Texas GOP asks Scalia to block DeLay ruling

[kpete]

Texas GOP asks Scalia to block ruling


WASHINGTON - Texas Republicans asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday to block an appeals court ruling that says the name of indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay must appear on the November ballot.

Democrats are suing to keep DeLay on the ballot, with the former lawmaker's legal troubles becoming a symbol for claims of Republican corruption.

DeLay won a March primary before resigning June 9 from Congress.

Texas Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser requested a delay of the appeals court ruling until Republicans can formally ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

more at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_el_ho/scotus_delay_s_replacement
via:

[blogslut]

1. Let's hope crazy Antonin

takes his sweet time.

[Richard Steele]

2. Well, we all knew this was coming. The LAW means nothing to the GOP.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Which is why they were so desperate to pack the Court

I sincerely hope the Democrat quislings who refused to block *'s unsuitable appointments are having nightmares right about now.

[Libstery]

19. Sorry for the repost of my question

I know I'm new so I'm suspect and will probably get flamed for asking this...

But my conservative friend (yes I do have some conservative friends as I love to debate) said he expects the courts to not allow Delay to drop as that's the law. And then asked me why did the courts allow Lautenberg to replace Toricelli in NJ? Basically he's saying the law will be followed and asking to be dropped isn't the bad part...it's finding a judge to allow it. So he says the democrats are the example of ignoring the law.

I suspect because it was a state court, but nevertheless why is it OK for one to switch and not the other? Help me with a good answer because he's really sticking it to me on this.

[Bucky]

21. To quote Plato: "Exactamundo." The Texas GOP passed a law about that

Then the state supreme court explicitly ruled on that law, stating that a Democrat legislative candidate who dropped out of the race after winning the nomination could not be replaced by the party on the ballot. He was free to drop out, but the party could not put up a new name after the primary has been held. There are some exceptions to that rule, such as if the person running for office had to leave the state because of his job.

That's what was behind the fiction that DeLay cooked up when he resigned, saying he was going to move to Maryland and start working as a lobbyist. The state court clearly saw this as a ruse to skirt around the law--DeLay didn't have to leave the state for his job, he was quitting his job in order to take a new job and just so happened to pick one that would exploit the loophole in the state law. DeLay intentionally waited until after the primary season was over with before announcing that he would resign, presumedly because DeLay didn't particularly like any of his opponents on the March ballot and wanted to see one of his friends nominated in his stead.

It's a sleazy way to end a sleazy career.

[Richard Steele]

27. Well, I'm certainly not an EXPERT on these things...

...and I'm not at all familiar with the NJ case, so I
really can't help much.

But you might want to remind your friend that
Delay's case wasn't a case of simply "ignoring"
the law, it was a very clear case of deliberately BREAKING it.

This was not some minor technical issue;
2 seperate courts have found that
Delay created a PHONEY Virginia 'residency' for
the sole purpose of perpetrating a fraud upon
the voters of his Texas district.

I'm sure others here can be more help than I have been;
stick around and you'll find them.

And, BTW: Welcome to DU! :hi:

Edit: Here's a thread that you might find more useful:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1841358

[newyawker99]

35. HI Libstery!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rodeodance]

3. I try not to be agast at things such at his but each time I am.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

5. I would bet my last dollar that it is a done deal. The Constitution

is just a suggest to that neocon asswipe. There is nothing these bunch of whacked out jaysus freaks won't do to push their agenda. And their agenda is to destroy America.

Betcha Scalia does it. Betcha.

[AndyA]

4. Isn't the Supreme Court out until October? What is the likelihood of this

being brought before them in time for the elections? That is, unless someone pulls some strings. That being the case, that would be a MAJOR red flag going into the election!

[myrna minx]

6. So the Texas GOP is treating Scalia as Santa with their wish list?

:puke:

[gratuitous]

10. I'd guess Texas is in Scalia's assigned area

Every Supreme Court Justice is assigned areas of the country for emergency petitions to the Supreme Court. Fat Tony handles the petitions from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.

[myrna minx]

13. Ah-I didn't realize that.

Thanks for the info. :hi:

[Synnical]

28. Yeah, the headline is misleading

And the article has been edited.

Texas Republicans asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block an appeals court ruling that says the name of indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay must appear on the November ballot.

and

The case was routed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who handles appeals from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[pbartch]

7. RECOMMEND THIS NOTE!!!!!

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apscotusdelaysreplacement&sid=37138469&mid=1&um=50&.sig=TuULLGGdEP48mzCI3jkPRQ--

Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Email this Posting | Report Abuse
GOP TURNS TO SCALIA; THEIR INSIDE MAN
by: iblockevery1 08/07/06 02:50 pm
Msg: 1 of 13
12 recommendations

that POS should be removed from the bench too.

[neverforget]

8. Will Delay suffer "irreparable harm" if he's put on the ballot?

Scalia did it for Bush to stop the vote in Florida, why not help another fellow Republican in trouble? :shrug:

[MrCoffee]

9. Not Gonna Happen

There's no way Scalia can justify issuing an injunction against the 5th Circuit ruling in TDP v. Benkiser. There's absolutely no likelihood that Benkiser will succeed on the merits.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

11. Mr Coffee - you are making a fatal error in your logic -

you are actually using logic. Merits, schmerits. These guys aren't dealing with rules of law, the Constitution, etc. These people, in their minds, are not mere mortals so they can make up the rules as they go along.

[Richard Steele]

16. "Justification" and "merits" are not considerations anymore.

I refer you to the case of Bush v. Gore.

I agree that the case has no merit, but 'merit' has very
little to do with their chances of getting Fat Tony
to grant their wish.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Hey Tom. Get the kneepads back out. Tony says he'll cut a deal

if you, well, you know.....................

[MrCoffee]

15. There's a mental picture that's gonna linger...

So thanks for that. Ugh.

[B Calm]

17. Whiny ass republicans!! Follow the damn law on the books! So now

you want to rewrite the laws!

[Czolgosz]

18. FYI: Although the issue is often misreported, the Texas Democratic Party

did not sue to keep Tom DeLay on the ballot, and neither Judge Sam Sparks's opinion nor the Fifth Circuit opinion requires Tom DeLay to stay on the ballot.

The suit was to prevent the Republican Party of Texas from violating the Constitution and the Texas Election Code by taking the candidate selection process away from the primary voters and giving the voters' right and authority to a far-right-wing insider group within the Republican Party of Texas.

[B Calm]

20. Didn't stop Yahoo from reporting a lie that the democrats sued!

[Czolgosz]

25. Yahoo is not the only news organization that has misreported this issue.

[MrCoffee]

22. If you wanna be all technical about it...

Do you have a link to the district court opinion? I've got the 5th circuit, but not the dist. court.

[Czolgosz]

24. Here is a link to Judge Sparks's well-reasoned opinion, which expressly

confirms that DeLay may withdraw if he wishes but that he cannot be replaced on the ballot with a hand-picked stooge without violating Texas law and that the Republicans' contrary argument about Delay's residency is simply unconstitutional: http://www.lonestarproject.net/files/sparks.pdf

[MrCoffee]

26. Love me some Qualifications Clause!!

Those sneaky activist Founders!!!

[Czolgosz]

29. "we fail to see how removing DeLay from the ballot would protect the voter

inasmuch as it was the voters themselves who selected DeLay as the Republican candidate for the general election."

from the Fifth Circuit opinion

[MrCoffee]

30. I'm reading the district court opinion now

Thanks for the link! It reminds me of how excited we were when we read Judge Carr's opinion in Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Ken Blackwell.

[Czolgosz]

31. The district court opinion is even better than the Fifth Circuit opinion.

Highlights from the district court opinion:

"Were the Court to adopt the Defendant's position, either political party could and would be able to change candidates after the primary election and before the general election simply by an administrative declaration of ineligibility by the party chair based on a candidate's "move" to another state. This would be a serious abuse of the election system and a fraud on the voters, which the Court will not condone."

"Political acumen, strategy, and manufactured evidence, even combined with sound policy in mind, cannot override the Constitution. The evidence presented in this case provides no basis for Benkiser’s declaration that Tom DeLay was not eligible to remain the nominee of the republican Party under state or federal law… there is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone on November 7, 2006, the only day that matters under the Qualification Clause of the United States Constitution. DeLay himself testified that he does not know what will happen with his life in November, stating only that he plans to continue living in Virginia "indefinitely.'"

"The Constitution 'nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes' of infringing on constitutional protections."

[MrCoffee]

32. Who is this brilliant district court judge???

"Political acumen, strategy, and manufactured evidence, even combined with a sound policy in mind, cannot override the Constitution."

I LOVE IT!!!!

[Czolgosz]

33. Republican appointee Judge Sam Sparks, Republicans are different in Austin

[tandot]

23. I thought they hate activist judges?

Oh, I see, they love activist judges if they rule in their favor. Republican hypocrites.

[MrCoffee]

34. MOTION DENIED

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14231596/