1. I really want to see an opinion on this. On what grounds is it denied? We hear nothing.

   I have an idea it will be along the lines of denying people the right to vote for whom they want. Another decision where the law is ignored for a two-party duopoly. Why do we not see the same standards in places like Maine and West Virginia? Because the power is trapped in the hands of the legislature.

2. Wow this sucks, and its right after the good news of making it on the ballot in Massachusetts.

   Well I guess you can’t win them all

   Unless you’re a member of the two party system

   Could we appeal? or will it be past the November election?

3. It’d be too late I bet, besides sucking alot of money out of Barr’s campaign.

   Nope, better to fight in the last court cases and do the best to get something in the presidential debates.

4. I hope they do issue an opinion. I will be interested to see how it squares with the decision to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004. How do you square the sentence “An early, hard deadline is acceptable for Nader” with the sentence “A late, easy deadline is unacceptable for Republicans or Democrats”?

5. No one ever expected an honest decision from the corrupt judges in the US today. They all owe their jobs to the Democrat and Republican parties. So, really, this can hardly be viewed as a loss.

   But, the ruling might yield some fodder for future ballot access cases.

   Thank you to Bob Barr for filing this lawsuit.

   Go Bob Barr
   Libertarian for President
   2008

6. I don’t think the Texas SC is going to publish a ruling. What I would like to see are the Texas AG and the Democrats and Republican Briefs.

   I would like to know if Barr/Root can pursue this through the courts and force a judge onto the record.

7. I think Nader and Baldwin should sue to move their names from write ins to on the ballot. Obviously the Texas Election Laws don’t carry much weight.

8. It’d be too late I bet, besides sucking alot of money out of Barr’s campaign.

   Nope, better to fight in the last court cases and do the best to get something in the presidential debates.

   No, they need to fight this all the way, sue in the U.S. Supreme Court of other federal court if possible. They need to force an explanation in order to help make future ballot access easier.

9. any updates on louisiana?

10. What would you expect from a Republican state and a Republican Texas Supreme Court. If McCain and Obama were denied a spot on the Ballot, it would kill any chance for McCain to win enough electoral votes to win the White House. Just another Dirty Trick from the republicans. For more dirty tricks the republicans are doing to win this election see http://www.republicantricks.com

11. I also think Barr should pursue this as far as possible. Seems like a case of equal protection under the law and failure to use due process of law.

12. there’s one rule of law left worth pursuing in the United States and it involves using reckless people to perform acts of civil disobedience and fertilizing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

    This was done in the past and it inspired the birth of this great nation. These tyrants must not be permitted to continue killing this country with the fiat laws they uphold.

13. Maybe we could start calling the TX supreme court members even at home and pressure them to issue an opinion. If someone can come up with the numbers. Also we should continuously call the TX Sec of State office and ask what election laws need to be followed and which are optional. I have no intention of voting for Barr but this effects every not Republicrat candidate.

14. It might be a good thing that the judge rulled against Barr. Depending on the written desision, a minor party may be able to say that the deadline should be ignored because it was ignored for the Democratic and Republican parties.

    I doubt the judge would care, but one could hope.

15. The denial is the decision.

16. Don’t count on an opinion. I don’t think the Texas Supreme Court is required to explain why it denied an application for a writ.

17. Would you like to tell the three Republican Texas Supreme Court Justices that are up for reelection what you think about their concept of Due Process is?

    Chief justice Wallace Jefferson is info@wallacejefferson.com
    Justice phil Johnson is info@justicephiljohnson.com

    Justice Dale Wainwright is srwhitus@reelectdalewainwright.com or
    Jon@reelectdalewainwright.com or contact@reelectdalewainwright.com

18. Justice Wainwright,

    I notice that your web page banner uses the terms integrity and balanced, presumably to describe your character.

    Integrity implies that when you swore to uphold the Constitution of Texas and the laws of Texas that you would put your actions behind your words.

    Balanced means that you would apply the law equally with out regard for how politically powerful are the parties.

    Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

    Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

    I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words balanced and integrity from off of your web banner.

    Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

    Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

    I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words balanced and integrity from off of your web banner.

19. Justice Johnson,

    I notice that your web page banner uses the terms impartial, presumably to describe your character. Your site also elaborates as you put it “consider it my duty to the people of Texas, and to those who have gone before us, to interpret laws, not make them.”

    Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

    Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

    I think that under these circumstances you should strike the words impartial from off of your web banner and add to your explanation that a non-uniform application of the law is a right of the powerful.

    Sincerely,

    Stephen Meier

20. Chief Justice Jefferson,

    In your speech on the State of the Judiciary Delivered February 20, 2007 you stated

    “The state of our judiciary is strong. It is strong because of the public servants sitting before me, Judges who have devoted their lives to ensuring that Texans have a fair and impartial forum to resolve grievances”
    you go on to state

    “When citizens flee our judicial system, however, we lose the public component of justice. The courts of Texas are open and accessible. Cases that are litigated in our courts (even those involving private conflicts) often affect public interests use, a stable legal environment promoting investment in the Texas market. An open court system ensures that the people of Texas benefit from a full public airing of the issues, and it allows innovations and solutions learned from today´s cases to help resolve tomorrow´s disputes. A deliberate progression in the law ensures that similar cases are treated similarly and that litigants can count on fair and even-handed justice. And when the law does change, court decisions evolve with that change in a principled and considered manner. Careful application of the law at the trial level and a guaranteed right to appellate review allow the judicial system to avoid arbitrary results.”

    Let me repeat that last phrase that I am sure you spoke so eloquently “to avoid arbitrary results.”

    Today, the court that you are a member of, denied without comment the petition of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, who asked that the Texas election laws be applied equally. Now perhaps their interpretation of the law and the facts of the case are incorrect. If so the people of Texas and the people of the United States deserve to understand why.

    Without, comment tends to imply that you don’t owe the people of Texas an explanation of why the clear reading of the Texas Election Law doesn’t apply to the powerful political parties.

    I think that under these circumstances you and your court have dishonored the ideals you so clearly enunciated.

    Sincerely,

    Stephen Meier

21. I am so impressed with what Bob Barr attempted to do regardless of the outcome. I agree with the post about Nader and others attempting to get ballot access. Also agree that it’s good that there is a historical record showing how blatantly corrupt and maniplative the two party duopoly has become. Please keep this story alive. If there’s a way to protest this let us know.

22. Barr should appeal this and force them to explain this bizarre ruling. The Libertarian Party in Texas should get a copy of “Hooked on Phonics”, call a press conference and publicly present it to the Texas Supreme Court.

23. time to take up the gun and join a rebellion.

24. I don’t remember where I heard this before, but I once heard something along the lines of, “The first amendment protects my freedom of speech, and if it is taken away, then the second amendment will protect the first.”

25. The deadline was changed so that the Secretary of State could certify the candidates in time for the county clerks to prepare ballots to be sent to overseas voters, particularly those in the military.

    The Secretary of State was able to comply with that deadline, and the Barr campaign was actually trying to block the mailing of ballots.

    Further, Texas required the Democrat and Republican parties to hold presidential primaries (if they wished to have a candidate on the November ballot). It also required those parties to allocate a substantial share of delegates to their national conventions on the basis of the primaries.

    Had the Texas parties complied with the letter of the law, the State of Texas would have forced them either to hold meaningless primaries, or to designate candidates before the national convention had chosen them.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.