just a technicality.
</sarcasm>
I don't have the statute in front of me, but it would seem to me to be trying to say that he should have spent 5 years as a bar certified Attorney, i.e. is qualified to head what is essentially the biggest law firm in the state. Brown passed the bar in the 60's. It is not at all clear that being an 'inactive' bar member is meant to fall under the rule at all, and us suing to say that it does only makes us look desperate.
While I may disagree with Brown politically, he's clearly a compentent and experienced attorney, which is undoubtedly what the qualifications are written for.
It actually reads to me that, if the cases they cite say what they claim they do,that this is an activist court problem. The plain language of the statute merely says that he must have been qualified for the past 5 years. It doesn't say anything about being "active" or "inactive". At worst, all an "inactive" attorney would have to do is reactivate his membership (that's basically paying dues, no?)to be qualified. It seems to me that if anybody has a problem here, it's the courts.
The question is, if Brown is disqualified, do the 'Rats then get to choose a replacement (i.e. second-place finisher Rocky Delgadillo) ?
The complaint asks that votes in the election not be counted, hence Poochigian would be the "winner" and there is no one to "replace". I'm not sure how this will play out.
Write-in candidates have to be approved ahead of time... they would have to file papers by... Tuesday. ("For the general election, the statement of write-in candidacy must be filed between September 11 and October 24, 2006."
I like the sound of that. ;-)
It's about time the GOP start acting twice as ruthless as the rodents to achieve our goals. It is war, after all.
The guy just ran Oakland into the ground as mayor, his administration as Governor was the only one that saw an increase in crime, and he ran for President. Now he's running for AG, which is a complete joke.
People like Brown should just have the decency to retire from public life.
Naah, Oakland had already been driven into the ground. Jer just couldn't turn it around, despite claims that he could.
My concern is, how will this effect the campaign between now and election day? I would like to see Brown's viability damaged.
As a former Californian, I find it appalling that he has any viability at all after what he did to the state while Governor.
It's been 24 years since he left the Governorship. Memories, as they say, are quite short. Remember that even the horrid Jimmy Carter could probably run for office again in certain states and still win... he'd probably even carry California today (and remember that he never carried it, either in 1976 or 1980).
Interesting.
Ask Jerry if he's complied with MCLE requirements.
Also, the rules about "active" State bar membership are pretty well established....surely his staff and he have already vetted this isssue;
if not, he's beyond Moonbeam (Mike Royko RIP).
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.