Federal Judge Rules Against Presidential Debate Commission

[Speaker to Animals]

I haven't clicked your link or read more than the headline.

Blind hail marry here.

What's the political bent of the judge in this decision?

LOL. Did you really need to look it up? This one was obvious from two thousand miles away.

On December 19, 2013, President Obama nominated Chutkan to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to a new seat created pursuant to 104 Stat. 5089, on July 1, 2013.[3]

She received a hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on February 25, 2014.[4]

On March 27, 2014 her nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[5] On May 22, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on the nomination. On Tuesday June 3, 2014 the U.S. Senate voted 54-40 on the motion to invoke cloture.[6] On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 the U.S. Senate voted in favor of final confirmation by a vote of 95-0.[7] She received her judicial commission on June 5, 2014.

Chutkan was assigned the case American Society for Testing and Materials et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. In the case, Public.Resource.Org was sued by the American Society for Testing and Materials, the National Fire Protection Association, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers for scanning and making available building codes and fire codes which these organizations consider their copyrighted property.[8][9] Chutkan ruled against Public.Resource.Org, writing that the public interest is best served by having laws of the US government inaccessible by its people, and ordering all of the standards to be deleted from the Internet.[10]

[Okeefenokee]

put six points on the board.

[adwinistrator]

I haven't clicked your link or read more than the headline.

Blind hail marry here.

What's the political bent of the judge in this decision?

Read whatever you want. This lawsuit was about the 15% rule, which only affects 3rd parties. The suit is about stripping 501c3 status.

The only thing that matters, that the article states, and my quote contains, is the following passage:

“The FEC is ORDERED to reconsider the evidence and allegations and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion “within 30 days, failing which the complainant may bring, in the name of such complainant, a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.”… The FEC is FURTHER ORDERED to reconsider the Petition for Rulemaking and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion within sixty days.”

[adwinistrator]

I haven't clicked your link or read more than the headline.

Blind hail marry here.

What's the political bent of the judge in this decision?

LOL. Did you really need to look it up? This one was obvious from two thousand miles away.

On December 19, 2013, President Obama nominated Chutkan to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to a new seat created pursuant to 104 Stat. 5089, on July 1, 2013.[3]

She received a hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on February 25, 2014.[4]

On March 27, 2014 her nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[5] On May 22, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on the nomination. On Tuesday June 3, 2014 the U.S. Senate voted 54-40 on the motion to invoke cloture.[6] On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 the U.S. Senate voted in favor of final confirmation by a vote of 95-0.[7] She received her judicial commission on June 5, 2014.

Chutkan was assigned the case American Society for Testing and Materials et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. In the case, Public.Resource.Org was sued by the American Society for Testing and Materials, the National Fire Protection Association, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers for scanning and making available building codes and fire codes which these organizations consider their copyrighted property.[8][9] Chutkan ruled against Public.Resource.Org, writing that the public interest is best served by having laws of the US government inaccessible by its people, and ordering all of the standards to be deleted from the Internet.[10]

OMG are you saying a federal judge was appointed by a politician?!?!?!?

Lawsuit is about CPD's 501c3 status, and the bullshit 15% rule.

Does the lawsuit have merit?

It goes to the FEC now, which I'm sure will find a way to fuck this up. Who's fault will that be? Republicans? Democrats? Both of them?

[Okeefenokee]

It doesn't matter if it has merit. It's a political decision. Gary Johnson just challenged this last year to get into the debates, and lost. Less than six months later, a judge rules against the bar.

I'm fine with them opening up the debates. I wanted it a decade ago when I learned about this.

What I'm pointing out, and you seem to not want to see, is that this has been challenged over and over again, and it never went anywhere. But then the anointed one loses her election, and suddenly a dem judge is okay with opening up the debates.

Are you telling me there aren't any politics at play in federal court?

[de officiis]

THIRD-PARTY AND INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: THE NEED FOR A RUNOFF MECHANISM

Edward B. Foley - 85 Fordham L. Rev. 993 (12/2016)

Abstract:

This paper reviews the history of presidential elections, those in the nineteenth as well as the twentieth centuries, make the case that third-party candidates have determined which major-party candidate won the election far more frequently than is usually recognized. It is not just Ralph Nader in 2000, but many other instances, most especially the three-way split between Wilson, Roosevelt, and Taft in 1912. Based on this history, the paper argues that America needs some sort of runoff mechanism for presidential elections, either a second-round system like that employed by France and most other democracies with presidential (rather than parliamentary) governments, or Instant Runoff Voting. The paper then explains why and how, in the absence of a constitutional amendment, it would be feasible for each state to make its own independent determination to use Instant Runoff Voting pursuant to its authority under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution to determine the method of appointing the state's presidential electors.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2795124

[Okeefenokee]

THIRD-PARTY AND INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: THE NEED FOR A RUNOFF MECHANISM

Edward B. Foley - 85 Fordham L. Rev. 993 (12/2016)

Abstract:

This paper reviews the history of presidential elections, those in the nineteenth as well as the twentieth centuries, make the case that third-party candidates have determined which major-party candidate won the election far more frequently than is usually recognized. It is not just Ralph Nader in 2000, but many other instances, most especially the three-way split between Wilson, Roosevelt, and Taft in 1912. Based on this history, the paper argues that America needs some sort of runoff mechanism for presidential elections, either a second-round system like that employed by France and most other democracies with presidential (rather than parliamentary) governments, or Instant Runoff Voting. The paper then explains why and how, in the absence of a constitutional amendment, it would be feasible for each state to make its own independent determination to use Instant Runoff Voting pursuant to its authority under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution to determine the method of appointing the state's presidential electors.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2795124

Give it to me straight. No shit. This different than the other times? Garry filed against this. Didn't win. Is this different than all the other times it was challenged?

[adwinistrator]

It doesn't matter if it has merit. It's a political decision. Gary Johnson just challenged this last year to get into the debates, and lost. Less than six months later, a judge rules against the bar.

I'm fine with them opening up the debates. I wanted it a decade ago when I learned about this.

What I'm pointing out, and you seem to not want to see, is that this has been challenged over and over again, and it never went anywhere. But then the anointed one loses her election, and suddenly a dem judge is okay with opening up the debates.

Are you telling me there aren't any politics at play in federal court?

I don't disagree at all with your statement at all that federal judges are politically motivated, it's always been that way... Is this a surprise to anyone? I never claimed the judge involved was impartial, it just wasn't relevant to my opinion of this single ruling.

I'm not some party loyalist, so to me, if a judge makes a ruling that I think is good for our country, then I am pleased.

If a Republican appointed judge makes a ruling that strikes down some BS law that infringes on our rights, then I am pleased. If he did it to win some political battle between the 2 parties, I really don't care.

Same with this CPD lawsuit. It was filed before the election, as soon as the CPD denied the 3rd party candidates, by a group that is supported by 3rd party candidates. The lawsuit is about the bullshit the CPD pulls, and pushing back on their practices. If this judge decided one way or another because of Democratic interests, I just don't care. Unless you support the CPD and the bipartisan control of the presidential debates, this is a good thing.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't care why they finally made the right decision... I care that the right decision was made. Who gives a shit about the politics of the judge??