Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
He was willing to go - they stopped his orders.
You have to read the entire section! You are quoting the question that he is setting up, but you are portraying it as the answer. Try reading your part and then the following paragraphs...which contain the Judge's opinion about the question that he set up.
Actually it was, in the hearing held in Judge Carter's court on July 13.
How so?
It was the answer. The judge ruled that Keyes had no standing to sue.
Try reading your part and then the following paragraphs...which contain the Judge's opinion about the question that he set up.
I did. And in the following paragraphs Judge Carter states that candidate are the only ones who potentially satisfy the injury in fact requirement. There is nothing new in that, other cases have made the same finding. But he is also clear, in his comments prior to and after dismissing Keyes, that the definition of which candidates can establish standing is not all encompassing. He indicates that any write-in candidate does not. Obviously Keyes did not, due to the sheer improbability of his winning. Judge Carter basically leaves the question of which candidates qualify for standing undefined and turns to the question of whether the Court can provide redress for whatever candidate can show injury in fact. And it that Judge Carter found that the court could not.
thanks for the concise reply....given the current state of congress....this issue is effectively dead....amazing...
= = =
In addition, Defendants’ arguments raise obvious slippery slope objections.(All of your quotes excluded this KEY first sentence. Your purposeful exclusion of this first sentence is the reason why I'm calling you disingenuous. Everything that you've claimed are against Keyes are actually arguments against the slippery slope of excluding third party candidates. The paragraph has an entirely different meaning if you exclude this first sentence, as you have done several times.) Would a candidate such as Ross Perot, who received nearly twenty percent of the popular vote but no electoral college votes in the 1992 election, have a sufficiently strong chance of winning the election to establish standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications? At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot.
The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications(I don't know how to make this any clearer. This immediately addresses the slippery slope points that the Judge discussed in the previous paragraph. You have to be dense as a rock to read this sentence and still argue that Keyes didn't have standing on the basis that he was a third party candidate), while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election. Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment that Plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference. (The Judge just finished ripped apart the Defense's point that third party candidates don't have standing. Do you need further proof? The Judge continues: ) This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results.
It wasa kangeroo court. The outcome in all cases is predictable. All the obama regime is doing is playing for time.
The powers that put obama in office already knew all there was to know about him, down to the brand and color of toilet paper he uses before they annointed him.
It is my personal belief and opinion that he was not, at least according to the Constitution, qualified to hold office.
But, the powers that own and hold title to each member of Congress and rule behind the scenes wanted him to be president. And that is how it will stay.
Your question was:
“Is it more important to YOU as to looking good in the eyes of the SRM, or to uphold and defending the Constitution, I’m just asking a simple question???”
My response is still how is misrepresenting a case and the actions of the court, behaving unprofessionally and failing to file proper documents in a timely manner or to follow the rules for proper service, etc... helping to uphold and defend the Constitution?
If I thought her actions were actually helping to do so, I would support her every step of the way. But quite simply, since it isn’t helping uphold and defend the Constitution the fact that it also makes all conservatives who oppose Obama look bad is a legitimate concern.
You guys see fascism behind every tree.
How did my response indicate anything so extreme?
I did not say there was a list.
I asked when you are leaving.
Then you replied with: “Who wants to know?” Which was odd, because I was the one who asked.
No list that I’m aware of.
One reason I ask is because I don’t think you’re going anywhere. I think you’ll stick around and gripe about needing to leave.
It helps if you don’t adopt the mindset that ‘anyone who disagrees with me is my enemy!’ on certain topics.
MTD = Modern Tool & Die, inc. ??
Mmmm... Nope.
You have your facts wrong.
But, I can make that point without needing to insult you or.
How ‘bout that. Rather novel idea, eh?
“MTD = Modern Tool & Die, inc. ??”
Ha! Good one.
MTD = Motion To Dismiss.
These threads have included some jargon lately, haven’t they?
Fantastic post, one of the best I’ve seen on this subject.
I hope the people who are throwing tantrums over the decision read this closely.
Thanks.
These threads have included some jargon lately, haven’t they?
Yes, they are. It's like the federal government has taken over and is using it's creative acronym capabilities to fool those of us that are not "in the know".
It's just as bad with the video threads - many of us peek into FR from computers that don't allow access to YouTube or other video sites, and yet, we get a ton of threads lately that say "you've got to see this" with a link to a video but no verbal description as to the contents of the video.
So then, who are you? We see the screen name, El Sordo, but no actual identity, but you said there were ‘probably’ lots more who share your query. So then, what is your name that you can speak for many at FR? And just how important is it to you that I leave this forum, I in particular among all the freepers who have in the last ten years been a regular monetary supporter of this website?
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.