Texas Supreme Court rejects Barr's legal challenge which would have kept Obama/McCain off Nov. ballot

News Type: Event — Seeded on Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:27 PM EDT

Article Source: The Austin American-Statesman

politics, barack-obama, democrats, republicans, john-mccain, law, supreme-court, texas, bob-barr, libertarian-party, legal-news, texas-supreme-court, ballot-access

Seeded by spiffie

The Texas Supreme Court this morning rejected Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr's request that the court toss the major-party nominees off the Nov. 4 ballot in Texas. Barr argued that the candidates weren't yet nominees before a state deadline for submitting the names of nominees to the Texas Secretary of State's office.

Published to:

spiffie's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: DemGuys, Democrats, Down With Tin Horn Dictators, Election News, Law Vine, Libertarians, ObamaVine, Texvine community, The Big 2008 Election
Regions: Austin-TX

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

2.5

{"commentId":3061880,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

spiffie

Not an unexpected result. I actually think the Supreme Court's post denying the motion is hilarious. It reminds of of Foghorn Leghorn saying, "Go away, boy, ya bother me!"

{"commentId":3061880,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

5 votes

#1 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:43 PM EDT

{"commentId":3091473,"authorDomain":"Griff69"}

Griff69

Foghorn would have been more verbose...

{"commentId":3091473,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"Griff69"}

1 vote

#1.1 - Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":3063730,"authorDomain":"onlineapps"}

Andy Min

Not really unexpected, as you said.

I think John McCain just blew a huge sigh of relief, though.

{"commentId":3063730,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"onlineapps"}

2 votes

#2 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":3067017,"authorDomain":"oliveoil180"}

Tommy-542196

I agree. That suit was hopeless, but it would have been great for Obama. If everything was as Barr said, why did the Court reject the suit?

{"commentId":3067017,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"oliveoil180"}

3 votes

#3 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":3067851,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

spiffie

I think the typical Bob Barr-supporter answer would be because the court is comprised of all Republicans. They can't do that to McCain. ;-)

{"commentId":3067851,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

3 votes

#3.1 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:56 PM EDT

{"commentId":3073199,"authorDomain":"onlineapps"}

Andy Min

Honestly, even though I'm a publican, I think that might have a little bit to do with it...

{"commentId":3073199,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"onlineapps"}

2 votes

#3.2 - Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:57 AM EDT

{"commentId":3069395,"authorDomain":"hemphill"}

hemphill

I wonder if anyone will try to use that as a precedent when they break a small law.

{"commentId":3069395,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"hemphill"}

1 vote

#4 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":3069617,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

spiffie

Doubtful. In the first place, there's a perfectly reasonable reading of the law that doesn't support Barr's suit. In the second place, without reasoning to rely on, it's unlikely in the extreme that any lower court would every rule with this as a precedent.

{"commentId":3069617,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

3 votes

#4.1 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:51 PM EDT

{"commentId":3069807,"authorDomain":"hemphill"}

hemphill

I haven't run across a reading of the law yet that shows that the secretary of state wasn't in violation of their election law. I have seen a lot of people try to take the law ala carte though. On the surface this case looks very much like the texas supreme court flat refusing to uphold the law.

{"commentId":3069807,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"hemphill"}

1 vote

#4.2 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":3070114,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

spiffie

More accurately, you haven't run across a reading of the law that you agree with. Catch22 actually explained it more clearly than I've managed in 4 or 5 threads on the subject here. The problem is that 181.005 very clearly states that candidates for parties that receive a sufficient percentage of votes in the prior statewide election are entitled to have their candidates names placed on the ballot. Were it that they only qualified, that would be one thing, but the law states A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot. That's automatic qualification; that's the system Texas has been operating under since 1986.

{"commentId":3070114,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

3 votes

#4.3 - Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:29 PM EDT

{"commentId":3071824,"authorDomain":"chasing"}

Chasing

Yes, as Spiff politely points out, that "law" has been dubunked over, and over, and over. And over. Things often look one way on the surface, but in reality are something else entirely. And in this case I would suggest "surface" is code for "cursory".

{"commentId":3071824,"threadId":"365510","contentId":"1901167","authorDomain":"chasing"}

2 votes

#4.4 - Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:49 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"365510","isPrivate":false}

SPIFFIE

Backyard

Texas Supreme Court rejects Barr's legal challenge which would have kept Obama/McCain off Nov. ballot

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: