tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post6931497395658060531..comments2023-06-19T07:06:31.431-05:00Comments on Speaking Liberally: Taking Law School Classes Does Not a Lawyer MakeThe Squirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10257425428252880800noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-48197765500083997692008-01-17T07:31:00.000-06:002008-01-17T07:31:00.000-06:00sorry, that should say "... have NO legal basis"sorry, that should say "... have NO legal basis"prairie bikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16789693504404552389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-92076901803197395782008-01-17T07:30:00.000-06:002008-01-17T07:30:00.000-06:00John, Get this through your thick head. Open prima...John, <BR/><BR/>Get this through your thick head. Open primaries ARE NOT unconstitutional. Go back and read those Supreme Court opinions you lifted from Wikipedia. In it (<I>Tashjian</I>, I believe it was) you will find how the justice giving the court's opinion lists how many states have open systems and how many have closed and where he says that IS NOT the issue. The issue is one of free association (1st Amendment) for the parties.<BR/><BR/>Just admit you're wrong and stop being so hard-headed about these things. You have no business trying these manuevers because you never read the rules correctly and have no clue what you are doing. Trust me, if the parties and campaign teams aren't pulling these tricks (because they at least know they won't work and have legal basis, no matter how sketchy) there is no way a pathetic little fundie blogger who spends most of his time babysitting servers in a windowless basement and playing play station is going to suddenly have the stroke of genius to determine the course of American politics for our future and make these tricks work for him.<BR/><BR/>Just. Give. It. Up.prairie bikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16789693504404552389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-76803511260051867302008-01-16T09:57:00.000-06:002008-01-16T09:57:00.000-06:00The Squire says, "It's enough anecdotal evidence f...The Squire says, "It's enough anecdotal evidence for me to consider it a full-time behavior."<BR/><BR/><BR/>...Spectacularly so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-55309781250334997522008-01-15T18:16:00.000-06:002008-01-15T18:16:00.000-06:00Narc: It looks like John's in denial mode now, les...Narc: It looks like John's in denial mode now, lest his fragile ego be shattered by his realization of how wrong he was.<BR/><BR/>Rob_N: Most/all of John's publicity stunts are spectacularly stupid, as are most/all of his arguments when he manages to wander onto topics where I have some degree of competency. It's enough anecdotal evidence for me to consider it a full-time behavior.The Squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257425428252880800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-22900447412635339212008-01-15T13:12:00.000-06:002008-01-15T13:12:00.000-06:00Narc, that'd be "over at Illinois Review"... not o...Narc, that'd be "over at Illinois Review"... not over at Illinois Reason. ;)<BR/><BR/>But thanks all the same.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Squire, it is spectularly stupid that Mr. Bambenek would come here and try to move the goalposts after filing a criminal complaint. <BR/><BR/>That's the great thing about the law -- it doesn't move just because some dope can't interpret it correctly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-35201537481203967362008-01-15T12:53:00.000-06:002008-01-15T12:53:00.000-06:00I am personally amused at the fact that Mr. Bamben...I am personally amused at the fact that Mr. Bambenek <A HREF="http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/daily-kos-attra.html#comment-97196492" REL="nofollow">says over at Illinois Reason</A> that he has seen no refutation of his argument, just rhetoric. If this blog post, quoting and analyzing the particular passages from Michigan law isn't refutation, I don't know what would be.Narchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02055696618689833957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-79217938697121616752008-01-14T19:23:00.000-06:002008-01-14T19:23:00.000-06:00...Or apparently I won't write more about primary ......Or apparently I won't write more about primary elections under IL law, cos I can't find the statutes involved.The Squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257425428252880800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-91913702663074982912008-01-14T09:36:00.000-06:002008-01-14T09:36:00.000-06:00John - I made my argument on the definition of a "...John - I made my argument on the definition of a "qualified elector," and <I>then</I> outlined the permissiveness of the open primary system upon that base. The law you cite saying that Kos committed a felony rests upon that definition - which makes no mention of party affiliation at all. You have no case unless you can show that to be a "qualified elector", a term with a specific legal definition in MI, one must belong to one political party or another. Without that upon which to base your claim, you have nothing.<BR/><BR/>As for the court case, IIRC the Judge told the Urbana GOP that they had no case based upon IL law - which, I think, has rather different language compared to the permissive statutes in MI. I'll look tonight and pull the relevant laws.<BR/><BR/>As for challenges of electors based upon ballot choice being illegal, see Section 615c, subsection 2.The Squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257425428252880800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676875149450009903.post-65381561529811906692008-01-14T09:14:00.000-06:002008-01-14T09:14:00.000-06:00During the Urbana Mayoral race I said, "Should hav...During the Urbana Mayoral race I said, "Should have run a Republican candidate.", not sure if its in print though. But since Illinois has a substantially similar system as Michigan, the fact that there was a court case on the very question I'm raising might give you pause.<BR/><BR/>Open primaries are unconsitutitional, I pointed out where. Michigan law does make it very easy to have a pseudo-open primary system which is why I suspect the law was written as such. My complaint doesn't touch on challenging voters, but challenging Kos for counseling fraudulent votes. A vote may not be challengable on election day, that doesn't make it not fraudulent. Using that to derail me is making a different case and criticizing. Close, but no cigar. Though I would argue that challenging, say, the Democrat Party Chairman in picking a Republican ballot wouldn't be tossed on its face as you suggest. By the way, because something isn't explicitly allowed, doesn't make it illegal.<BR/><BR/>"challenges to that choice are explicitly stated to be illegal" Show me where, because the section doesn't say that challenges to party affiliation cannot be challenged explicitly, arguably implied (and I'd disagree), but certainly not explicit.<BR/><BR/>But in short, your analysis hinges on what can be challenged on election day... you'd have a point if I was talking about challenges. In fact, the laws I cite have nothing to do with challenges and those violations can take place even if a challenge cannot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com