Steve G.

US Supreme Court agrees that incompetence, not hurricane, caused Barr’s late Louisiana filing

In Courts and Justice System, Law, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Wayne Allen Root on October 9, 2008 at 11:37 pm

From TheTownTalk.com:

BATON ROUGE — The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Secretary of State Jay Dardenne’s decision to not allow the Libertarian Party candidate on the presidential ballot in Louisiana because the party failed to meet the required deadline.

The court denied a request for a stay filed by the Libertarian Party, thereby upholding Dardenne’s decision that the party had not filed its qualifying papers in a timely manner.

Under Supreme Court rules, the case was presented to Justice Antonin Scalia who referred the case to the entire court. The Court denied the application in a one-sentence decision.

“Obviously we’re pleased that we will not have to reprint the presidential ballots, which already have been mailed to military and overseas voters.” Dardenne said. “Reprinting would have resulted in confusion, increased expense to the taxpayers, a setback in the absentee-by-mail voting process and, potentially delayed election results.”

Testimony at the hearing before U.S. District Judge James Brady in Baton Rouge established that a party representative forgot to submit an affidavit before the deadline for getting names on the ballot..

“This omission, not Hurricane Gustav, was the reason that the papers were not filed by the deadline,” Dardenne said.

A sample ballot for the Nov. 4 presidential election can be found on the secretary of state’s Elections Division Web site at http://www.GeauxVote.com.

  1. When the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take a case, or refuses to issue an injunction, it is not expressing any opinion whatsoever. This is basic casebook law.

  2. Barr once again proves he’s a centralist violence-monger, and not a libertarian or even a conservative.

  3. Under normal circumstances you would be right, Richard, but in this case, you’re wrong. Unlike the vast majority of SCOTUS cases, which are summarily denied, the Barr case was reviewed by Scalia and discussed by the entire court prior to being denied cert.

    If they disagreed with the lower court, even on an issue which wasn’t presented upon appeal, they had the power to hear the case. The full court chose to deny cert, which means they believe there is no constitutional issue at stake.

    Yet if Barr were being left off the ballot illegally as claimed, he definitely would have a question of constitutional importance given that he is running for President.

    I therefore stand by my statement that they agreed with the lower court.

  4. I repeat my assertion. A failure by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case means that the U.S. Supreme Court has said nothing. It’s not a matter of psychology, or manners. It’s a legal principle. As a matter of law, the U.S. Supreme Court has said nothing.

  5. I stand by my statement. In fact, I have prepared probably about 40 US Supreme Court appeals over the years. How many have you done, Richard?

  6. ” G.E.
    Barr once again proves he’s a centralist violence-monger, and not a libertarian or even a conservative.”

    I can’t say that I agree here, because Presidential elections are a federal issue, and a candidate being denied access to the ballot for a flimsy reason (even though I acknowledge that this problem was caused by waiting until the last minute to file the papers) effects the outcome of the election for everyone else in the nation.

  7. In 1988, Ron Paul asked the US Supreme Court to put him on the ballot in Missouri. Just as in Louisiana, in 1988 in Missouri we were late with our presidential electors. The US Supreme Court refused to give him any relief, even though he pointed out that the law discriminated by requiring unqualified parties to submit their electors on August 1, and the qualified parties had until October 18. No one would say that therefore, the US Supreme Court had expressed its opinion that it is constitutional for states to require unqualified parties to submit their candidates for elector 75 days before the qualified parties must do so. The US Supreme Court simply said nothing.

    I admit I can’t think of any US Supreme Court text that says explicitly that when the US Supreme Court simply refuses to get involved, therefore it has not expressed any opinion whatsoever. But I have read it in US Supreme Court opinions frequently. Can you tell me any US Supreme Court decision that says the contrary?

    And, if this were 1988 and you admired and loved Ron Paul, would you make fun of him for what happened to him in Missouri? And would you take satisfaction from what happened to him? Or would you rightly point out that the US Supreme Court is extremely dismissive of the rights of voters to vote for a minor party presidential candidate? Because that is true of the Court. Ralph Nader asked the US Supreme Court to put him on the ballot in 2004 in Oregon, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Ralph Nader asked the US Supreme Court to put him on the ballot in Idaho and South Dakota in 2000. Pat Buchanan asked the US Supreme Court to put him on the ballot in 2000 in Michigan. The US Supreme Court declined all those requests. The US Supreme Court hasn’t ordered injunctive relief for any minor party or independent presidential candidate since 1976. They have contempt for us.

  8. First off, I apologize to Richard for the snippy tone of my last comment. He has done nothing to deserve that tone from me.

    That said …..

    I have already explained how I know that the court agrees with the lower court. So no, I’m not going to do legal research on this. I don’t need to do it, but feel free to research it for yourself.

    This is not proof that the courts are prejudiced against third parties. It is proof only that the court thought the lower court had already determined the issue correctly, thus leaving no question of constitutional importance.

    It may also be proof that the campaign needs to get itself some better attorneys, or at least attorneys who will be honest with them rather than taking their money with no chance of success, if the attorneys are telling them that the inevitable failure is due to contempt for the LP rather than a simple reading of the law. After all, even I could have told you how the Louisiana case would end up, and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on ballot access.

    Either the Barr campaign met statutory requirements, or it didn’t. It really is that simple. Yet repeatedly they have failed to meet statutory requirements even when other parties have met them, and even when the LP has met them in the past. In this case Barr used the hurricane as an excuse for not filing the paperwork on time, so it is completely unsurprising that he lost repeatedly in the courts. The courts do not exist to give Barr a second bite at the apple, yet that is what he repeatedly expects them to do.

    IF Barr had followed the law and met the requirements for ballot access, and still was denied ballot access and lost in court, perhaps then (and only then) it could be concluded that the courts are prejudiced against the LP.

  9. First off, I apologize to Richard for the snippy tone of my last comment. He has done nothing to deserve that tone from me.

    That said …..

    I have already explained how I know that the court agrees with the lower court. So no, I’m not going to do legal research on this. I don’t need to do it, but feel free to research it for yourself.

    This is not proof that the courts are prejudiced against third parties. It is proof only that the court thought the lower court had already determined the issue correctly, thus leaving no question of constitutional importance.

    It may also be proof that the campaign needs to get itself some better attorneys, or at least attorneys who will be honest with them rather than taking their money with no chance of success, if the attorneys are telling them that the inevitable failure is due to contempt for the LP rather than a simple reading of the law. After all, even I could have told you how the Louisiana case would end up, and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on ballot access.

    Either the Barr campaign met statutory requirements, or it didn’t. It really is that simple. Yet repeatedly they have failed to meet statutory requirements even when other parties have met them, and even when the LP has met them in the past. In this case Barr used the hurricane as an excuse for not filing the paperwork on time, so it is completely unsurprising that he lost repeatedly in the courts. The courts do not exist to give Barr a second bite at the apple, yet that is what he repeatedly expects them to do.

    IF Barr had followed the law and met the requirements for ballot access, and still was denied ballot access and lost in court, perhaps then (and only then) it could be concluded that the courts are prejudiced against the LP.

  10. I got help from some attorney friends. Justice John Paul Stevens said in 2007 in Frazier v Ohio, 128 S Ct 2077, “The denial of cert expresses no opinion on the merits of the underlying claim.”

    There is an article in Judicature Magazine, vol. 78, p. 89 (Sep-Oct 1994) by Professors Elliot Slotnick and Jennifer Segal, called “The Supreme Court Decided Today…Or Did It?”
    The article is 7 pages long, and makes the point that when the US Supreme Court takes no action on a case, it hasn’t decided anything. But, the article goes on to say, the mainstream media frequently gets it wrong, and tells its readers that the Court had decided something by its act of refusing to hear a case.

    An older quote from a US Supreme Court Opinion is “The denial of a writ of cert imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.” US v Carter, 260 US 482, at 490.

  11. And those cases are referring to specific cases. As I previously stated, most cases are not subjected to hearing prior to denial of cert. This case did get a hearing prior to denial.

    However, as much as I enjoy sparring with you (and just talking to you generally, which I add lest anyone here think I have something against you since I was rude before, which is not at all the case since I actually have a great deal of respect for you) I don’t really have time to go back and forth on this topic, interesting though it may be. As explanation, I’m getting ready to go offline in about 10 minutes, and expect to be offline for a few weeks as I am on a tight upcoming deadline for some real work. Sadly, as a result, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this, at least for the time being. Perhaps if you wish to resume it when I return, we can do so at that time.

    On the bright side, we both lived to argue another day. 😉

  12. The US Supreme Court is in desperate need of reform. Justices should be appointed based on merit and nothing else. Neither the President nor congress should have anything at all to do with appointing them. How can a political appointee claim possibly claim judicial independence ?

    How should they should be elected then ? Good Question. I think a good alternative would be to form a judicial council independent of government to look after these responsibilities.

    Finally, I think sitting justices should be subject to term limits. This idea of a life appointment is absurd. How long has that fascist fossil Scalia been sitting as the chief justice anyways ? Seems like an eternity.

  13. James, I agree, except for one tiny detail: The Scalidiot is not CJ. That distinction belongs to Roberts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: