Appeals court in Atlanta dismisses lawsuit against DNC.

[madfloridian]

This is the lawsuit filed by Victor DiMaio and his lawyer, Michael Steinberg, who is chairman of the Hillsborough County DEC...that is the Tampa area. They have previously said they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

AP Report: DNC Lawsuit Dismissed

ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee over the party's decision to strip Florida of its delegates to its national convention.

But today's decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gives the challengers an opening to revisit the lawsuit and carry on the legal challenge.

Victor DiMaio, a Democratic Party activist from Tampa, filed the lawsuit in 2007. He accused the party of disenfranchising Florida's Democratic voters by barring them from having their say in choosing their party's nominee.

The Democratic National Commitee argued the party has the right to set its own rules and not seat delegates who refuse to follow them.

Here is more about the lawsuit that was heard on March 17, just about a week after the original Florida primary date. What a difference we could have made...the irony.

DiMaio v DNC

"We have been impatiently waiting for the Appeals Court to grant us this hearing considering the fact that time is running out if we have to appeal our case to the United States Supreme Court if the Florida Delegation is still shut out of the convention in August at the same time the Supreme Court takes its annual recess" according to Mr. DiMaio."

..."In fact, while it remains a long shot, DiMaio's legal action just might turn out to be the deciding factor in who becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

The first inkling that we may be in for a shocker here came with the recent announcement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that it will, indeed, hear oral arguments in the case next Monday."

Get that? Two Florida Democrats may put the matter of the Florida primary in the hands of Scalia's Supreme Court.

That scares the hell out of me.

[Hawkeye-X]

1. The Supreme Court will not accept the appeal.

Precedent counts, and I don't think after Bush v Gore, Kennedy does not need another mistake in his record. Remember, Kennedy is the ONLY one that will have a say on whether he will take the case or not.

Hawkeye-X

[madfloridian]

12. I did not think the appeals court would accept it either, but they did.

I want to think you are right, but nothing makes sense in this state lately.

[thevoiceofreason]

17. The appeals court had to accept the filings

Typically, on high profile matters like this, the 11th circuit will hear oral argument to keep the whining down. They rejected it very quickly not for any purpose other than to say "This case is ridiculous."

The appellants (now the "Petitioners") will file a writ or certiorari with the US Supreme Court. Although they do not have to, the respondent(s) can file a response. The US Supreme Court will then decide if the case is anything other than absolute bullshit (which they won't). At that point, they will deny the writ, and the case is dead. In the one in a million chance they think there might be something there, they would then ask for full briefing by each side. They often then dismiss the writ on the briefing. In the rare situation things still look viable, they will set and schedule oral argument.

Folks -- it ain't going to happen.

[madfloridian]

23. Thanks for the response. Hope you are right.

:hi:

[thevoiceofreason]

27. I've practiced there and other federal courts. That's the drill

[madfloridian]

30. You sound knowledgable. I guess so many weird things have happened

that I never thought would happen. If you missed this video from last year...you will see what I mean.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/files/geller_amendment_fullh.264%20300Kbps.mov

The media here has so often just spouted party rhetoric, that I believe anything to be possible here.

I do appreciate your response very much. Watch the video of the Dem senate leader.

[crispini]

2. Ok, wait, the court dismissed it...

so this means they can take it to the Supreme Court?

Ayiyi!

[thevoiceofreason]

3. This case is a joke

Their briefing reads like it was written by a child with crayons. They have and cite no authority.

[mohc]

4. With all the talk about Obama "dragging his feet" on the Michigan re-vote

Where is Clinton on this? If she was truly committed to working with the DNC, instead of against it, shouldn't she be outspoken in opposition to these lawsuits. Especially now that it has been dismissed by the state and district courts, anyone that is trying to reconcile this situation should be pressuring them not to appeal this to the Supreme Court. And to anyone that views this lawsuit as an attempt to restore legitimate delegates and therefore Clinton should support it, you have lost the ability to argue Obama should be for the re-vote.

The first step to true reconciliation on this issue is for FL and MI to admit their mistake and take full responsibility for the mess they made. After that they will be in a more honest bargaining position and it will be in the DNC's court to try and help them find a way to have a voice in this nomination process.

[madfloridian]

31. Your last paragraph is 100% right.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

5. Here is the Supreme Court precedent from 1981.

http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2007/09/dnc-can-refuse-to-allow-florida-to-have.html

"The DNC Can Refuse To Allow Florida To Have Delegates

The 1981 Supreme Court decision for the case Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 clearly states that the Democratic National Committee can make and enforce the rules on the delegate process.

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered."

[Maribelle]

6. The court sidestepped the question of whether the DNC acted properly ...

And the statement issued by the DNC on the ruling was incorrect. The DNC implied the court had sustained its authority to discipline the state party. But in its nine-page ruling, the court spent its time deciding whether DiMaio had standing to bring the suit, and concluded he did not because he had not shown that he was a Democratic Party primary voter.

[madfloridian]

10. So, maybe Victor will take it to Scalia to decide.

Then we all win. Don't we? Or do we?

Whatever, Maribelle, whatever you say.

[Maribelle]

14. I reported the true facts of the case. Your sarcasm was not warranted.

[madfloridian]

24. Maribelle, it was not sarcasm. It is recognition that nothing I say

will be met with your approval.

[thevoiceofreason]

22. Every appeals court in the country looks for the quickest way out

Standing is the easiest threshhold issue on which to toss someone out on their ear. Don't read any more into it other than the court saying "Please don't bring this bullshit to us."

[dogday]

7. I just got back from Florida and there are some pissed off

people there... I worry more about the GE because of this then the Democratic Convention....

[madfloridian]

9. Well, the Florida leaders could end that by being honest about what they did.

Other than that....I must say that many here are just plain damn clueless.

[dogday]

11. That is what they are saying

It is not their fault, it was the fault of their leaders... I would not want my vote treated like that....

[madfloridian]

13. Most here don't even know what happened.

The media is pumping it with lies and only one side.

Sorry, spare me the victimhood.

[dogday]

16. So you are saying they get what they deserve?

I am trying to understand and would like to understand this... Thanks :hi:

[IsItJustMe]

21. Maybe the voters of Florida should kick the bums out that got them into this mess rather than trying

to place blame where it does not belong.

Just saying::wtf:

[madfloridian]

25. I don't care. Period. Bottom line. When people don't care about truth....

then they will be fooled easily.

I have done what I could in my limited way. People would rather whine

[City Lights]

29. If you want to learn more, read madfloridian's journal.

:hi:

[Maribelle]

20. The GE is a serious consideration. In a poll by the Miami Herald conducted Mar 15-17 ...

only 66% of Democrats in Florida say they would be "not less likely" to support the Democratic candidate for president if Florida's delegates are not counted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/graphics/031908_FlaPoll.swf

If you click on the red tabs at the bottom, you will see some interesting statistics, especially on THE DELEGATE DILEMMA page.

[madfloridian]

26. Maribelle, that is their problem.

[Coexist]

8. knr

[Johnny__Motown]

15. Kicking, thanks for the info. (right in the middle of all this passport shit)

[IsItJustMe]

18. Great news for Obama. I was worried about this. It is very doubtfull that the SCOTUS would

overturn the lower court ruling.

[Debi]

19. Ugh

:banghead:

Thanks mad

[madfloridian]

32. Yes, ugh.

I am sure they will think of something else.

[Scurrilous]

28. K & R

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

33. DiMaio declares it a great victory. He vows to start over.

Someone needs to talk to this fellow.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/21/court_dismisses_florida_primary_lawsuit/

"The Democratic National Committee said it was pleased with the decision.

"As two U.S. District Courts in Florida have found, and as the Supreme Court has consistently recognized, national political parties have a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct their own internal affairs, including the enforcement of delegate selection rules," it said in a statement.

DiMaio told The Associated Press he was encouraged by the ruling and would amend his lawsuit and return to court.

"This is a big victory," said DiMaio, who said he is neutral in the presidential race. "As close as this election can be, these little votes can make a big difference in who could be the next president of the United States. That's why I'm anxious and ready to go. And the clock is really ticking."

Florida and Michigan have had so far fruitless discussions about possibly redoing their primaries. Any redo would have to be completed by June 10 to be counted under Democratic National Committee rules."