MyDD :: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, [Update x1]

Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, [Update x1]

by nextgen, Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST

A FL Judge tossed out the civil rights challenge to DNC rules.

11:00 AM

The Judge said, (paraphrasing not quote) it's like baseball everyone wants to play short stop but they can't. Everyone wants to go first but the DNC has every right to determine their process. The solution of this issue is clearly a political issue not a judicial issue.

Will update with more info later.

Update-1 From CNN; http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/florida-court-throws-out-dnc-suit/

Judge Richard Lazarra sided with the party, saying political parties have the right to make their own rules

Just an additional note, the term Breaking up top is without exclamation points because I was describing the story which is "breaking" and lacking detail not *BREAKING!!!!*

Tags: Florida, DNC, Ruling, Civil Rights (all tags)

Permalink :: 75 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Yep...
Did he go on to say...
"No matter what Sen. Clinton claims, Florida is not Zimbabwe"?

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 2)

Sounds like he followed the other Florida federal judge who addressed this very same question.

You can find that opinion here.

I imagine this ruling will borrow heavily from it. Anyone who knows election law and has been following this realizes it was just a publicity stunt to help create pressure in advance of the May 31 meeting.

by JJE on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST

that's not charitable... (none / 0)

i strongly disagree that it was a publicity stunt. people who don't live in florida don't seem to grasp just how deceived all party activists feel about what happened. i will reiterate (again) that the party acted under the strong belief that whatever action they took would not be punished.

the dnc -- rightfully, i think -- has acted from just the opposite p.o.v. they wanted to get across their stance that florida (and michigan) would indeed be punished and that it would hurt.

the florida democratic party hitched it's wagon to hillary's star and they don't know what to do now. i'm being dead serious.

there are very few florida party leaders who want to see florida's delegation halved. so they are going to extraordinary lengths to achieve their goal. one florida delegate (out of the western end of the i-4 corridor) who is currently pledged to hillary discussed their (the delegation's) frustration with this with me. they absolutely feel deceived, victimized. but it was admitted to me that the belief that this would have been resolved if hillary had been willing to negotiate with the obama campaign...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

Since they were told they would be punished why did they think that they wouldn't be punished?

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

Because Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes TOLD them they wouldn't be punished. wink-wink

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

Heh. If that's so that's unfortunate since those two aren't exactly the most honest or ethical people.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thurmond claims she got it from hillary herself... (none / 0)

i don't think it was a wink-wink, nod-nod, either...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, well that's a new one. (none / 0)

If that's the case, then I would expect this place to rise up in outrage at Clinton's deceitful conduct and urge her to leave the race . . .

::crickets::

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (2.00 / 1)

This is ridiculous. Why didn't they think they would be punished? The DNC made it clear that they would.

I think that your 'friends' aren't living in Florida, so much as the great state of Denial...

by Lawyerish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

if hillary had been the nominee, i don't think there's any question that florida's delegates would have been seated as is. i'm sorry, but the party leaders in florida are not new to the scene, and it may take a while for many if not most of them to adjust to a democratic party where the word of a clinton can't be relied upon...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

well seeing as all your hopes are tied to supporting a manuver by the FL GOP and that no voter had a chance to vote on the issue, you might just want to step back from being a total jerk. this time...

by zerosumgame on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (2.00 / 1)

The Florida Dems voted overwhelmingly on the motion to move up the primary. I believe there were two opposing votes. Also, they made no serious attempt to rectify the situation.

by TheSilverMonkey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

such shallow knowledge. It was a repuke bill tied to getting actual tracable voting machines for this coming GE, and the dems were trying to compromise, but it did not happen. Once again, the VOTERS there that you despise so heartily did not get a chance to vote on it. Sorry to see the chance you all have of not being jerks was passed up by you.

by zerosumgame on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

Yes, indeed, my knowledge is soooo shallow about the process. Why, look here just how hard State Senator Geller is fighting to compromise with the Florida GOP:

How wrong of me to ever question. And here's a timeline of how they were looking at an alternative primary before just thumbing their nose completely at the DNC on August 4th:

http://www.mrsuper.org/2008/05/florida-m ichiga.html

by TheSilverMonkey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

The FL Dems stood side by side with the Republicans and voted to move the date; and then they laughed about the DNC sanctions afterwards. On tape. They can go stuff themselves for all I care.

And FL voters aren't stupid. If they were going to vote Dem this Fall before, the vast majority of them will vote Dem this Fall now.

by Lawyerish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

you seem like such a bitter person, and not very up on the law for someone who's screen name suggests otherwise. what about the other 4 states that did the same?

by zerosumgame on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (none / 0)

The other 4 states were given a waiver by the DNC, who wanted to ensure that smaller states were first; they are cheaper and easier for smaller candidates to compete in.

See, there are REASONS why things were done the way they were done, not just some sort of random chance. And Clinton's campaign understood this and signed off on it, hell, the folks who run her campaign (Ickes and McCauliffe) MADE the punishment happen.

This isn't a legal matter. You may have noticed that the 2nd lawsuit in a row about this matter has been rejected. You ought to get facts like that right, before attempting to criticize others; that way you won't look as stupid again.

by Lawyerish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this claim had already been rejected (2.00 / 1)

That's what makes it a publicity stunt, or, if you want to be charitable, judge shopping. They knew this claim had little merit, and any lawyer worth anything would know that no judge was going to create an intra-circuit split about a hot political issue on a light-speed time frame.

by JJE on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well I live in Florida . . . (2.00 / 1)

and there is no reason for any party activist to feel deceived about this.

For criminy's sake, Karen Thruman was in tears over this. . . she and everyone else knew that there would be punishment. It was repeatedly made clear both within party circles and in the media that the delegation would not be seated until there was a nominee.

Problem was, most of them thought Hillary was going to win in a cakewalk, so they figured they would be safe playing chicken with the DNC.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I live in Florida . . . (none / 0)

keep on cheer-leading for the GOP

by zerosumgame on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I live in Florida . . . (none / 0)

Non sequiter much?

Straight ticket Dem here. Not going to get any McCain points for this effort asshole.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uh... (none / 0)

i don't know about you, but i don't exactly go around telling people how they should feel. it's not like emotions are rational.

you're right about thurmond. but i'd argue that she didn't know that there would be a punishment. since when has the dnc stood up to the clintons? how could she have expected that democrats would reject hillary's candidacy? i just don't see thurmond coming to that realization...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uh... (none / 0)

They can feel however they wish (and they don't ALL feel that way as the commenter posits -- I've spoken to some who do and some who don't).

But there is no objective basis upon which that feeling could be based. It was an open process. If they chose not to believe what they were being told, they were deceived by themselves.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uh... (none / 0)

well, you've obviously spoken to more of the florida delegation than i have recently! i can only claim to have spoken to three people who are (at this point) members of the florida delegation to the democratic convention. i am taking the word of an anguished delegate when he claims that they all feel this way. but if you've spoken to more than i have, i will gladly cede to your superior knowledge of how the florida delegation feels...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uh... (none / 0)

You didn't say members of the Florida delegation. You said "all party activists."

I have not spoken to any member of the delegation. I'm sure many of them felt deceived because the FDP no doubt assured them they would be seated.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm sorry you misunderstood what i was saying... (none / 0)

here's the quote i assumed you were responding to:

"there are very few florida party leaders who want to see florida's delegation halved. so they are going to extraordinary lengths to achieve their goal. one florida delegate (out of the western end of the i-4 corridor) who is currently pledged to hillary discussed their (the delegation's) frustration with this with me. they absolutely feel deceived, victimized."

i can't find where i said "all party activists" (which doesn't exactly sound like something i'd say). i was very careful to convey (i thought) the impression that it was the top leadership of the florida democratic party that is stunned by this development...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's not charitable... (2.00 / 1)

They were told in advance they would be punished. Where's the victimization, where's the deception? I certainly don't understand your comment. Name names, so we can see who this pinhead delegate was that wasn't paying attention, when the state was told this. The last thing we need in this state of Florida is another politician falling asleep at the switch. And it sure sounds like this delegate did.

John McCain: Everyones nowhere man

by johnny sexton on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for your perspective... (none / 0)

you know, contrary to popular belief, florida's democrats are not idiots...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for your perspective... (none / 0)

Exactly, they knew exactly what the deal was. I'm one of them.

Thus, the protestations of deception ring hollow.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Party leaders here in FL are idiots (none / 0)

our Dem party is a complete disaster. It makes me wonder why people want to rely on FL in a general election when our Dem infrastructure is so horrid.

Hopefully Karen Thurman gets kicked to the curb after all this.

by Builderman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'd agree... (none / 0)

but i just got through saying florida's democrats are not idiots. still, i'm not a fan of the leaders the party has installed in the last decade...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

I skimmed the earlier opinion, and based on what the diarist has said, looks like this new ruling is actually based on very different legal reasoning from the first ruling. Again, just based on what diarist has said, it looks like the second district court judge dismissed the lawsuit on justiciability or jurisdictional grounds. It seems that the district court concluded that the issue is one that the courts should not get involved in because it involves a purely political question that is not appropriate for judicial review.

by ProfessorReo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (none / 0)

Professor,

I reported only on the news reports, once the actual ruling comes out I will update this post.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where are you getting that? (none / 0)

There's no indication that this opinion relied on the political questions doctrine. I'd be shocked if it did, since holding that the doctrine bars VRA challenges would essentially nullify the VRA.

I'm fairly confident that Lazarra agreed with Hinkle that:

It seems unlikely that either the DNC delegate selection rules or the DNC's decisions whether to seat or exclude delegates are subject to the Act at all. Cf. LaRouche v. Fowler, 77 F.Supp.2d 80 (D.D.C.1999) (three-judge court) (holding that national party's internal rules need not be precleared under Voting Rights Act § 5). And if the Act applied at all, it of course would be constrained by the party's First Amendment association rights.

That is from Nelson v. Dean, 528 F.Supp.2d 1271, 82.

I imagine that is what the quote in the diary means.

by JJE on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules (2.00 / 3)

Good. He's not smoking rock. He made the obviously correct legal conclusion that a private entity may decide how, if at all, it apportions delegates.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST

Must have been a male judge (none / 0)

all men have a thing against Hillary.

/snark

by notme54 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST

Re: Must have been a male judge (none / 0)

No, this is 100% Obama's fault

As was the RFK gaffe.

OBAMA NEEDS to stop fanning the flames!

/snark

http://www.truepat.org/

by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The RFK gaffe, LMFAO at your dirty propaganda nt (none / 0)

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RFK gaffe, LMFAO at your dirty propaganda (none / 0)

I remember McCauliffe saying that, what dirty propaganda do you speak of, his?

http://www.truepat.org/

by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That a statement that campaigns sometimes go into (none / 0)

June is really a statement about assasination.

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0)

one has to ask why she brought up the assasination to make a point about length of campaign. At best it was insensative.

Also, it is false on the face of it, the primary season started in March of 1968. So June then woul be April now.

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To your first point... (none / 0)

one does not HAVE TO ask why she brought up the assasination of RFK. One WANTS to ask why she brought up the assasination, in order to engage in character assasination against her.

To your second point, that is a valid distinction, which I would be required in investigate to respond to. It is a distinction that is worthy of discussion. However, it is not a distinction that justifies distorting what was said and using the distortion to assasinate the character of a fine Democrat in Hillary Clinton, for cheap political gain, which brings us back to your first point.

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Hasn't this always been an internal party issue? The civil rights aspect of the issue, at least as I understand it, applies to individual access to the ballot, which everyone had. It's the Democratic Party that has chosen not to acknowledge the results of those elections, making it by definition an internal party matter. A private entity need recognize those votes in whatever matter they want.

This is not a civil rights issue, so the judge was right to throw it out.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST

yes, but... (none / 0)

please don't forget that the civil rights legislation concerning this must apply to primaries. most of the south endured a single viable political party in the 1960s, and the civil rights and voting rights bills covered the elections that mattered -- iow, the primaries...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, but... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying it doesn't apply to the primaries; I'm saying it applies to voter access to the ballot, regardless of primary or general status of the election. The DNC, as a private entity, can recognize those elections in whatever ways it wants to choose its nominee. The civil rights requirement here has already been satisfied.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Indeed. But as I said before, filing a lawsuit is often more about the publicity than the outcome. The corollary to this is that the dismissal of said lawsuit gets far less publicity than the filing.

So if you're Florida Democrats, who horribly misplayed the situation and lost an epic game of chicken to the DNC, you try to cover your ass by filing a lawsuit. You get at least a day's worth of publicity and microphone time, in which you bash the DNC and righteously stick up for the rights of the voters you screwed. And then once the furor dies down a little and the lawsuit gets dumped, you can at least say, "Hey, we tried!"

Politics is stagecraft.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i actually agree with this... (2.00 / 1)

it wasn't a publicity stunt per se, but...

one of the things i've gotten out of the last 5 days is that the (florida) party feels the need to show that it is doing everything it can to "protect it's voters." the florida democratic party is not in such good shape that it can withstand this kind of national attention.

i have the impression that the real point behind this suit was to see that florida's delegation is provided with a half-vote per delegate so that minority delegates are not weeded out by reducing the delegation...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (2.00 / 1)

How can there be a civil rights issue if the FL Democratic party has a closed primary, and excludes members of other political parties in their primary? I don't see where the right to vote comes in here.

by Brad G on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm not arguing their case... (none / 0)

i'm supporting their right to make it. there are a lot of issues here and we're trying to resolve them in a very contentious environment...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On that, we agree (none / 0)

Of course Rep. Alcee Hastings, a former judge, and the FL Democratic Party should have a right to file a lawsuit. It's just this one was a substantial waste of taxpayer dollars.

by Brad G on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Another sane decision by a court!

What is this country coming to???

by rickNTX on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

"Actvist Judges Actively Judging" S. Colbert

Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!

by RockvilleLiberal2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

There was no basis for the lawsuit, so I'm not surprised. I wonder if there's a potential for disciplining the attorneys involved - lawyers are not supposed to engage in sham litigation.

by rfahey22 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST

the Rule 11 standard is quite high (none / 0)

There won't be sanctions here. If there's a any chance that the court might agree with you, however remote, then the lawsuit won't be considered frivolous.

by JJE on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the Rule 11 standard is quite high (none / 0)

I was thinking more along the lines of a complaint to the bar. Rule 11 sanctions would probably be a bad PR move.

by rfahey22 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the Rule 11 standard is quite high (2.00 / 1)

I wouldn't want the bar to discourage attorneys from taking political cases, though. Even ones as dumb as thus.

by JJE on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (none / 0)

If they sue again, there might be grounds. I think this one passes since you could argue that they were testing a different court system (I think).

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by Lost Thought on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (none / 0)

is a mechanism for sanctioning lawyers for bringing "frivolous" or sham lawsuits. I don't think the DNC filed a Rule 11 motion in this case.

by ProfessorReo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah that's what the judge said the 1st time they (2.00 / 2)

sued. Not sure why they thought it would be different this time. I'm actually pretty sure they didn't think it would be different and this was just another divisive stunt.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (none / 0)

This is not an election to public office. It is a party nominee selection. No disenfranchisement! Go home HRC - wherever that is.

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (none / 0)

OK so the petty suit was thrown out. SHOCK!

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:16 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

This is exactly what was predicted last week by people who know something about law and civil rights.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST

Re: Well, duh (none / 0)

FL has closed primaries. It seems to me that's its a pretty hard case to make that people's civil rights were violated when the state excludes members of other political parties in their primaries.

by Brad G on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

It is a pattern that has played out a number of times this political season. I can think of two examples where lawsuits have been filed, and dismissed as the courts feel they have no jurisdiction over the internal matters of a political party in these types of cases.

by notedgeways on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Now, this is tacky:

[From The Page}

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Member Tina Flournoy, senior adviser Ickes and communications director Wolfson hold morning media call with reporters outlining the logistics of Saturday's meeting.

A member of the committee making the decision made a conference call with top campaign officials from one party? I guess we can't expect an unbiased consideration of the arguments from her.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Yeah that's has the appearance of impropriety. Let's see how she votes.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (none / 0)

Rumor has it that the judge was under Obama's spell and ruled in his favor as part of the huge cover up HRC's camp talks about all the time. Life is so unfair!

/snark

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, (2.00 / 1)

Judicial activism gone wild!

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:01:47 PM EST

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, [Upd (2.00 / 1)

This sounds right, but gosh, I wish I could get rulings on my cases this quickly.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST

can't you get an expedited ruling? (none / 0)

isn't that what happened here?

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shouldn't FL have known this? (2.00 / 1)

After all, their primaries are closed. I don't see where the fundamental right to vote is at issue here.

by Brad G on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:51 PM EST

Who should really be sued (none / 0)

I still view this as a case where individual voters may have a case against the State of FL, as it was that entity that knowingly violated the rules, therefore invalidated/diminishing the FL voters choice in the primary.

An analogy I like to make is, if a State held it's GE vote on the day after the national GE vote those voters would not have their vote count, even though those voters had little to do with the decision. It would be a clear cut violation of the law on the State's part. The States of FL and MI are at fault in this case, and doubly so as they failed to enact a remedy even though they had time to do so. So, the voters of those States should file suit against them for knowingly violating rules that clearly said they would be punished at minimum of 1/2 their delegation. In addition, in an ideal world those responsible would be voted out of office, or even better, recalled.

by notedgeways on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST

Kudos! (none / 0)

That is a really good way of illustrating the problem. Though I doubt some people will refuse to accept it

I really want this primary season to be over.

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Problem is that the States have no obligation (none / 0)

to follow the dictates of private political organizations. It was the Florida Democratic Party who failed to present an alternate delegate selection plan compliant with DNC rules.

Perhaps there's a cause of action to be had against the FDP, but I'm unsure what the remedy would be.

by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking- FL Judge Rules In Favor Of DNC, [Upd (none / 0)

This is great news for Hillary!

http://hillaryis404.org

by baghdadjoe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.