Comments on: Let’s Talk Dirty…Tricks http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:38:04 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: bob h http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-987454 bob h Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:05:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-987454 <p>The problem with legal challenges is that, at the end of the day, the Republicans have five Party hacks on the Supreme Court.</p> The problem with legal challenges is that, at the end of the day, the Republicans have five Party hacks on the Supreme Court.

]]> By: humboldtblue http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986487 humboldtblue Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:23:07 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986487 <p>Jane are these folks non-partisan? Because if they’re tied to the Democrats I’ll not participate, nor donate, nor air a news report on their actions. Dems get no more support from me in any form or fashion. If these folks are doing this for the state, fine, I’ll back them 100-percent. If they’re doing it with Dem money, no go.</p> Jane are these folks non-partisan? Because if they’re tied to the Democrats I’ll not participate, nor donate, nor air a news report on their actions. Dems get no more support from me in any form or fashion. If these folks are doing this for the state, fine, I’ll back them 100-percent. If they’re doing it with Dem money, no go.

]]> By: dday http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986452 dday Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:07:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986452 <p><a href="#comment-986395"><em>Zoomie @ 98</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Have anyone told the wingnuts this proposal is unconstitutional?</p></blockquote> <p>That hasn’t stopped various things from passing the Roberts SCOTUS. So we have to beat this one on the ground. Plus, since the legislature created the initiative process, it can be argued that things passed by the ballot come from the legislature, at least that’s what a couple Constitutional scholars have asserted.</p> <p>Jane, thanks for putting this up, and for participating in it, too!</p> Zoomie @ 98

Have anyone told the wingnuts this proposal is unconstitutional?

That hasn’t stopped various things from passing the Roberts SCOTUS. So we have to beat this one on the ground. Plus, since the legislature created the initiative process, it can be argued that things passed by the ballot come from the legislature, at least that’s what a couple Constitutional scholars have asserted.

Jane, thanks for putting this up, and for participating in it, too!

]]> By: katherine Graham Cracker http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986451 katherine Graham Cracker Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:07:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986451 <p>speaking of gooper fetishes<br /> Frank Luntz has a model of an electric chair in his foyer and for parties with his little friends he puts in a doll of the democrat du jour</p> <p>and we are uncivil</p> speaking of gooper fetishes
Frank Luntz has a model of an electric chair in his foyer and for parties with his little friends he puts in a doll of the democrat du jour

and we are uncivil

]]> By: Zoomie http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986395 Zoomie Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:49:19 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986395 <p>Have anyone told the wingnuts this proposal is unconstitutional?</p> <p>Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution says:</p> <blockquote><p>Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…</p></blockquote> <p>Note - “as the legislature thereof may direct”!<br /> Not the people, not via referendum. The Legislature!</p> <p>Note too, in Bush v Gore in 2000, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas listed in their justifications to shut down recounts in FL the argument that this section assigns to the state Legislature authority to decide how electors are selected, and not the FL Supreme Court, therefore the FL SC could not order recounts or award the electoral votes. Only the legislature can do so. Additionally, while I don’t recall the specific case, back in 1925 or so, a USSC case ruled a state referendum had no bearing on electoral votes, as the Constitution assigns that power ONLY to the state’s legislature.</p> <p>So unless the CA Legislature changes the process (which is what NE and ME did), this whole thing is an unconstitutional exercise in futility!</p> Have anyone told the wingnuts this proposal is unconstitutional?

Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution says:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

Note – “as the legislature thereof may direct”!
Not the people, not via referendum. The Legislature!

Note too, in Bush v Gore in 2000, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas listed in their justifications to shut down recounts in FL the argument that this section assigns to the state Legislature authority to decide how electors are selected, and not the FL Supreme Court, therefore the FL SC could not order recounts or award the electoral votes. Only the legislature can do so. Additionally, while I don’t recall the specific case, back in 1925 or so, a USSC case ruled a state referendum had no bearing on electoral votes, as the Constitution assigns that power ONLY to the state’s legislature.

So unless the CA Legislature changes the process (which is what NE and ME did), this whole thing is an unconstitutional exercise in futility!

]]> By: juslin http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986393 juslin Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:48:36 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986393 <p>dodd is my candidate - the MSM may not give him a chance but i feel he’ll come on strong as the campaign gets rolling</p> dodd is my candidate – the MSM may not give him a chance but i feel he’ll come on strong as the campaign gets rolling

]]> By: Valley Girl http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986385 Valley Girl Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:45:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986385 <p>snap</p> snap

]]> By: SteveAudio http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986384 SteveAudio Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:45:03 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986384 <p><a href="#comment-986380"><em>Valley Girl @ 94</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>SteveAudio- ygm</p></blockquote> <p>as do you!</p> Valley Girl @ 94

SteveAudio- ygm

as do you!

]]> By: Valley Girl http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986380 Valley Girl Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:44:20 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986380 <p>SteveAudio- ygm</p> SteveAudio- ygm

]]> By: bobschacht http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986379 bobschacht Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:44:09 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/21/lets-talk-dirtytricks/#comment-986379 <p><a href="#comment-986208"><em>Hugh @ 28</em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-986195"><em>juslin @ 17</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>yeah even sen leahy was a letdown this week…</p></blockquote> <p>They set themselves up to fail. A bunch of votes that were designed to fail and to extract no price from their Republicans for their failure. And then the gratuitous vote against MoveOn. If there was a plan, a strategy, or a message in any of it beyond the desire to appear stupid I have no idea what it was. They ended up looking weak and pissing off their base. Way to go, Democrats.</p></blockquote> <p>It looks to me like the Dems have decided on the tactic of <b>posturing</b> from now until next year’s elections. Rather than having the guts to follow Dodd and Edwards (No timelines? No Funding! No excuses!), instead they are holding lots of votes allowing Dems to vote against the war, and forcing Republicans to vote for it, with both eyes fixed on 2008, and no real expectation that any of their votes will pass. Denying funding unless Bush agrees to pulling troops is the strongest weapon they have.</p> <p>Bob in HI</p> Hugh @ 28

juslin @ 17

yeah even sen leahy was a letdown this week…

They set themselves up to fail. A bunch of votes that were designed to fail and to extract no price from their Republicans for their failure. And then the gratuitous vote against MoveOn. If there was a plan, a strategy, or a message in any of it beyond the desire to appear stupid I have no idea what it was. They ended up looking weak and pissing off their base. Way to go, Democrats.

It looks to me like the Dems have decided on the tactic of posturing from now until next year’s elections. Rather than having the guts to follow Dodd and Edwards (No timelines? No Funding! No excuses!), instead they are holding lots of votes allowing Dems to vote against the war, and forcing Republicans to vote for it, with both eyes fixed on 2008, and no real expectation that any of their votes will pass. Denying funding unless Bush agrees to pulling troops is the strongest weapon they have.

Bob in HI

]]>