Posted on 07/11/2016 4:46:49 PM PDT by Mechanicos
Great post. Thank you.
If I set up the local VFW hall with ballot boxes under rules everyone was in agreement with, then I change them, I am the one who broke the agreement and I will lose in court.
Exactly as the judge found today.
Any changes made must be for a future point in time, but everyone can agree to be bound at that future time under those future rules.
Easy peasy.
I’m so tempted to dump my Facebook friends who are still pulling for cRuz. I’d dump the account but then i’d miss family stuff, but I refuse to visit otherwise.
I never knew I had so many ignorant, clueless Christian friends who think all Republicans are the same. They see someone wave a Bible and they bite — hook, line, and sinker. Dear God, give me patience with stupid people!
The judge ruled the VA law unconstitutional and thus Correll won Counts I and II.
There was nothing wrong with the State law, and Correll’s First Amendment claims were bogus, especially since he became a delegate AFTER the results of the VA primary were known.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx
Hildy posted this as an example
Of how one state handled the issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3448404/posts?page=101
Excellent!!!
The most important take away from the opinion is this:
“In sum, where the State attempts to interfere with a
political party’s internal governance and operation, the party is entirely free to “cancel out [the State’s] effort”
This gives a green light to the RNC Rules committee to come up with whatever rules they may want, no matter what the State laws may say.
To call this a victory for the grassroots is an amazing feat of overstatement...
My apologies for Calling Payne scum. I like this result.
“This gives a green light to the RNC Rules committee to come up with whatever rules they may want, no matter what the State laws may say.
To call this a victory for the grassroots is an amazing feat of overstatement... “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3424005/posts
To: Jim Robinson
Being told I must vote for a particular candidate doesn’t sit well with me no matter how well intentioned that call may be.
I’ll vote or not vote for whatever candidate I choose and that choice will not be made on the basis of my membership in any particular forum or group.
This is your property and you have the right to set the bar for membership as you like. I’d already made the decision to refrain from posting until after the election. I’ll sign off now and zot me if you like
719 posted on 4/24/2016, 1:37:21 PM by montanajoe
Follow that dream, Cruz loser.
The ruling was misunderstood by most on the first thread. Glad to see it cleared up.
so Bernie won
Rule 16 bites the gopE in the butt.
I don’t know what to believe. Two articles with differing interpretations. I read as much of the judge’s ruling as I could understand (I am not a lawyer) but it was plain to me that the judge ruled for this delegate to break the rules. Now this thread says that the judge ruled for the delegates to be bound.
Again, I am not a lawyer but this judge (a Bush 41 appointee) has it all wrong. This is NOT a First Amendment free speech case. It is a 14th Amendment abridgment of civil rights. Furthermore, the judge made a special class of this one citizen , making him above the law.
Singlehandedly, the judge changed our form of government from a representative republic into anarchy. Laws and a man’s word mean nothing.
All yall, Ping to this thread
Curly’s on suicide watch.
-PJ
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.