Replies

"Fer cryin' out loud, Libertarians. You're asking the court to do just what we've been blasting them for: legislate from the bench! Work to get the law changed by the legislature to be more reasonable if you don't like it. Don't go in asking a judge to ignore a properly enacted statute."

What a bunch of crap. If your party was in the same position you would want them to sue to stay on the ballot and you would also fight to change the law at the same time. You go to the court to have the state enjoined from keeping your party off the next ballot. At the same time you try to get the legislature to change the law so that you won't have that problem in the future. Either the Republican or Democrat party would do exactly the same thing. I don't blame the Libertarian party at all for seeking a remedy through the courts. The two major parties use the courts all the time.

It really isn't that big of a deal to make it a little easier for Libertarians to stay on the ballot. Hardly any of them are ever elected. But they are a real political party and there are enough that identify themselves as Libertarians that they should at least have the chance to be elected. This is a free country. I can remember what a big deal we thought it was as kids that in places like Russia you could vote for who ever you wanted to as long as it was the Communist Party candidate. We don't want to be like them. We should have an open system where everyone has a shot at being elected. I don't suppose there is anything wrong with trying to keep the ballots clear of "political parties" with that only have a few members, but we shouldn't be too restrictive and it seems too restrictive to me when you have thousands of party members in a small state and that party can't even have a candidate listed on the ballot. Aren't libertarians on the ballots in all forty-nine other states?

I'm not thrilled by the Libertarian party, but I wish we did have more than two viable political parties. Rhetoric aside, there really doesn't seem to be much difference in the way the two parties conduct business. A third party in the mix might stir things up and help keep the other two honest.

Either the Republican or Democrat party would do exactly the same thing. I don't blame the Libertarian party at all for seeking a remedy through the courts. The two major parties use the courts all the time.

That's a poor reason for using judges to effectively legislate new laws. Most Free Republic members rightfully decry the Supreme Court for doing just that. I don't know if you personally have taken a stand one way or another, but the practice is forbidden by the Constitution. Regardless of the perceived necessity of immediate relief, the judiciary is simply the wrong branch of government to be changing the law. They exist to interpret and apply law, not change and/or create it.

The Republican and Democrat parties have certainly done the same thing, and would do so again. Is that all the higher standards the Libertarian party has set for itself, to follow in the footsteps of the two parties it seeks to supplant?