Isn't there an upper limit to the deception faux conservatives will be granted at FR any more, Jim? This poster is one of several who claim to be conservatives yet tout this crap that it is proper to only allow legal standing only to those strong enough to threaten the system ... like a bonefide candidate such as Keyes is not allowed to have a fair election because he could not possibly get enough polling data electoral votes to be elected! That is just plain sick, and to continue to protect such crap feeders pretending to be conservatives at FR is becoming too disgusting to continue enduring.
Is repeating Scalia and Roberts’ theories on standing not conservative enough for you?
"This poster", as you put it, is one of the dozens of practicing attorneys that have tried - to the best of their ability - to provide some insight into the way the law actually works, and not the way so many here seem to wish the law to work.
And when he does, people like you attack him personally and viciously - questioning his conservative bona fides and political intentions.
Let me be clear, it is NOT CONSERVATIVE to want a judge to set aside the Constitution, the US Code and countless principles of American jurisprudence, so that he or she may find in a manner that you agree with. This judge, like all the other judges in these cases, have followed the law to the letter. Not one has been overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court hasn't found any of these cases to be compelling enough to even hear.
That should tell you something. And, if it doesn't, then you are beyond listening to reason.
LL - correct me if I’m wrong on what you were stating, please. You and I don’t agree on this issue very often at ALL, but I think I understand what you are getting at here, and I don’t think the polling data is what you meant, is it?
******
Actually as far as any candidate with their name on enough ballots to POSSIBLY win would make sense, would it not? If the courts uphold the “only candidates have standing” premise, then LL would be right that the courts would most likely make the distinction as well that only candidates with their name on the ballot in enough states to win in the Electoral College would have standing...
I’m not saying I agree that these are the only people who SHOULD have standing on this issue, or that there are not perhaps other avenues to persue... Just that if we are following the judges’ commentary in their decisions on these cases, this IS what we are left with. And, we’re not talking about a “chance of winning based on polling”, we’re talking about being on enough state ballots (regardless of polling results in those states) to have a chance of winning.
IOW, the Libertarian (or Green, or Constitution Party, etc...) Candidate would have standing if they get ballot access in 2012 in enough states to be a viable candidate.
Now, on a STATE level, this might be different. I would think in some states the issue could be brought before the state courts regarding proof of eligibility if it cannot be satisfied by the Sec’y of State who certifies the names on the ballots themselves. Different states have different laws regarding major and minor parties and such, so there may be an opportunity in one state for a candidate that is not available in another state.
Again, I don’t think this is our ONLY option left at this point... Just that I don’t think LL was saying what you are thinking he’s saying in this one case. :)
Is there an upper limit to the amount of personal abuse we are expected to take from MHGinTN and a few others?
Here, once again, he engages in malicious personal attacks against someone *for simply explaining the law*, law that was confirmed in the federal judge's ruling. But MHGinTN doesn't want to hear it so it doesn't matter. He feels the right to start abusing fellow freepers.
This has gone on with him over and over and over for months. Where's the upper limit on that?