Legal DU minds, please interpret Moyers' ruling implications

[rumpel]

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, a Republican who was re-elected on the same ballot as President George W. Bush Nov. 2 but has declined to recuse himself from a suit contesting the president's election, issued a motion and procedural ruling today that denies an expedited hearing in the case and lays out the framework by which he might dismiss the case. RAW STORY acquired the ruling Wednesday afternoon.

In the ruling, displayed below, Moyer orders those contesting the election to answer two questions: (1) Whether the suit is moot because it was filed too late, and (2) Whether there is a legal significance in delaying the hearing until after Congress certifies the results of the electoral college Jan. 6, 2005.

http://rawstory.rawprint.com/1204/moyers_delay_122204.php

[gumby]

1. My dim, not legal mind sez,

that the good judge took a page out of the 2000 USSC court ruling....

delay, delay, delay.... Oh Look.... Too Late.

[rumpel]

2. If there is contest tomorrow, Moyers will have to hear the case

doesn't he?
Can he indefinitely postpone?

[PaganPreacher]

3. Unrelated.

The judge can dismiss if he wants, decide to set the case on the regular track (months to years), or expedite (months).

Congress' actions tomorrow is unrelated (Federal v. state.)

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[rumpel]

4. Would this not show the politization of the judical and add to Conyers

argument?

edited typo

[PaganPreacher]

6. I don't think so, rumpel.

Since the Supreme Court justices in Ohio are elected, they are already political. Ruling, ruling quickly, or dismissing the Arnebeck case won't change that.

But, that is the way it is in that state, and many others, because their state constitutions set it up that way. There is no way that Congress can change a state's constitution.

Remember, the challenge is limited to the question of whether the electors were selected in accordance with state laws in effect on Election Day.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[merh]

5. Isn't that where it gets murky?

Federal elections are affected by state's handling of the elections.
See pages 31 and 32 of Conyers report.

[PaganPreacher]

8. I read pp. 31 and 32.....

Can you tell me exactly what you are referring to?

I have this on 31 and 32: 31 starts, "the right of every Ohio citizen...." and 32 ends with, "Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same...."

I can't find anything specifically referring to the federal/state issue on those pages.

I see a description of the US District Court's order, which was overturned on appeal, so is moot(see page 33 for conclusion of text on 31-31.)

Watch out for those falling turkeys, merh!



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[merh]

9. LOL, I used to share a large room full of desks with other workers

and I taped off my area just like Les did. God how I miss that humor!

Isn't page 32 the section where Conyers relates Blackwell's failure to comply with the US District Court's order relative to complying with HAVA? I am on dial up at home and really can't access the report here (not and get back to you in this lifetime).

[PaganPreacher]

10. OK, I see what you are saying.

Yes, but it is written in a misleading manner. Blackwell didn't fail to comply.

Check page 33. It says, "Secretary Blackwell appealed the judge's decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court decision and authorized Mr. Blackwell's more restrictive legal interpretation." (first full paragraph).

Conyer's report works hard to make it look like Blackwell ignored a Federal court decision, when in fact he appealed it, and won on appeal.

Definitely not ammunition for a challenge!


Find the turkey, win a prize!

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[merh]

12. No, not ammunition for a challenge, but relative to my

question as to the murkiness of the jurisdiction of the issues. Yes, states hold elections, but when federal offices are involved, the congress has an obligation to see to it that the elections are honest and legitimate. imho

[PaganPreacher]

14. OK, we were talking across each other.

In this case, there is no question about jurisdiction. Nothing Congress does or says can force Moyers to make a decision, to speed up the process, or to decide against dismissing the lawsuit. All of those things are in Moyers' hands, alone.

To look at it from the other direction, Arnebeck's lawsuit won't even be a blip tomorrow, because it has not been adjudicated. At present, the lawsuit is still a collection of allegations, without evidence that has been proof-tested in court. All those lawyers up on Capitol Hill, and that lawyer in the Middle East on his post-election fact finding tour, know that.

The Conyers report has a ton of allegations that need to be cleared up. Some of the things in there are "red meat", and some are not.

Some of the allegations in the Conyers report are beyond the power of Congress or the Federal courts to address, because they are strictly matters of state law, and the Constitution specifically grants the power to select electors to the state legislatures.

Just off the top of my head, I think the matter of the number of voting machines is beyond congressional or Federal control. That is either a state or local (county election board) decision, from what I have read. Changing that will take hard work in all of our states.

I really want the "Paper Trail" voting machine legislation to get out of committee and get passed. Maybe some activist Senators and Representatives can make it happen this session.

In my opinion, there are middle-of-the-road Senators and Representatives who will be receptive to congressional hearings, and even introducing legislation to correct some of those things that Federal law can correct. Those moderates are not likely to take part in a challenge, though, because they are "moderate."

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[merh]

15. But you see, federal authorities (congress) does have the

authority to regulate and control federal elections. They have the authority to suspend revenues, not provide grant monies, etc., just as they do relative to other "state issues" (eg dui laws, speed limits).

You have overlooked the federal case filed by the glibs that K/E joined. Is that still pending?

I believe congress not only has the authority to regulate, they have an obligation when the legitimacy of the elections are in question. (Not just 2004 -- 2000 and 2002). Not only do they have an obligation, they have a personal interest. Cross the BFEE (even if a rethug) and you can lose a rigged primary or the entire election.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Altogether now....SPECIAL PROSECUTOR....Every partisan ruling

that Judge Moyers makes brings us one step closer to our goal which is a

*****Federal Special Prosecutor********

who will eventually be looking into not just the Bush-Kerry election but a whole bunch of elections including Moyers own.

So, Judge Moyers, you go right ahead and stall and hinder and be as partisan as your corrupt little heart tells you to be. Cause if it looked like we could get justice in your court, we wouldnt have to ask for justice from the feds would we?

[loudsue]

16. I wish it could be true. But getting a Special Prosecutor is still having

to go through the republicans. If the Dems could get one all by themselves, we'd already have a bunch of neocons in jail, from the past 4 years.

I can't see the republikkklansmen allowing that to happen.

:kick::kick:

[IndyPriest]

11. Pretty sure this is OLD news.

I know the website says it just acquired the news. No idea what that means. But I'm sure this is at least three weeks old.

[euler]

13. I think your right.

This happenned already. Old news.