Texas GOP asks Scalia to block ruling

[Judi Lynn]

Texas GOP asks Scalia to block ruling
minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Texas Republicans asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday to block an appeals court ruling that says the name of indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay must appear on the November ballot.

Democrats are suing to keep DeLay on the ballot, with the former lawmaker's legal troubles becoming a symbol for claims of Republican corruption.

DeLay won a March primary before resigning June 9 from Congress.

Texas Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser requested a delay of the appeals court ruling until Republicans can formally ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_el_ho/scotus_delay_s_replacement

[Tiggeroshii]

1. They'll shoot it down.

I don't think Kennedy will go for it. Not certain, but I don't think it's something that sounds like it could fly.

[tonkatoy57]

2. Is Scalia the supreme..

who oversees requests from this district or do they just think that Scalia (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is the, how shall we say, the most sympathetic judge to hear their motion?

[MrCoffee]

5. Scalia rides circuit over the 5th

It's the proper course for the relief they're requesting.

[tonkatoy57]

Thanks, Mr. Coffee

I thought that members of the court were assigned different districts and that they heard appeals and requests from those assigned districts.
Am I remembering correctly that the judge hearing the request can act on it by him/herself, pass on it, or kick it to the entire court?

[MrCoffee]

9. In this case, Nino can go it alone

He can issue a temporary injunction to stop enforcement of the 5th Circuit's ruling. But even Scarface would have a tough time defending the issuance of the injunction.

[maxrandb]

12. Scalia: "We don't need no stinking defense"

He's a chip off the old "Who's give a shit what you think, I'm the decider" block of the Repuke Party.

[MrCoffee]

13. I saw Nino speak,

and he absolutely would not (vehemently refused, is more like it) answer any questions about Bush v. Gore. The next year, Ginsburg came to town and was more than happy to tell us that all 9 Supremes should be ashamed of themselves for what they did during Bush v. Gore.

[Tesha]

14. To amplify what MrCoffee said...

Scalia can't rule on the case himself. But in issuing the
temporary injunction, he can preserve the status quo for
the Republicans and if they can "run out the clock" by
not reaching the full Supreme Court before election day,
then they win as the entire issue becomes moot; once the
election is over, there's no longer any issue about whose
name *WILL* appear on the ballot.

Tesha

[MrCoffee]

15. Even Scarface isn't crazy enough to issue this injunction

He just won't do it. Movant fails at least 2 of the 4 requirements for an injunction. Motion dismissed, posthaste.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. What? Scalia rule in their favor?

Where the heck did they come up with that idea? Scalia doesn't interfere in elections. Sheesh

:sarcasm:

[wakeme2008]

4. If Scallia "temporary blocks" the Repugs will put somebody else

on the ballot and by then it will be too late to take them off.

[bowens43]

10. This pretty much how they 'won' the 2000 election.

They ran out the clock.

[wisteria]

6. Every time the repubs have election problems, they run to the

Supreme Court asking for help and every time they do, they get it. I bet, there is a ruling in their favor.

[MrCoffee]

11. Ain't gonna happen, even with Nino ruling

There is no likelihood that Benkiser will succeed on the merits, and there's no irreprable harm to the TRP if the ruling stands. Motion dismissed, and fairly quickly.

[reprobate]

19. There was no irreparable harm to Bush in 2000 either, but the Extremes

found that there was. That's why our nation is now circling the drain. An idiot annointed to office by ideological idiots.

[Little Star]

7. They never give up. n/t

[Doctor_J]

8. NO wonder Malloy calls them the Bush Crime Family

The Corleones take lessons from these crooks.

[Libstery]

16. Need help with answering a conservative friend

I know I'm new so I'm suspect and will probably get flamed for asking this...

But my friend (yes I do have some conservative friends as I love to debate) said he expects the courts to not allow Delay to drop as that's the law. And then asked me why did the courts allow Lautenberg to replace Toricelli in NJ?

I suspect because it was a state court, but nevertheless why is it OK for one to switch and not the other? Help me with a good answer because he's really sticking it to me on this.

[KansDem]

17. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Good question. I don't have the answer, but will eagerly await the input from more astute and learned DUers :thumbsup:

That's what makes this a great website!

[Libstery]

18. Thx

I appreciate the welcome. I see this thread is posted elsewhere as well on this forum. I hate to post my question a second time, but you never know which thread the smart guys are going to read.

Not that you and I aren't smart, but just not on this topic.

[MrCoffee]

21. Here's what I found on the Torricelli decision

It would appear that the NJ Supreme Court (SCONJ? I like it...it has a nice ring) decided 7-0 that the court decided to "invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey." http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf

In other words, they felt like it.

[Libstery]

23. I knew you'd reply :-)

Somehow I knew you'd be the one that answered the question...I saw you posting on the other thread as well.

So the felt like it. Is that ok? Or does it not matter because it was a state court and not a federal court?

To me it would appear my friend has a point. I'd hate to concede that to him as I typically win in our debates...he'll never let me live this down.

[MrCoffee]

25. My courtgeek nature shines like a beacon in the night

I loved this stuff in law school. I had a professor for a 1st Amendment chair who was lead counsel for the Sandusky County Democratic Party in their HAVA lawsuit against Ken Blackwell in 2004. There was a little hero-worship going on there.

Equity is a perfectly legitimate reason for a court to do whatever it feels like. Just tell your friend that the court issued an equitable opinion that sided with the NJ Dems. Tough noogies to him.

[Libstery]

27. But wouldn't the inverse apply as well?

So he could then say so why Are we fighting Delay? Or why would I accuse Fat Tony--as you call him :-) of taking one for the team and helping the repugs out. Couldn't he just apply the logic of the Toricelli case?

[yellowcanine]

20. I thought a "stay" preserves the status quo. I don't think one can use a

stay to block a ruling that says preserve the status quo. I could be wrong. The status quo is that DeLay is on the ballot. It was the Repugs who were trying to change things.

[Libstery]

22. Don't think that's accurate

My understanding is that the repugs have taken Delay off the ballot and the Democrats are suing to keep him on the ballot.

My question is how is this different that what NJ did with Lautenberg? Was it because the Democrats were suing to get him off the ballot? I really don't know and need an answer to shove in my conservative friends face (I can't call him a repug as he hates them for not being conservative enough).

[MrCoffee]

24. Procedural history of TDP v. Benkiser

Texas Repubs declared DeLay ineligible for election and asked the TX SecState to take his name off the ballot. TX Dems sued and won an injunction prohibiting the TX SecState from taking him off (TX Dems forced DeLay to stay on the ballot). The status quo would be to take DeLay off, which is why they appealed to Fat Tony.

On Edit: Technically, the district court (and later the 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals) held that the TX Repubs violated the Constitution and TX election law by creating a de facto pre-election residency requirement. The ruling has the same effect, I just understated the basis for the decision.

[Libstery]

26. Going back to how I felt about Toricelli

At the time toricelli wanted off the ballot I have to admit I was all for getting him off the ticket...if he didn't want to run why should the voters not be given another alternative to vote for a Democrat?

The same should apply with Delay (as much as I hate to admit that); however, the only area I can wrangle this in my mind to make it ok to keep Delay on the ballot while removing Toricelli is if NJ state law allows it and Texas State law doesn't allow it.

Remember we have to be intellectually honest with ourselves (even though the repugs won't be).

[yellowcanine]

28. You are correct. NJ law allowed it, Texas law does not. Unless you are

going to take DeLay's word for it that he will not be a resident of Texas on election day when his wife still lives in the house in the district. It is clear that DeLay does not intend to permanently change his residence - this is just a ploy to try to meet the letter of the Texas law and the court said, "no you can't do that." Another thing that is being missed here is whether DeLay stayed on the ballot for the primary in order to collect campaign contributions that he could then convert to a defense fund. At minimum if DeLay is allowed to withdraw his name he should either return the money or be prosecuted for fraud.

[Libstery]

29. What about his Virginia votes

Can they also get him for illegally voting in Virginia?

In regards to the sham of him moving to VA to claim a new state of residency...Not to use the defense that everyone does it...but everyone does it (especially after a census redistricting). Remember in Texas after the Delay redistricting there were 3 democrats fighting for the same seat. I'm pretty sure one or two of them changed residency to compete in that district. Also the discussion at the time was should (can't remember his name) one of the displaced congressmen run in District X or District Y.

Personally I'd like to see that if after redistricting if your home is in a new district then you'll need to compete for that new district. It's a good way to crank up the political heat on all the guys in Washington. And as Dean's 50 state plan takes hold it will help as we'll gain more and more state legislatures.

[MrCoffee]

30. The District Court specifically prohibited "speculative determinations

where the election of a United States Representative is at issue." Tehehe.

[Libstery]

31. Can you translate that to non legal speak?

[MrCoffee]

32. The Qualifications Clause

of the US Constitution does not let state party chairs set up barriers to electoral eligibility based on where a candidate might live on election day.

[americanstranger]

33. DENIED!

Ha! Too bad, Hot Tub Tom...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001289.php

- as

[jahyarain]

34. i second that emotion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14231596/

[Dover]

35. I predict Delay will rise again in November

In a statement late Monday, Bopp warned Democrats, "Be careful what you ask for."

The lawyer said Democrats "insisted he run for Congress, now it's up to voters to decide if Democrats are going to be happy" on Election Day.


Besides his district being heavily Republican, the corruption and e-voting potential for fraud is ever present.