Posted on 07/06/2006 9:28:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv
Actually, he has the power to call the election for it.
Look. State law is clear. Those who are on here who say it is different...are wrong.
The minute Delay because a legal primary and voting resident of another state....the law allows for him to be replaced. So does judicial prec.
Furthermore...it leave the selection to the local level.
"PS. If you cared about 'the greater good of the party' you wouldn't whine about DeLay"
Dude's from Mass. So do the math
SSS is a troll. He was spewing this BS back when DeLay was being dragged through the coals by the liberal media and Rats.
Sorry dude. But you obviously are confused on the law.
*. Its not a loophole. Its the law. He is allowed to be replaced if he is no longer a resident of the state. Because federal law says he can't run that seat. AND...Federal law says the voters can't be disenfranchised.
ALSO- one of the guys that is expected to replace Delay on the ballot...was poling better than the Dem. Which is why the local Dems filed the law suit.
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
The guy originally ran for a political position as a Dem.
Look. I saw the State of Mass flag on your page. So we can understand if you don't know Texas Politics.
But pushing it don't help ya
'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'
Great Post, Mr.Smith. Can you post the link to where you found that? thanks
SSS=same stupid shitte.....right?
It does indeed set prec.
And further more the 5th circut agreed.
And you're missing some serious points. The biggest or which has already been shown to you by Mr.Smith. And yes, it does set Prec. And yes ...the 5th circuit agrees with it.
'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'
Guess what. ELECTION DAY HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!!!
DELAY VOTED IN A Virginia PRIMARY election.
His residency in VA is legit. And here's an example of why the 5 circuit will likely overturn this.
'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'
The funny thing in all of this. What will the voters say when they are told they are being disenfranchised...DUE TO A LAW SUIT FILED BY THE DEMOCRAT'S TEAM????
They are gonna be ticked.
It seems to make little sense to force a candidate to run against his will. Certainly it is to a party's disadvantage to change candidates so, other than the New Jersey rule that is in place specifically for the benefit of the state administering elections, there is no reason to have this rule, other than to allow free reign to unscrupulous political operatives.
You're a squishy McCain style moderate. You detest the religious right (which includes DeLay), and every post you makes reaffirms it.
This was a political ruling by a Democratic judge. It was a legal ruling only to the extent that he is called "yer honor."
I can't speak to the intricacies of the law, but I can speak to common sense. I think this kind of law was put into place in order to force the parties to abide by the results of primaries. I.e., to prevent them from parachuting in a new candidate against the will of the people. Probably a Progressive Era thing.
Maybe you want to read my post again. I thought I was clear where I stood. Maybe not. If you are confused, I can post something a bit more direct.
OK. I got the motivation, but not the historical era.
Look, y'all might be a little slower down there, but people up north usually get the message on the first take.
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.