• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot[W:28]

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
U.S. Rep. John Conyers' on-again, off-again roller coaster ride for the Aug. 5 ballot took a new twist Friday when U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman put him back on back on the ballot,His decision, released late Friday, contradicts the Secretary of State's review of Conyers petition, which found earlier in the day that Conyers had less than half the required signatures of valid registered voters on the petitions he turned in to qualify for the Aug. 5 primary ballot.
But Leitman said the signatures from at least two ciruclators who were found to have not registered properly to vote, a requirement under state law, should be reinstated, giving Conyers enough valid signatures to be on the ballot.
"There is evidence that their failure to comply with the Registration Statute was the result of good faith mistakes and that they believed they were in compliance with the statute," Leitman said in his ruling.
"As Secretary (of State Ruth) Johnson implicitly acknowledged in her ruling issued today, if the signatures excluded pursuant to the Registration Statute may not be excluded from Mr. Conyers' total – and this Court holds that they may not be – then Mr. Conyers has enough signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot," Leitman added. "He shall be placed on the ballot."
The ruling ended a day in which the SOS confirmed a decision last week from Wayine County Clerk Cathy Garret that he didn't have enough signatures to qualify for the Aug. 5 primary ballot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/23/conyers-primary-ballot/9505849/


And people wonder why there is no confidence in the election system....Don't have enough valid signatures to get on the ballot? Well, no problem, just get your appeal in front of a friendly judge, and presto! You're in!
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

And people wonder why there is no confidence in the election system....Don't have enough valid signatures to get on the ballot? Well, no problem, just get your appeal in front of a friendly judge, and presto! You're in!
[/FONT][/COLOR]

This is a great example of the left's strategies for this country. They don't get what they want? The voters are against them? The laws say they can't do something? Don't worry, just get it in front of a judge, and all that is wiped away!
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

This is a great example of the left's strategies for this country. They don't get what they want? The voters are against them? The laws say they can't do something? Don't worry, just get it in front of a judge, and all that is wiped away!

I was just about to say the same thing.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

This is a great example of the left's strategies for this country. They don't get what they want? The voters are against them? The laws say they can't do something? Don't worry, just get it in front of a judge, and all that is wiped away!

Do you have an example or should I make up opinions for you and attack those?
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Do you have an example or should I make up opinions for you and attack those?

I'm thinking the Conyers example might be a start.

The Roberts Obamacare ruling also comes to mind.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

I'm thinking the Conyers example might be a start.

The Roberts Obamacare ruling also comes to mind.

I don't think you can count SCOTUS as "putting the case before a friendly judge." It's not like there's another option at that level. Besides, the ACA decision wasn't a case brought by "leftists." That was the GOP trying to do exactly what these guys are complaining about.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

I don't think you can count SCOTUS as "putting the case before a friendly judge." It's not like there's another option at that level. Besides, the ACA decision wasn't a case brought by "leftists." That was the GOP trying to do exactly what these guys are complaining about.

Roberts sure wasn't unfriendly to Obamacare. In order to justify his ruling, he made the argument that OCare was a tax, an argument that the administration had argued against, and was not brought up at the SC since the law would have then had to have originated in the House.

Judges can be made to be friendly as opposed to hunting for a favorable one. Two ways come to mind. Threat and bribery.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

I don't think you can count SCOTUS as "putting the case before a friendly judge." It's not like there's another option at that level. Besides, the ACA decision wasn't a case brought by "leftists." That was the GOP trying to do exactly what these guys are complaining about.

So, then stick with the Conyers case here....That is after all what the OP is about...He didn't have enough valid signatures to be on the ballot, and a Judge appointed by the Obama administration over ruled the Sec of State's office in Michigan to place him on it anyway...You don't see anything wrong with this?
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Roberts sure wasn't unfriendly to Obamacare. In order to justify his ruling, he made the argument that OCare was a tax, an argument that the administration had argued against, and was not brought up at the SC since the law would have then had to have originated in the House.

Judges can be made to be friendly as opposed to hunting for a favorable one. Two ways come to mind. Threat and bribery.

That is not 100 % accurate. Roberts also argued that Obamacare was not a tax in ruling on the Anti-Injuction Act portion of the case. Roberts overall made a very nuanced ruling on that issue. Here is a nice read: Mitt Romney says health care law's penalty is a tax | PolitiFact. To vquote:

Even so, we heard one main criticism from our experts -- that Romney went too far when he said that the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax. Several legal scholars told us that the court ruled that the mandate acts like a tax, or is analogous to one, but not that it is one -- a small linguistic distinction, but an important legal one.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

That is not 100 % accurate. Roberts also argued that Obamacare was not a tax in ruling on the Anti-Injuction Act portion of the case. Roberts overall made a very nuanced ruling on that issue. Here is a nice read: Mitt Romney says health care law's penalty is a tax | PolitiFact. To vquote:


So 'slick' Willie was right, we now have to be constantly worried today with the definition of ''is'' as far as progressive liars are concerned....Great.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Do you have an example or should I make up opinions for you and attack those?

Well, being on the left, you'll probably make stuff up anyway. But Robert Torricelli comes to mind, as a similar situation where the law was clear, but a judge ignored it.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

So 'slick' Willie was right, we now have to be constantly worried today with the definition of ''is'' as far as progressive liars are concerned....Great.

You realize Roberts is very, and very consistently, conservative?
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

So, then stick with the Conyers case here....That is after all what the OP is about...He didn't have enough valid signatures to be on the ballot, and a Judge appointed by the Obama administration over ruled the Sec of State's office in Michigan to place him on it anyway...You don't see anything wrong with this?

Under the circumstances in this case? No. He had enough signatures, and some of them were invalid on a technicality, and apparently the circulators in question had evidence to show they had reasonable belief the statutes had been complied with.

Democracy is supposed to be about voters, not paperwork. So, no, I don't have a problem with that.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Under the circumstances in this case? No. He had enough signatures, and some of them were invalid on a technicality, and apparently the circulators in question had evidence to show they had reasonable belief the statutes had been complied with.

Democracy is supposed to be about voters, not paperwork. So, no, I don't have a problem with that.

Unless ofcourse Demo's lose the election, then it's all about technicality....:roll:
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

You realize Roberts is very, and very consistently, conservative?

Many cases of supposedly "conservative" judges appointed to the SC, that turned out to be shall we say, less than conservative....
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Many cases of supposedly "conservative" judges appointed to the SC, that turned out to be shall we say, less than conservative....

David Souter and John Paul Stevens?

Or should we also throw in earl warren?
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Many cases of supposedly "conservative" judges appointed to the SC, that turned out to be shall we say, less than conservative....

David Souter, a mistake that HW will have to live with forever. That's what you get when you let your moderate Chief of Staff pick your SCOTUS nominees for you.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Unless ofcourse Demo's lose the election, then it's all about technicality....:roll:

So excluding them from the race on a technicality is fine with you, but them winning on a technicality is anathema. OK.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Under the circumstances in this case? No. He had enough signatures, and some of them were invalid on a technicality, and apparently the circulators in question had evidence to show they had reasonable belief the statutes had been complied with.

Democracy is supposed to be about voters, not paperwork. So, no, I don't have a problem with that.

The rules are the rules, until the rules hurt your side.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

So excluding them from the race on a technicality is fine with you, but them winning on a technicality is anathema. OK.

It's not a technicality. Obviously, there aren't enough voters who want Conyers on the ballot.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Not surprising, since Conyers and his compatriots are against voter ID, so why would they think they should have registered voters to sign a petition to get him on a ballot? At least it's consistent with their ideology of anyone that will vote for them should be allowed to vote, even if they aren't a citizen or even not registered to vote. Again, not surprising. Laws and rules don't matter to these folks when they're inconvenient or block them from doing what they want to do.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

You realize Roberts is very, and very consistently, conservative?

Not in this case. It seems that he went out of his way to find a reason to uphold the law, and sided with the 4 liberals.

I wish I knew why.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

So excluding them from the race on a technicality is fine with you, but them winning on a technicality is anathema. OK.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Not surprising, since Conyers and his compatriots are against voter ID, so why would they think they should have registered voters to sign a petition to get him on a ballot? At least it's consistent with their ideology of anyone that will vote for them should be allowed to vote, even if they aren't a citizen or even not registered to vote. Again, not surprising. Laws and rules don't matter to these folks when they're inconvenient or block them from doing what they want to do.

I am not againist them if they can be acquired readily and without placing additional burdens on people.
 
Back
Top Bottom