That’s all the information that we have now ; no doubt the full details will be available later. Judging from current time constraints involving absentee ballots, I don’t particularly expect much likelihood of a successful appeal. Ach, well: as I noted Tuesday , this remained a possibility. (This is a placeholder post: as soon as I have the full details and a chance to read the ruling, I’ll be updating.) [UPDATE]: OK, I’ve just read the ruling . Short version: the court is denying the plaintiffs their injunction because they waited too long to file it (and the judge used here rather forceful language about that delay that will no doubt gladden the hearts of Romney/Paul supporters across the land); while at the same time noting that the in-state requirement for petition circulators is almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts, given recent case law. Bad news for Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum; good news for ballot access people in general. I think that this one’s a dead issue now, folks. Except that the next election in VA will probably allow out-of-state petition circulators.
OK, let me try to explain just what is going on in this court order involving the VA GOP primary ballot. For those who came in late: back in December , Virginia’s primary registration system ended up producing a result where only two Republican candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul) qualified for the ballot . This resulted in some frankly unkind things said about virtually everyone involved in the process, from the candidates to the Republican party of Virginia – usually involving competence levels, although conspiracy theorizing certainly wasn’t underrepresented. While that was going on, Gov. Rick Perry filed a lawsuit (one later joined by Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum* ) challenging the constitutionality of the process. Yesterday the judge hearing the case ordered the Commonwealth of Virginia not to issue absentee ballots; today’s order explains why. To clarify: this order does not actually indicate that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs on Friday. It instead indicates that there is a very strong possibility that the court may order in favor of the plaintiffs on Friday on at least one count (specifically, on the constitutionality of mandating only in-state petition circulators). So while it would be reasonable to bet that this order will result in more candidates being added to the ballot , it is not yet a done deal. It is also possible that the court will rule that there were unconstitutional restrictions on who could circulate a ballot, yet come up with a remedy that will still exclude one or more candidates. Never underestimate a legal judgement’s capacity for convoluted thinking. But the courts, historically speaking, have been forgiving when it comes to voter access; so, again, it’s reasonable to bet that Friday’s decision will result in more candidates being added to the ballot**. Also: if you’ve been arguing from the start that this case was self-evidently without merit, well, you should probably stop doing that. Hey, don’t take it up with me . Take it up with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia… Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *For the record: all three campaigns potentially owe the Perry campaign a big favor on this. **Which, by the way, will almost certainly mean that Romney will still win Virginia. A pity that they didn’t take the high road, here: you’d think that any competent campaign would have seen the advantages of taking a principled position that wouldn’t have actually cost them anything…
Visit link:
Court explains reasoning on VA absentee ballot court order.
As a not particularly religious Jew, I have always leaned toward the cautious side when it comes to prayer in public/government facilities. But my caution is against government requiring or imposing prayer on people who do, or even worse who must, be at that particular place at that particular time. Government establishment of religion is one thing, and it must not be permitted. Government prevention of the free expression of someone’s faith, even if in a public place, cannot be tolerated. And thus I was very happy to see that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an outrageous ruling by a lower court which would have prevented Angela Hildenbrand, the valedictorian of her high school, from saying “God” or encouraging the audience to join her in prayer. Somewhat sickening to me — and I say this as an atheist — is that the suit was filed on behalf of another student who was alleging that the school was thus compelling government-sponsored prayer. More sickening to me was that a judge would issue an injuction saying that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. In other words, this judge decided to trump Ms. Hildenbrand First Amendment rights based on the idea that a graduating student speaking in her own words was effectively an agent of the government illegally forcing religion on the audience. I am not offended when religious people express their own faith — as long as their faith doesn’t require my conversion or my death. When has America become so hyper-sensitive about religion that we can’t hear a high school student tell us what she values in her own life? It’s one thing to object to government establishing religion. It’s another thing entirely — and just as objectionable — for government to forbid it.
See the original post here:
Government-Forbidden Prayer
A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a lawsuit against the new health care law brought by 20 states led by Florida can go forward. In a 65-page ruling , the judge rejected the Obama administration’s attempt to have the suit thrown out, arguing that the states had a “plausible claim” to challenge the law’s constitutionality. While U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson dismissed some of the states’ claims, he sided with them when it came to the central challenge to the law — that forcing individuals to purchase health insurance exceeds the government’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Like a similar ruling in Virginia in August, Vinson’s decision will only mean that the case gets to continue because the plaintiffs have legitimate standing. Future court decisions will address the merits of the underlying arguments. Nonetheless, the decision provides a boost to opponents of the national health care law, and a blow to the administration. “In denying the government’s motion to dismiss the challenge to the individual health insurance mandate, Judge Vinson ruled that ‘the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action,’” Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett said in a statement. “This decision now joins District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling in Virgina refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. In both Virginia and Florida we now move to a decision on the merits. Given how well both judges understood the constitutional novelty of imposing economic mandates on the people, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that they will find the individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. But, however the district courts rule on this case, their reception of the arguments made by the state attorneys general foretell that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Read more:
Judge Rules For Florida’s Anti-ObamaCare Lawsuit to Go Forward
Last seen trying (unsuccessfully) to get me fired for calling him on his lies, Brad Friedman resurfaces today (no links for liars!) to mischaracterize yesterday’s decision on ACORN funding: The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment . . . Oh, really?! The appellate court approvingly quoted a past decision saying the precise opposite : We therefore hold that corporations must be considered individuals that may not be singled out for punishment under the Bill of Attainder Clause. What the court actually said was that defunding ACORN does not constitute punishment: [W]e doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are “so disproportionately severe” or “so inappropriate” as to constitute punishment per se. . . . In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the appropriations laws constitute “punishment” under the functional test. . . . Nor is the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate “punishment” cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment analyzed above. If one did not have Friedman’s history of deception as a guidepost , one might call Friedman’s mischaracterization a mistake, born of some combination of laziness and poor reading skills. But we do have that history. So there you go.
Continue reading here:
Brad Friedman’s Latest ACORN Falsehoods
