Delay is forced to run for office when in NJ Toricelli was allowed to drop out and be replaced a few weeks before the Senate race.
Delay should run hard and plan on winning.
Frankly, I want Delay in there and I want him to win.
I believe he would win unless legions of the New York and Chicago dead suddenly claim citizenship in that district.
I would laugh my ass off if DeLay not only won, but won in a landslide, because you can't tell me that the ordinary Texan in the street doesn't view the judicial jihad that was launched by Ronnie Earle as being the dirtiest kind of politics.
Hope the cops don't have to get another mug shot of Tom DeLay, the next one will have him grinning ear to ear!
I agree and I don't understand it either, but then again, what else would you expect from the Stupid Party?
Translated: RINOs Want Rid of Delay, conservative champion.
Delay will run for the Presidency.
He can win his old seat in a heart beat, while the Dems belive DeLay is "damaged goods." Dems believe their own propaganda, a big mistake in electoral politics.
How can Delay represent that district when he has moved to Virginia? Don't you have to be a state resident to be a representative?
Delay said "no comment" when reached at his home in Virginia.
I suddenly had this image of Delay deciding to run and the rats turning around and suing to get him OFF the ballot. New day, new world.
Reminds me of the bogus prosecution that Salt Lake County attorney and Democrat Party hack, Yocum, ran against the SL County Mayor, Nancy Workman a couple of years ago. He indicted her just a few weeks prior to the election so she couldn't bow out. Than, after she was defeated, all the charges were dismissed by the judge. Typical criminal Democrat scum, Yocum. The idea of someone like this pretending to prescute criminals, whila actually being an obvious criminal is disgusting.
I thought DeLay would seek a S.C. appeal (rather than an appeal to the 5th Circuit en banc) because of the appearance of a conflict in the NJ state Supreme Court ruling and this panel's ruling.
If the panel had merely said that state's could not engage in predicting where candidate's could reside on election day, then the appeal would have been to the 5th Circuit en banc.
But, the panel said the state could remove a third-party candidate for residency, on a predictive basis, in exercing its constitutional perorgatives to administer the election. But, said the panel, a major party candidate passes the "modicum of support" test.
In contrast, the NJ state Supreme Court said that a "viability" test should apply to major party candidates, not the "modicum of support" test, on the basis that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and what is the meaning of elections if candidates chosen early in the year, who come under indictment, and so are made un-viable cannot be replaced (as long as it is reasonably possible to do this)?
Only the Supreme Court can resolve such differences in the rulings of jurisdictions.
Now, as to what the Supreme Court will say (if it accepts the appeal), it is possible, perhaps likely, to rule that states cannot deny ballot status on the basis of residency prior to election day to anybody (major or minor party) (and partially overturn the findings, but uphold the ruling of the 5th Circuit).
Alternately, it may say that the federal constitution allows states to to remove names from the ballot based on only the "modicum of support" test (which would uphold the findings and ruling of the 5th Circuit).
Or, it may say the states can exericse more discretion in administering the ballot - something akin the viability test devised by the NJ state Supreme Court - in order to preserve the right to vote (and overturn the ruling of the 5th Circuit).
Remember back to the widder Carnahan of Missouri. She was never elected. She was appointed to office after her husband was killed in a plane crash. Her husband remained on the ballot and as of the date of the election, he failed the residency requirements. The late governor Carnahan did not reside in the state thus was ineliglble for the office sought.
The votes he received should have been wasted votes. But Attorney General John Ashcroft decided not to to resist the unconstitutional democrat power grab and the wife took office.
The bad behavior continued with the withdrawl of the corrupt Toricelli in New Jersey. And again Republicans did not press the case into federal court.
The sad fact remains is that as long as Republicans continue to play nice with democrats, they will continue to to be rolled.
Nope. The Dems have forced this issue, they should have to face the consequences of their stupidity. DeLay should run and the Republicans need to provide all the support they can. This provides them with a boat load of ammunition for the national stage to say "This is the result of the Democrats trying to manipulate the system to make Congressman DeLay and all Republicans look bad. Are these REALLY the people you want in charge of your government?"
After Delay wins, I'm worried the Democrats will claim he wasn't eligible after all since he had established residency in Virginia. We have to always remember what a bunch of sore losers they are.
Aren't primaries the functions of the political parties and not any government?
The Republican Party, the DemocRat Party, the Liberaltarian Party, the Communist Party, the whatever party should be able to determine who will run on their ticket according to their own rules. The election in November is the only one that "counts" and the only one that government should be involved in.