NEVADA, 19 January 2008
Posted on 01/17/2008 11:27:45 AM PST by Timeout
ust minutes ago, District Court Judge James Mahan rejected the lawsuit that contested the nine at-large Strip caucus sites.
He cited case law that “recognizes the parties have the right to determine how to apportion delegates.”
Attorney Mark Ferrario for the state teachers’ union and five party activists who brought the lawsuit said he didn’t know whether they would appeal, but “probably not.”
He's been getting angry a lot lately too. Those women that loved him 10 years ago probably look at him as an ex-husband. Married to Hillary.
Rush has an "arousal gap" theory about Romney now that he's working on.
Hmmmm. I hadn’t heard about that. Let me ruminate on that a bit. I’ll get back to you!
NEVADA, 19 January 2008
Could a local Nevadan please explain the situation? Is it the case that Las Vegas strip workers have to commute a long way, and cannot vote where they live? (Do they have 12 hour shifts, or do they commute more than say 2 hours one way, and the polls are open 8am-8pm?) Or is it just for convenience’ sake that they want to vote where they work instead of where they live? (Yeah, it’s a fine line, but...)
Now I was in favor of throwing out provisional ballots in Ohio unless they were cast in the correct precinct....so I guess I have to be consistent here. But please, I’d like to understand the issue.
BRAVO!!!
DFU would be most proud...
Sorry, not a local Nevadan, but this is what I read:
The voting is on Saturday, the busiest day for casinos and the workers. Doubtful if the workers could have gotten time off away from work to vote. The teachers had no case...they DON’T WORK on Saturdays.
Bill’s five-fold comment was ignorant.
Rush came up with the "arousal gap" theory when Clinton got impeached and had high poll ratings from women then. The premise he's studying is the democrats may have "arousal gap" women trouble if it's Romney vs. Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Clinton hanging around with no particular job to do.
Now, if we could only get the government out of the business of supporting the two-party system in general...or even supporting a party system at all...it would be a great step forward for the Republic!
Be careful what you wish for. What I've been reading about Obama is scary. His family comes from Kenya and is allied there and supported the Muslim candidate who lost the presidential election. If that candidate had won, his platform included transforming the country into a Muslim state with Shariah law. Further, his membership in a Black segregationist church with a Marxist minister shows his commitment to socialism and opposition to free market principles. If he was a white candidate, he would be skewered as a racist for these views.
Sreems about right.
I was going to do that, but yours is better!
Get rid of Hillary and you lose the Clinton Machine. There is less chance of Obama winning than her.
I’ve been looking at these pictures of the ex unzipped president, which I usually try to avoid. Sheesh, the Portrait of Dorian Gray comes to mind....
We in Nevada have been up to our eyeballs in Hillary! TV commercials. They are unbelievably sappy and condescending, with Hillary! constantly doing her fakey "concerned" voice.
And you know what I'm talkin' about!
Brilliant in a world where sports analogies are overused. That is priceless!
I agree with that sentiment but only because the judge was clearly in the right: it is a caucus not an election (or a primary where I believe the ruling would still be valid in such a time sensitive assault on agreed rules by the Teachers Union/Clintons). The party can make such rules, they did a year ago, the unions informed as such, Obama gets endorsement, Clintons try to change rules after the fact via proxy. DENIED!
That's a good point but I still believe that the judge's role was to adjudicate a dispute as opposed to creating a remedy. Since the question was whether the rules agreed to a year before by the Dem Party Establishment for THEIR own caucus could be altered at the last minute and would that be fundamentaly unfair to those that were prepared to participate at the closer meeting points established a year before, the judge really only could rule the way he did.
That's pretty much the reality in a nutshell.
“That’s a good point but I still believe that the judge’s role was to adjudicate a dispute as opposed to creating a remedy.”
Oh I agree... I didn’t mean the ruling was bad, but that the original rule was bad. I guess I should have used a different word than rule! It does give an unfair advantage to the unions. But, as you said, it was all agreed to long ago. My point was that if the plaintiffs had really felt voters were disenfranchised, they would have sued to get themselves the same benefit union members were getting, not sued to shut the at-large precincts down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.