U.S. Supreme Court Denies Barr Request for Louisiana Ballot Access
October 7th, 2008On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Bob Barr’s application for a place on the Louisiana ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has not granted an injunction, putting anyone on a ballot, since October 1990, when it ordered Cook County, Illinois, to put the Harold Washington Party on the ballot for county office.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
wow McCain is desperate, I am so upset
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5127.html
more than ever I will work as hard as I can to convince people not to vote for McBama and I don’t care which Third Party candidate they pick
October 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
One more losing case by the armies of MORON lawyers for third party candidates and independents — doing the same old stupid stuff and getting the same old results — the very definition of legal INSANITY — if not ACTUAL insanity.
Separate is NOT equal.
Much too difficult for MORON lawyers to understand — and the many juveniles and *experts* on this list.
The W-A-R for Democracy continues — regardless of MORONS and the party hack Supremes.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Based on the 2000 and 2004 elections, it’s a loss of about 3,000 votes for the Libertarian ticket.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:52 am
This is amazingly bad news.
The US Supreme Court is obviously a fascist-socialist institution.
Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:17 am
What on earth does “separate is not equal” have to do with this case?
October 8th, 2008 at 4:57 am
We have a troll living among us. His life is separate from us and his IQ is quite low and therefore not equal to ours.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
#5 For non-MORONS –
Separate is NOT equal was NOT brought up in the first *modern* ballot access cases in the Supremes in 1968.
Result – a mere 40 years of armies of MORON lawyers losing ballot access cases for third party and independent candidates in the Supremes.
The obvious equal remedy -
Equal nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area — with equal/same deadlines, petition checking, etc. etc.
Sorry – third party and independent candidates can NOT get on the ballots easier than D/R candidates.
Sorry – separate is NOT equal must be brought up in each original case. It is TOO LATE if brought up in appeals.
On to 2010 and 2012 ballot access cases — hopefully with fewer lawyer MORONS involved.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Yes, these are relevant words:dumber than average,untested low IQ’s, fascist,socialist,morons,equal signatures for all, same deadlines for all, same fees for all. It is very doubtful that lawyers and/or judges will get any smarter in 4 more years, or at any time. Judge Sargus said my case was not “moot” and actually believes I will go thru this “crap” one more time in 2010, and I have no idea why he believes I would do that, knowing the fascist bent of our courts?
October 9th, 2008 at 5:53 am
“Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.”
Which Justice was that?