Did Tom DeLay outfox himself?

A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.

<snip>

"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks.

<SNIP>

Sparks also said that if political parties are allowed to replace primary election winners with more popular candidates, "the abuse would be incredible."


Houston Chronicle


If the judge rules that DeLay withdrew from the race after winning the primary he can't be replaced on the November ballot. If he rules that DeLay is ineligible, a committee of four Republican precinct chairs representing each of the counties in the 22nd District would be able to select a nominee to replace him. Pending...

Interesting little loophole.

They could run a write in campaign.... :lol: :lol:

And do we have any word on the status of the charges Delay faces for being a corrupt, thieving, lying som-a-bitch?

wonder cow said:

And do we have any word on the status of the charges Delay faces for being a corrupt, thieving, lying som-a-bitch?

Click to expand...

Only his hairdresser knows for sure.:mrgreen:

tom delay is sooo arrogant. i think the supreme court decision was wrong. it sets up a scenario for unbelievable abuse. the constitution says every ten years, when a cencus is done is there to be district changes,...at least every ten years. now that does give leway for one change in the re districting, but in my very humble opinion, it doesnt give the green light for the partys to go nuts, which is probably going to happen.

BWG said:

A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.

<snip>

"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks.

<SNIP>

Sparks also said that if political parties are allowed to replace primary election winners with more popular candidates, "the abuse would be incredible."


Houston Chronicle


If the judge rules that DeLay withdrew from the race after winning the primary he can't be replaced on the November ballot. If he rules that DeLay is ineligible, a committee of four Republican precinct chairs representing each of the counties in the 22nd District would be able to select a nominee to replace him. Pending...

Click to expand...

No he didn't...........

jennyb said:

tom delay is sooo arrogant. i think the supreme court decision was wrong. it sets up a scenario for unbelievable abuse. the constitution says every ten years, when a cencus is done is there to be district changes,...at least every ten years. now that does give leway for one change in the re districting, but in my very humble opinion, it doesnt give the green light for the partys to go nuts, which is probably going to happen.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know with my 'ol pal Tom 'The Bugman' DeLay there are so many lawsuits against this fine upstanding pilar of the comunity, it's hard to keep track. This one I'm talking about is whether or not DeLay is to be kept on the November ballot after winning the Republican primary. If he withdrew, as the Republican judge indicates, he can't be replaced on the ballot. If he is ineligible, a committee will choose a candidate, bypassing the eligible voters of TX-22.

The SCOTUS ruling you're talking about can have a huge effect that perhaps the cons are not going to like. The Court ruled that state legislatures can redistrict any time it wants (as opposed to every 10 years after a new census). Some watchers of this sort of thing believe that at least 4 and maybe as many as 7 states will redistrict after the November election in favor of Democrats. They believe that maybe 3 will redistrict in favor of Republicans. Stay tuned!

wonder cow said:

And do we have any word on the status of the charges Delay faces for being a corrupt, thieving, lying som-a-bitch?

Click to expand...

It's still ongoing. The wheels of justice turn slowly, especially when a worm is trying to wiggle free (read judge shopping).

BWG said:

Sparks also said that if political parties are allowed to replace primary election winners with more popular candidates, "the abuse would be incredible."


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004711.html

Click to expand...

Hmmmm can anyone say TORRICELLI! How arrogant an hypocritical for the Democrats to file this suit. And not only that they got a Judge to rewrite election law in New Jersey so they could do preciesly what the sued against here.

BWG said:

It's still ongoing. The wheels of justice turn slowly, especially when a worm is trying to wiggle free (read judge shopping).

Click to expand...

Ahhh especially when the DA doesn't have a case and the only shopping that has been going on is grand jury shopping.

so set me right did i just hear on the news that his name is to stay on the ballot???

the ruling on reassigning districts is rediculous...once again what happened to what the constitution says...why continue with it if we are going to continuously break it.....

jennyb said:

so set me right did i just hear on the news that his name is to stay on the ballot???

the ruling on reassigning districts is rediculous...once again what happened to what the constitution says...why continue with it if we are going to continuously break it.....

Click to expand...

The constitution REQUIRES a redisticting every ten years after the census. It does not prohibit redistricting in between. That is a STATE decission not a FEDERAL one. Just as each state can decide how it will elect it's electors and could do so in the legislature and not even having a vote. Originally that's how Senators were choosen, there was no vote. We should go back to that.

So how about it Democrats. How can you support this decission when you supported Torricelli doing the same thing Delay was going to do?

Torricelli
Cons filed suits in New Jersey (lower and Supreme Court). Cons lost.

DeLay
Dems filed suit in Texas. Cons lost. Cons appealing.

Cons didn't want Torricelli removed and replaced in NJ, but want DeLay removed and replaced in Texas.

Sour grapes? :roll:

it requires a cencus and one may redistrict, it doesnt say it can be done as many times as you want in between it is required every ten years that is all it says. what is the point in voting if you know your district will continuously be changed?

jennyb said:

it requires a cencus and one may redistrict, it doesnt say it can be done as many times as you want in between it is required every ten years that is all it says. what is the point in voting if you know your district will continuously be changed?

Click to expand...

This is a mess. Now every State will redistrict every time it feels it is the party in power's best interest.

I find it very strange that Dems scream at whatever they see as the slightest infraction of a rule, when they think it will work in their favour.
Quote
(i think the supreme court decision was wrong. it sets up a scenario for unbelievable abuse. the constitution says every ten years, when a cencus is done is there to be district changes,...at least every ten years. now that does give leway for one change in the re districting, but in my very humble opinion, it doesnt give the green light for the partys to go nuts, which is probably going to happen.)

What the auther of this particular piece of drivel has not done is to read the news from Texas with regard to the Republican's setting up a committee of 8 individuals, essentially 4 proposed by the Dems and 4 by the GOP, overseen by a judge with no vote.
This panel will in future decide what if any changes are to be made about redistricting, a majority is required, so that means that at least one of the opposing party's must agree with his/her opponents in the other party.
Now this rule was proposed by a GOP Senator and passed by a GOP Texas House and signed into Texan law by a GOP Governor.
Democrats, when they were the majority party in Tx had many years in which they could have proposed such a simple yet effectively fair method of redistricting.
Needless to say they made absolutely no effort whatsoever.

Second point is that Tom DeLay by being compelled to remain on the ticket for the 22nd district, might if the opinion polls are to be believed actually be re-elected.
No one likes a Politician who may be a thief, but as of this momenmt Mr. DeLay is an innocent man, he has been indicted, he has not been tried, he has not been found guilty, he has not been convicted of any crime.
American law holds that a person is innocent until they are tried and found guilty.
It would be preferable if you JennyB, ceased your poisonous prattling and observed the laws under which you live.

BWG said:

Torricelli
Cons filed suits in New Jersey (lower and Supreme Court). Cons lost.

Click to expand...

Dems filed suit to replace with another candidate, Dems won. Set precident that it's OK to replace candidates because the voters should have a choice.

DeLay
Dems filed suit in Texas. Cons lost. Cons appealing.

Click to expand...

Delay quits the race and Republicans replace him, remember the voters should have a choice principle of the Democrats? Dems object to replace a candidite. Remember hypocracy?

clinton wa:roll: s impeached for less than what delay did,,,and delay is getting an okay to be on the ballot.....wont tell you what i think of ANYONE who votes for him.

Cons filed suit to block Torricelli being replaced.

Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bill Frist, R-Tenn., delivered his side's papers personally to the court on Thursday. The suit argues that the state Supreme Court erred when it ruled 7-0 that election law should be broadly interpreted to "allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."

"It is clear that the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped their authority, overriding the will of the people," Frist said after delivering the paperwork. "The change and switch on the ballot is illegal."

Attorneys for Republican Doug Forrester went to federal court in Trenton, New Jersey to argue that the Voting Rights Act was violated by the switch of Democratic candidates.


Why did the cons say it was illegal for the dems to do it then , but OK for the cons to do it now. :shrug:

jujuman13 said:

(i think the supreme court decision was wrong. it sets up a scenario for unbelievable abuse. the constitution says every ten years, when a cencus is done is there to be district changes,...at least every ten years. now that does give leway for one change in the re districting, but in my very humble opinion, it doesnt give the green light for the partys to go nuts, which is probably going to happen.)

Click to expand...

You're right. You can thank Tom DeLay and the Republicans for that.

jujuman13 said:

What the auther of this particular piece of drivel has not done is to read the news from Texas with regard to the Republican's setting up a committee of 8 individuals, essentially 4 proposed by the Dems and 4 by the GOP, overseen by a judge with no vote.
This panel will in future decide what if any changes are to be made about redistricting, a majority is required, so that means that at least one of the opposing party's must agree with his/her opponents in the other party.
Now this rule was proposed by a GOP Senator and passed by a GOP Texas House and signed into Texan law by a GOP Governor.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to show me that one..LOL

jujuman13 said:

Democrats, when they were the majority party in Tx had many years in which they could have proposed such a simple yet effectively fair method of redistricting.

Click to expand...

They could have done what the Republicans did and redistrict to ensure Democrat seats, but they chose to stay within the accepted guidelines and let the chips fall where they may.

jujuman13 said:

Second point is that Tom DeLay by being compelled to remain on the ticket for the 22nd district, might if the opinion polls are to be believed actually be re-elected.

Click to expand...

Anything is possible, but a poll not to long ago showed that ANY Democrat would defeat DeLay. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to get him off the November ballot.

BWG said:

Cons filed suit to block Torricelli being replaced.

Click to expand...

Acutally Democrats filed to have him replaced because he was going to lose so badly the race wasn't "competitive", they got a Democrat judge to go along with it. The Republicans of course objected because the law did not allow it. They lost. The precident was set, if the party's candidate is really bad just replace him.

Delay choose to drop out because of all the controversy he was not the best candidate because of it, the Dems objected and went to court saying you can't replace a candidate.

Sheer hypocracy but not surprising of the part of the Dems.


Attorneys for Republican Doug Forrester went to federal court in Trenton, New Jersey to argue that the Voting Rights Act was violated by the switch of Democratic candidates.

Why did the cons say it was illegal for the dems to do it then , but OK for the cons to do it now. :shrug:

Click to expand...

They went to court and lost in NJ, the Dems won THEIR point. The precident was then set. The Rep are only abiding by that precident that the voters deserve a good choice, the Dems NOW object to the precident they fought for and won. Sheer hypocracy.

jennyb said:

clinton wa:roll: s impeached for less than what delay did,,,

Click to expand...

Actually no, Clinton was impeached because he committed felony crimes in a federal court and a grand jury. Delay has been charge with.....well we don't really know because the prosecutors evidence went down the drain and he can't really explain what the indictment covers.

and delay is getting an okay to be on the ballot.....wont tell you what i think of ANYONE who votes for him.

Click to expand...

He is only indicted on a very very questionable charge. But he was willing to drop out of the race an have a special elecion held. The court should have nothing to do with this if the special election is held before the final filling date for candidates. Primary's are the functions of the parties, NOT the government. The parties should be able to do what they want to up to the final filling date. But if he stays in and wins then he can resign and the state legislature will appoint his replacement.

BWG..your first 'originaly posted by jujuman', down below there was posted by me:2wave: not jujuman....i am dem he is repub.....read his other statements you 'originally posted by, and you WILL see the difference....

thats okay:mrgreen:

At the center of the New Jersey case was whether or not the switch (Robert Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg) was inside/outside of the requisite number of days. New Jersey Election state law states that candidates can not be swapped out within 51 days of an election.

Democrats filed suit seeking both a)declaratory judgment that it could proceed with the selection of a new candidate for the Senate and b) injunctive relief directing county clerks to print ballots with the name of the new candidate.(at the Democrats expense, I might add)

A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. It is allowed to nip controversies in the bud.

In other words, the Democrats asked if it was OK to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the ballot and the court approved it. Of course the Republicans filed injunctions to block this ruling all the way up to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and were denied. They lost.

In the Texas case, the question is whether Tom DeLay is ineligible or did he withdraw.

Republican Party state chair Tina Benkiser said under state law she could declare DeLay "ineligible" for the ballot because she received proof of his move out of state, thus allowing a party committee to name a new nominee. Had DeLay simply "withdrawn," the party wouldn't be allowed to replace him in the race under state law.

DeLay still owns - and his wife, Christine, still lives in - his Sugar Land house.

Of course, the Republican Party state chair can't just wave her broomstick...err magic wand and legally declare Tom DeLay anything, so the Democrats turned to the courts.

Federal Judge Sam Sparks said he was not convinced that DeLay would not return to Texas. "DeLay was chosen as the Republican nominee by the voters in the Republican primary, and he is still eligible to be the party's nominee."


How can there be a precedence between two different sets, of two different states law AND not even on the same premise is beyond me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Hypocrisy? If the cases had the same basis AND one could show that the same individuals involved in the 2002 case in New Jersey and this 2006 case in Texas are one and the same, the word might have some merit. Otherwise, just carelessly tossing the word about, dilutes its meaning and effectiveness and exposes the writers desperation for a cheap insult.



The DeLay case is still not over, his appeal will go to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

-and there is time-

The Texas Secretary of State's Office says state law sets Aug. 25 as the deadline to declare a candidate ineligible and sets other deadlines in the week after that for naming a replacement nominee. The state's deadline for certifying the general election ballot is Sept. 6.

jennyb
jujuman didn't quote you, so I didn't know, but you are right in that for a brief, selfish, temporary political edge, the Republicans have opened up a can of worms for both parties to abuse in the future, but then we're talking about 'The Bugman' and Republicans here.

BWG said:

At the center of the New Jersey case was whether or not the switch (Robert Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg) was inside/outside of the requisite number of days. New Jersey Election state law states that candidates can not be swapped out within 51 days of an election.

Click to expand...

Yes I know what was invovled in both cases. It is a clear case of hypocracy by the Dems. THEY set the precident that if the candidate is in danger of losing they replace him (Toricelli was about 35 points behind), THEY in the Torricelli case did so by finding a judge who voided a state election law soley for the purpose of putting a viable Democrat candidate on the ballot under the strange premise that the court could insure a competitive race.

NOW the Democrats say no the Republicans can't do that even though they ARE within the law as far as filing dates. Torricelli wanted to drop out, Delay wants to drop out.