Comments on: Pennsylvania Again Rejects Nader on 2004 Costs

By: Alan D

Alan D — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:41:37 +0000

There’s no room for ‘competition’ in corporate, downtown Washington, nor anywhere else in “corporate-occupied territory” in America.
Maybe we could reduce the national debt by simply auctioning off seats in Congress and the White House every 2/4 years like they do seats on stock exchanges? At least the whole process would be that much more transparent.
AD
Winsted, CT

By: steveconn

steveconn — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:08:25 +0000

Just how low can Pennsylvania go? You’re always welcome where I live, Ralph. Always right near an international border, of course. Hang tough, Ralph.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:20:09 +0000

It seems to me that the rejection neither helps nor hinders “the federal case now pending.” It certainly was a terrible decision that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made. However, it is very typical of how “third party” and/or independent candidates are treated in this country.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:25:02 +0000

It’s just a one-sentence order, saying the appeal is dismissed.

By: SEbastian

SEbastian — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:52:30 +0000

Richard, I hope your right. I must say this Pennsylvania Supreme Court is BS. This system needs to be straightened out. Onward Ralph Nader… PS; Was this a written decision that can be printed out? Sebastian McGarigle