Posted on 11/12/2009 2:09:01 PM PST by American Dream 246
If the Republican is ahead - its a recount, if the Dem is ahead - no recount.....if the Dem loses after the recount - do ANOTHER recount....
That's the law (as I understand it by observation!)
Can someone send that to Glenn please?
...and keep doing recounts until social justice is achieved and the Democrat emerges victorious! Hallelujah!
Barf....
Therein lies the issue that most young law school students often struggle - there's frequently a great divide between the way the law should work, and how it does work.
And, it's not the fact that he conceded, which is legally irrelevant, it's the fact that he didn't contest the election, which is what allowed Pelosi to seat Owens, so quickly, in the first place.
Special elections can be problematic for this very reason. In a normal election, there time - usually a couple months - between the election, and the expiration of the incumbent's term. This allows for all manner of election contests to play themselves out. And if they aren't, then you can see events transpire similar to what happened in MN this year. The Senate refused to seat Franken because Coleman formally challenged the election.
Remember, Democrats don’t have to play by the rules.
This is, without a doubt, most accurate. Because of the looming vote on Pelosicare, the wise thing to do would have been to contest the election immediately, which would have precluded Pelosi from seating Owens.
But, election contests are VERY expensive, and Federal Campaign laws would have precluded the GOP from helping - in any way - Hoffman, because Hoffman ran as an independent. It was a comedy of errors and circumstances that led to Owens installation.
Absolutely on point. It seems that the Democrats figured out long ago that in these 50-50 elections you have to develop all sorts of tactics to push the election in your direction - they are always chattering about some kind of "fairness" doctrine which simply means its only fair when they win!
Hoffman needs something like a 4 to 1 ratio or better in the absentee vote count in order to win. That will be hard to accomplish, imo.
Spoiler? To Who? Scozzafaza? Ha!
I think, as the GOP nominee, Hoffman would have won easily.
Party identification DOES matter!
As an “indy” Hoffman needed a 3-way race.
Which FReepers were those??? I’ve seen very strong support here for Hoffman.
I am going to agree with your post 50, but add that the Hoffman campaign spokesman said “For Doug to win, we needed a three-way race,”
That's perfectly fitting considering the Clown-in-Chief that leads it.
IF Owens if NOT declared the winner and Hoffman is what you’ve stated makes no sense. The election has NOT been certified for Owens.
I wish I was wrong, but I'm not. The doctrine has been upheld in a number of cases going back to the late nineteen hundreds. Even when someone obtains their office through fraud or other impropriety, whatever they do while in office still has the same force of law if they were "legitimate". Their actions are not undone by their removal. Any laws signed or voted on would have to be repealed through additional legislation.
However, you seem a bit ignorant on the subject of politics, or a troll trying to cause trouble.
YOU are incompetent or just a jerk.
Hoffman did a FANTASTIC job, for a 3rd Party candidate.
IF Hoffman had been the GOP nominee, Hoffman would have cleaned the floor with Owens.
My guess is that you know this fact, full well, but you want to cause trouble and will not admit that fact.
So, I prefer to see you as devious, rather than stupid.
“based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted”
SNAFU. Is that what they’re calling election fraud these days?
I wonder if they know the real original meaning of the word snafu? It pretty much encapsulates vote counting in a lot of close elections where the Dems always seem to come out on top.
I would GUESS that the Certification is to be done by a Democrat, right?
Then.....it doesn't matter what the final count is.......the Democrat (Owens) is in.
Since when does the law have to make sense?
Owens was seated - and Pelosi, as the article explains, was able to seat him because of the initial vote tally margin plus the fact that the election wasn't contested by Hoffman. That can't be undone by the judiciary, even under the principle of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison.
A challenge by a House member on the House floor is now the only way to remove Owens from office. And, given the numbers in the House plus the fact that Pelosi is speaker, makes such a challenge unlikely to prevail. I don't make the law, but I do understand it, sorry.
Thank stinking RINO/DIABLOs like Newt, Dede and the NY-23 RINO GOP party hacks in the district.
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.