| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3164
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 7:51 am: | 
|
By Paul Kiel - August 7, 2006, 5:50 PM
So Tom DeLay has been forced to remain on the ballot. Will he be running?
I asked the spokeswoman for the Texas Republicans, Gretchen Essell, and this is all she would say for now: "We’re disappointed [in today's ruling], but under no circumstances will we allow the Democrats to steal this seat."
Steal? |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7666
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
Yes, as opposed to NJ and the Torrecelli/Lautenberg fiasco, Texas is being forced to run a candidate not running for office.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5413
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Well you guys were in such a principled snit over the NJ ballot switch, you ought be be saying "see, we're willing to abide by the rules even if it hurts." That would give you the ethical high ground.
You are principled, and you do want the high ground, don't you?  |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5699
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
Different states, different laws.
NJ law didn't prohibit the replacement of a candidate on the ballot.
In contrast, Texas has a specific statute, prohibiting the replacement of a nominated candidate on the ballot. The record filed with the court indicates that the law was passed because there was a lot of "candidate switching" going on in Texas, and the legislature there wanted to stop that.
So, Texas law only allows a candidate to be replaced if he's dead or really sick. New Jersey doesn't have a similar law.
Oh, and the Texas GOP made a tactical decision to have the case switched from state to Federal court. So, they can't really complain about Federal judges interfering with state issues. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5416
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
But what about states' rights? What about Federalism?
Next thing you know, the Republicans will be asking the Supreme Court to get involved in how an individual state handles its presidential electors.
Oh, nevermind. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7667
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
 |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12341
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Two points:
1. It is at least even money that DeLay will end up campaigning and winning the election.
2. Scalia turned down the SC appeal. It must have been the hardest decision he ever made.  |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5417
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
 |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 226
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Laughably weak response to Straw's bullseye. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5418
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Bullseye? Bulls**t!
In case you didn't read the news, it's the GOP that went crying to daddy Scalia on the Supreme Court? Not us. The Republicans LOST this one; the Dems WON.
This just in, Rep. Ney of Ohio quit his race yesterday, another Abramoff crony who has bit the dust. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Straws bullseye is boring. He posts it in every thread. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hoops,
Your inaccuracies are laughable. Please cruise through the current threads and see if the bullseye is posted in "every thread". Then get back to us. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page