• 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]

Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

tres borrachos said:
Your request to me:

Name one case that he ruled in a manor at odds with conservatism.


I assume you meant a "manner" so I gave you an example.

Research the case they ruled on and read the rulings including the dissenting opinion. I agree with the dissent.
Click to expand...

So that puts us right back to you being the arbitor of what conservatism is. Interesting...
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

VanceMack said:
Even if you add in the 2 circulators, there were still 800 signatures that were disqualified. Right or wrong (and again...unless you are from Michigan and really, a democrat this shouldnt matter) I cant say I would be shocked if there wasnt a little bit of political rhythm from a fed appointed judge for and on behalf of a long standing seated rep. I aint sayin...Im just sayin...
Click to expand...

I just scanned the ruling this morning before I left, so I cannot comment accurately on the details. I will try and research it tomorrow and give more complete thoughts.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
The reason the judge ruled this way was that there was a decent chance(paraphrasing) that when the court case goes through, the requirement for circulators to be registered voters will be deemed unconstitional under free speech. If that is the case, keeping Conyers off the ballot would be unfair as he would have been unable to run even though the law was unconstitutional. As such, the judge ruled he be added to the ballot. Many stays(which this essentially is) are done for similar reasons: there is a decent chance(note this does not necessarily mean a good chance) he will win in court, and not issuing the stay would clearly harm him. Interestingly, this is almost identical language used as with the stays in several states on rulings against state bans on SSM.

Now there are several issues in this case I am unclear on, but I do understand the ruling. Not sure I like it (when I get home and can actually look stuff up on computer instead of pain in ass tablet will maybe get a better feel for my opinion on it.
Click to expand...

That is not what the good judge claimed as the basis for his ruling. This from the NYT. I believe it is a quote.


In his ruling on Friday, Judge Matthew F. Leitman of Federal District Court said that the “failure to comply with the registration statute was the result of good-faith mistakes.”

“They believed they were in compliance with the statute,” the judge wrote.

Judge didn't even try to come up with a BS excuse.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

jimbo said:
That is not what the good judge claimed as the basis for his ruling. This from the NYT. I believe it is a quote.


In his ruling on Friday, Judge Matthew F. Leitman of Federal District Court said that the “failure to comply with the registration statute was the result of good-faith mistakes.”

“They believed they were in compliance with the statute,” the judge wrote.

Judge didn't even try to come up with a BS excuse.
Click to expand...

Ah, from the NYT...I got my info from the ruling. Best not to let others interpret.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
Ah, from the NYT...I got my info from the ruling. Best not to let others interpret.
Click to expand...

This decision referenced a similar similar Ohio law which was struck down by a Federal appeals court in 2008. Requiring petition gatherers to be citizens of the state they are petitioning in is unconstitutional. I can agree with that decision, since lots of out of state money goes into state races. If you don't have to be a citizen to attempt to buy an election, you shouldn't have to be a citizen to petition for a candidate. You are both doing essentially the same thing - supporting a candidate, which is a legal activity. In the end, this was nothing more than a political ploy designed to force Conyers off the ballot, and the court called BS on it.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
So that puts us right back to you being the arbitor of what conservatism is. Interesting...
Click to expand...

Nope. Never was, never claimed to be.

You said he's consistently conservative. I said you were wrong. You asked me for a ruling to back it up. I gave you one. Now you're trying to make this about me and saying things that I never said. Stop and admit you were wrong. This isn't about me, and I never claimed to be an "arbitor" (did you mean arbiter?) on anything.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
He is a strict constitutionalist. Should he change that so he only makes rulings you like without regards to the constitution? How very conservative of you...
Click to expand...

Well, then, the question is, why would he do something so clearly unconstitutional?
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
The reason the judge ruled this way was that there was a decent chance(paraphrasing) that when the court case goes through, the requirement for circulators to be registered voters will be deemed unconstitional under free speech. If that is the case, keeping Conyers off the ballot would be unfair as he would have been unable to run even though the law was unconstitutional...
Click to expand...

Are you kidding here? I hope so...Hell, why have registration at all? I mean after all, I should be able to vote as many times as I wish otherwise you are restricting my free speech!
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

j-mac said:
Are you kidding here? I hope so...Hell, why have registration at all? I mean after all, I should be able to vote as many times as I wish otherwise you are restricting my free speech!
Click to expand...

Circulating petitions is not the same thing as voting.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

j-mac said:
Are you kidding here? I hope so...Hell, why have registration at all? I mean after all, I should be able to vote as many times as I wish otherwise you are restricting my free speech!
Click to expand...

How on earth did you jump from "you have to register to vote to circulate a petition" (WHICH ISNT VOTING) to "we should be able to vote more than once."

I can't figure it out. Seriously, connect those dots for me. I really want to see this.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
Circulating petitions is not the same thing as voting.
Click to expand...

Does the law say that those circulating the petition must be registered voters?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
As long as we don't have some silly national voting, it would not have made any difference were Romney on the ballot or not.
Click to expand...

again that is true but off the point.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

j-mac said:
Does the law say that those circulating the petition must be registered voters?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is the point of the lawsuit, that such a law would be considered a violation of free speech. Not sure how much I agree with that without looking into it more, which if I get time later today(I am home now) I will do.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
Yes, and that is the point of the lawsuit, that such a law would be considered a violation of free speech. Not sure how much I agree with that without looking into it more, which if I get time later today(I am home now) I will do.
Click to expand...

So then, if that's the law, then he shouldn't be on the ballot.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

j-mac said:
So then, if that's the law, then he shouldn't be on the ballot.
Click to expand...

If the law is uncostitutional, then yes he should be. That is why the stay was issued, since if it does turn out the law is unconstitutional, then he is injured by not being on the ballot. I would recommend reading the ruling, then you will understand this. I at least scanned it.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
If the law is uncostitutional, then yes he should be. That is why the stay was issued, since if it does turn out the law is unconstitutional, then he is injured by not being on the ballot. I would recommend reading the ruling, then you will understand this. I at least scanned it.
Click to expand...

I will when I get home. Thanks.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

I've done a little searching and still can't find the actual ruling, but I do have the gist of it....So, this Federal Judge appointed by Obama, thinks that the Michigan law is unconstitutional, similar to the Ohio law that was overturned, but just amazing isn't it how the argument doesn't come up until it is a demo like Conyers that is hurt by it? I call Bull ****, and corruption....That ****hole Detroit loves this dirt bag so much they can keep him, and I hope they rot....*spits* This is why I left Michigan as fast as I could.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

Redress said:
If the law is uncostitutional, then yes he should be. That is why the stay was issued, since if it does turn out the law is unconstitutional, then he is injured by not being on the ballot. I would recommend reading the ruling, then you will understand this. I at least scanned it.
Click to expand...

The reverse side is that if the law is Constitutional and Conyers wins the election, then the other candidates were harmed, and the election results get overturned? Probably not.

Unless I do not understand the Constitution, laws are Constitutional until proved otherwise. This one has not been proved otherwise. IFAK, it is not even made its way to the court system.

Judge made two rulings. (1) The law might, maybe, could, be unconstitutional if it ever makes it to the SCOTUS. (2) It was all just a simple mistake based on the premise that this decades old group somehow did not the rules and did not know how to look them up.

IMO, both rulings were wrong.
 
Re: Judge puts U.S. Rep. Conyers back on primary ballot

And once again, this wasn't some gotcha surprise law that no one knew about. Conyers knew the requirement going in, as did every other candidate. EVERY other candidate on the ballot met the requirements, with Conyers being the exception. The judge should be disbarred for corruption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom