6 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Monday, Jan. 14, 2008 | 5:01 p.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
The lawsuit seeking to dismantle the nine at-large caucus sites because they would give improper weight to Culinary workers remained in limbo this afternoon.
Although the complaint was filed on Friday, the plaintiffs have still needed to file an emergency motion such as a temporary restraining order to get the matter heard swiftly in U.S. District Court, according to state Democratic Party officials.
Nothing had been scheduled so far late this afternoon, although the filing could occur electronically as late as midnight.
But nothing, it seems, will be acted on until tomorrow.
If there's any reason why the Clintons should just go away, it's the fact that they're causing supporters to sell their souls, just to win an election.
1. They think it is somehow appropriate for the Clinton folks to try to change the rules of the game - in the middle of the game. But cry foul when Republicans do the same thing in California.
2. They want election integrity, especially to make sure the GOP does not cheat in November. But if it's Hillary who won by machine ballots and Obama by hand-counted ballots, let's not recount the votes and Dennis Kucinich is crazy.
3. They villainize George Bush for the war in Iraq, but forgive Hillary for authorizing the same war with her conscience - even if she didn't even bother to apologize or shed a tear for the 4,000 dead Americans and many more dead Iraqi civilians.
4. Clinton tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa and then courted them in NH. Bill courted white votes in NH, calling Obama a 'fairy-tale'. He's now courting black votes in SC, praising Obama. As for the Nevada caucus, since there are no machines to manipulate and rig it, the only way is to disenfranchise some people.
If you stop supporting the Clintons for a moment, you'd be surprised at how better you see the world.
Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
In the Iowa caucus, they tried to disenfranchise student voters and failed. The only election where the Clintons managed to eke out a 2-point victory and zero delegate advantage has been questioned and will undergo a recount. In this Nevada caucus that cannot be rigged, they're trying to disenfranchise casino workers by changing the rule of the game in the middle of the game and by pitting blacks against Hispanics.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Triang...
Clinton pivoting her campaign on Latino racism:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinto...
If Hillary Clinton cannot win Barack Obama without cheating, why bother to nominate her?
Can we beat them? Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
This is what Jon Ralston has said about the plaintiffs in the case: "(The plaintiffs actually are mostly Edwards folks.)" So why are you blaming Clinton.
Comment Part 1:
I've been reading complex court pleadings for 30 years. I've read the Memorandum of Points and Authorities of Fact and Law, in support of the plaintiff's motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction against the holding of the at-large caucuses. My favored candidate is not going to win the Nevada Caucus, so my comments are unbiased.
The legal writing in the Memorandum is clear, convincing and generally excellent. The plaintiffs were wise to choose Kummer Kaemfer et al. Their writing is equal to the best writing which comes out of New York and LA. Clear legal writing is essential if the plaintiffs are to prevail.
The legal reasoning in the Memorandum is clear and direct, rather than muddy and tortured. The cases cited support the plaintiffs' Federal law contention, that the over weighted voting at the Strip caucuses violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal constitution.
The legal reasoning, applying the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada elections law to the facts is also clear and direct. The plaintiffs' lawyers have done a good job showing (1) the holding of the Strip caucuses is illegal under the Nevada elections law and (2) the Democratic Party made a number of significant procedural errors in publishing legal documents required to set up the whole caucus system.
A key point in the legal analysis of the facts is that the Nevada Democratic Party failed to include the Strip caucus sites on the official election maps of precincts. And Nevada election law requires that all precincts be shown. In addition, the facts proven in the pleadings show that there are at least 2 different precinct maps posted on official websites. [As a result, the dumb laymanlike argument made by the first poster, as well as by Obama & Co. that the plaintiffs should be estopped from complaining so late in the game is simply not a valid legal argument. There is no estoppel when official documents are inconsistent and unlawful in their content.]
As a result, on substance, the plaintiffs should win.
[Continued in Comment Part 2]
Comment Part 2:
But there's always a catch. It is very difficult to obtain a TRO and preliminary injunction in Federal court. Why? As a practical matter because most Federal judges are egomaniacal, ball busting, narcisistic, lazy a*holes who have no respect for the Constitution, in terms of giving aggrieved parties timely relief.
The technical reason that it's hard to get a TRO/preliminary injunction in Federal court is that the plaintiff generally has to show (1) he is likely to win at trial and (2) actual IRREPARABLE harm if the TRO/preliminary injunction is denied. That showing of actual irreparable harm requirement is usually tough to meet, because of the personalities of Federal judges. Generally, they view violation of ones constitutional rights as not being a harm which is irreparable.
I, personally, would not have filed this case in Federal court, given my view of Federal court judges and the comparative difficulty in getting TRO/preliminary injunctive relief in Federal court. In reading the pleadings in this case, it's clear that the case could have been filed in either Federal or state court.
There's a Federal legal doctrine called "Younger Colorado" and another one called "abstention" which lets Federal judges avoid making decisions if they can kick a case to a state court.
Even though both the Federal and Nevada Constitutions equal protection clauses, and the Nevada elections law, have clearly been violated by the establishment of the Strip caucuses, and violated a second time by giving the Strip caucuses grossly overweighted votes, the attempt to obtain the TRO/preliminary injunction to stop the Strip caucuses may fail for the reason set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
That DOES NOT mean that the case has no merit, or that the plaintiffs will not win at trial. It's simply that the Federal court system sucks in terms of giving citizens whose rights are violated any quick relief. That is an important point to remember, given the sound bite driven press in Las Vegas and the whiny ass laymen who know nothing about the law, like the two clowns who posed before I did.
So, if you hear a presidential candidate who claims to have been a constitutional law teacher complaining about an untimely lawsuit or an unmeritorious lawsuit or a politically motivated lawsuit, it will tell you something about the candidate's character. As a lawyer, either you revere the Constitution or you don't. And if you don't you will be no better a president that George H. W. Bush.
Old Democrat, two questions:
1. Would the Clinton camp have caused the complaint to be filed if the people who will be voting at the Strip casino caucuses, members of the Culinary Workers Union, had endorsed her?
I'll answer that one, obviously not. You can answer this next question, although I think you already have, with all of your effusive praise for how well written and skillfully argued the complaint is:
2. Do you think the complaint was written in 48 hours (the time between the Culinary endorsement and the filing of the complaint)?
The ramifications of a "no" to the second question are pretty scary. It means the Clinton camp had the complaint drawn up in advance, put it in a drawer, and only decided to file it once they lost the endorsement. How's that for revering the Constitution?
The Clintons play politics on a level that Karl Rove can only dream of in his wildest fantasies. That's why he wrote the letter to the Financial Times advising Obama on how to beat her. He fears the Clintons, and that is saying something, and it is not something good.