MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Lawyers for Ron Paul Lawsuit NOTE: Having the lawsuit not up 4 debate

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[kathy88]

Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the damage this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.

Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.

That is your opinion. Most of us do not hold that same opinion. Repeating the same negativity over and over is not going to change my mind, or probably anyone else's. Start a new thread in the rant section and have at it. This is for productivity.

 

[sailingaway]

Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the damage this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.

Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.

except you have spent very little time explaining any concrete damage that is likely to stem from this that wouldn't be there anyhow.

The RNC RIGHT NOW doesn't plan to seat his delegates.

 

[libertylastchance]

So you say. And if they resent us already they will continue to resent us in Tampa, imho. Those who don't won't. And a ton of people think the party should follow its rules or they are disenfranchised as well.

The point as I see it is apparently the RNC has said there will not be five states for Ron. Obviously he has won more than five states. Hence they intend to 'make it so'. I don't see the suit making that more likely given their determination already, I do see the possibility the suit or media surrounding the suit might make changing the rules and cheating on determinations too risky for them.

NO they were NOT resentful in most cases, but certainly NOW they are. these are your neighbors in your communities.. Only the fraud should of been address with competence ..

 

[RonRules]

The Lopez case is important and highly relevant. Please look at it instead of bickering with lawdida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._Lopez_Torres

Margarita Lopez Torres received the Democratic Party nomination and was elected to the civil court for Kings County in 1992, becoming the first Latina to be elected to the court. However, she allegedly fell out of favor with local party leaders shortly thereafter for refusing to make patronage hires. As a result, she claimed that party leaders refused to support her candidacy for the Supreme Court in 1997, 2002, and 2003. Lopez Torres, along with similarly situated candidates, their supporters, and the public interest group Common Cause, brought suit in federal court against the state Board of Elections, claiming that the nomination system deprived voters and their candidates of their rights to gain access to the ballot and to associate in their parties' primaries.

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit held in favor of Lopez Torres, finding that the voters and candidates possessed a First Amendment right to a "'realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary.' New York's electoral law violated that right because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention..., and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates...."

A nearly unanimous court in "Lopez Torres" overruled the Second Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system. The Court explained that although a political party has a First Amendment associational right to choose its candidates, that right is circumscribed when the party is given a role in the state's election process. Parties that are formally involved in the election process, for example, may be required to comply with a primary process and may be prohibited from maintaining racially discriminatory policies (which could become impermissible state action).

However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party." In refusing to acknowledge the existence of such a right, the Court explained that nothing in the law prohibited the candidates from attending the convention and lobbying the delegates, and nothing in the law compelled the delegates to vote for their parties' preferred candidates. As the Court explained, "Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. . . . None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination."

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the existence of entrenched "one-party rule" rendered the general election uncompetitive. As the Court noted, candidates could obtain a place on the ballot, without party affiliation, via New York's general petition-signature requirements.

 

[No1butPaul]

Right now Gilbert is giving the movement bad exposure.

What Mr. Gilbert is exposing is Romney for the criminal he is and the RNC for the criminal organization they are. I am SO grateful for him taking on this case, pro bono at that! For me, all the argument against it is meaningless because, plain and simple: Ron Paul will NEVER run for president again and we have NOTHING to lose.

 

[jay_dub]

Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the damage this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.

Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.

What you're saying is all bullshit.

A movement that is being marginalized at every turn by the GOP will get nowhere by playing nice and hoping for a few meaningless crumbs from the table. We have seen what is being done. The GOP/RNC is determined that there will not be enough Paul delegates seated to make any real difference. The convention is to be a coronation of Mitt Romney and they will let nothing get in the way of it. Lawsuit or not, they are determined to have their way. This case can do no damage they are not already prepared to inflict.

FACT: The case is on. It is not going away. For better or worse, it WILL be played out.

There comes a time to lead, follow or get out of the way. I would suggest that the time is now.

Now, if we all say you're smarter than everyone and you're oh so right, will you quit pissing on this effort and just go away?

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[No1butPaul]

What you're saying is all bullshit.

My people -- the ones with their eyes wide open and can see things and call things as they are!

The others -- you can't distract us, we are RON PAUL supporters. We will never go away and we will never stop fighting. From here on, we will just have to ignore your "blah, blah, blah" and not let you engage us.

 

[sailingaway]

NO they were NOT resentful in most cases, but certainly NOW they are. these are your neighbors in your communities.. Only the fraud should of been address with competence ..

What is past is past and the suit is continuing, how do we improve it NOW?

 

[sailingaway]

Wait a minute, you're saying I've failed to prove your assumption (that this case will "do no harm").

I've given enough examples of how it will. You just say, "no it won't" or "the damage would have been done anyway." How can you know that?

Is this all my opinion? Sure, and it's backed by evidence. I challenge anyone here who thinks this suit is a good idea to run it by a competent attorney (or a few) and ask what they think. I have.

In clarification, your bald assertions it will do harm are less specific than Gilbert's complaint. I don't find them compelling. I agree with jaydub

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

You drop it and refile, with competent attorneys, in the various states where the abuses occurred.

are you planning to do that? Is anyone? If so show us and we'll shift support if we think they can do it in time.

I think it is nuts to file in multiple states. This kind of case is one reason the federal court system EXISTS, to not have to file everywhere, and one state at a time doesn't show the pattern of fraud across the nation.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

If you genuinely have an open mind, I can give your more details offline if you can keep a confidence. Otherwise, it think a reasonable person could see how a lawsuit (directed at party leaders in every state) attempting to unbind all delegates and storm the convention with federal marhals could create more problems for delegates who face challenges and creates bad blood between liberty republicans and the rest of the party.

if you compare that to the RNC not seating Ron's delegates anyhow, which is what we expect them to try without this lawsuit, how is that worse?

And the fraud would then be being discussed, don't you think?

But I have a open mind to genuine new facts, pm me.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

What is this, the playground? You guys aren't dealing with reality. Did you read yesterday's opinion in its entirety? If so, were you able to pickup on how the court mocked Gilbert?

why should we care? You see, it is irrelevancies like that that make us think you have an agenda and not the same interests as us.

 

[No1butPaul]

You drop it and refile, with competent attorneys

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha .... please.

NEVER!

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[No1butPaul]

What is this, the playground? You guys aren't dealing with reality. Did you read yesterday's opinion in its entirety? If so, were you able to pickup on how the court mocked Gilbert?

Take a hint, will you? We weren't born yesterday.