Comments on: Arizona Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nader v Brewer

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:46:13 +0000

Qualifications to hold an office are NOT the same as ballot access requirements for the office.

The *LAW* is based on proper classifications.

If the founder folks in 1776-1789 thought that unequal ballot access stuff would happen, then they would likely have put it in the Constitution to stop the party hacks from playing their standard party hack statutory machinations with the issue.

How come the party hack Supremes have such great problems in ballot access cases with the EQUAL in the 1868 Equal Protection Clause — added a mere 140 years ago ???

By: D. Frank Robinson

D. Frank Robinson — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:42:53 +0000

It’s fairly clear that any ballot access requirements (such as early disclosure of candidacy) for independent, and non-incumbent party candidates that act to “smoke them out as opposition” and work to advantage the incumbent parties’ candidates – and you know who they are. So these unique ballot access requirements do not fall equally on all candidates. These added requirements are special and discriminatory added ‘qualifications’ on a specific class of candidates.

Perhaps Brewer v Nader will finally corner the Scotus to resolve the logical contradictions in Thornton.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:05:47 +0000

It is a good thing that Arizona is appealing. It’s June deadline would have been fine at the time of Anderson v. Celebrezze. Anderson filed his Ohio petitions in May, 1980.

So the Supreme Court can either say that what was important about Anderson was the method of analyzing election laws, even if it results in different conclusions by different courts, and constant litigating and re-litigating of the same issues in slightly different circumstances, or provide some additional guidance.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:55:36 +0000

If a State can’t compel independent candidates to file by June, why can a State compel partisan presidential candidates and delegates to file by December or January? One of the issues in Anderson v. Celebrezze was that voters in States other than Ohio would be harmed by Ohio’s election schedule. But aren’t voters in States other than New Hampshire harmed by New Hampshire’s early primaries?

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:39:18 +0000

The US Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on whether severe ballot access laws violate Article One, since that Court put out the term limits decision in 1995.

The Court did seem to say that they don’t in Storer v Brown in 1974, in a footnote. But that was 21 years before the Court had even decided whether states can or can’t add to the qualifications for Congress.

By: ETJB

ETJB — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:04:38 +0000

Well, from I read their are plently of judges — appointed by Democrats and Republican — who had a good and bad record when it comes to ballot isssues rules.

Also, the qualifications issues, as raised by the USSC made CLEAR that ballot access rules were not really a qualification per se, but a mere regualtory measure.

I do not really buy that logical, but that USSC seems to.

By: Stine

Stine — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:04:00 +0000

Gene,

Don’t feed the trolls.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:32:09 +0000

Arizona has the 2nd earliest deadline (for presidential independents). Only Texas is earlier.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:52:16 +0000

#4 Periodically the party hack Supremes overrule tons of their own JUNK.

See the 1938 Erie R.R. case — overruling a mere 98 years of literally *mountains of precedent* in the U.S. Reports claiming that there was some sort of *federal common law* lurking in the U.S.A.

Was the Equal Protection Clause even enacted to help protect loyal Republican Party folks, black and white, in the ex-slave southern States — i.e. to end *political* discrimination — i.e. one more form of *arbitrary* classifications of folks ??? Duh.

How many folks on this list have read the Federalist, the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Max Farrand, the Congressional Globe of Dec. 1865- July 1866, etc. etc. ??? Guess what. Some folks have done so and learned something about legal and political history.

Only jerks and MORONS (especially in the New Age courts) do not know legal and political history — as is shown often in this list by the many peanut gallery blowhard idiot comments — especially by any know-it-all ballot access lawyers on this list — who have been screwing up ballot access cases since 1968 for third party candidates and independents.

By: Laine

Laine — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:21:13 +0000

Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, how many states currently have an earlier deadline for independent and third party candidates? Also, any chance Nader may represent himself in this case or is he allowed to do so?