Posted on 12/03/2008 12:12:40 PM PST by AmericanVictory
U.S. Supreme Court Hopfmann v. Connolly, 471 U.S. 459 (1985)
Hopfmann v. Connolly
No. 84-1440
Decided May 13, 1985
471 U.S. 459
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Held: In federal court proceedings wherein it was claimed that the Massachusetts Democratic Party's Charter, as enforced by a Massachusetts statute, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding, on the basis of Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, that the claim here was foreclosed by this Court's summary disposition of two appeals from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Langone v. Connolly, 460 U. S. 1057. Hicks explained the precedential effect of a dismissal by this Court "for want of [a] substantial federal question" where this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal. However, in Langone, this Court dismissed the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and thus had no occasion to adjudicate the merits of the constitutional questions presented in the jurisdictional statements. Nor did the denial of certiorari, upon treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken in Langone as petitions for certiorari, have any precedential effect.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction and, treating the papers as a petition for certiorari, certiorari granted; 746 F.2d 97, vacated and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, the petition is granted.
Hopfmann filed this action in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging a provision in the Charter of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Among the theories he advanced was a claim that the provision, as enforced by Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 53, §§ 1-121 (West 1975 and Supp.1985), violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Relying on Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 422 U. S. 344 (1975), the Court of Appeals held that the claim was foreclosed by this Court's
Page 471 U. S. 460
summary disposition of two appeals from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Langone v. Connolly, 460 U. S. 1057 (1983). See 746 F.2d 97, 100-101 (1984).
In Hicks, the Court explained the precedential effect of the dismissal "for want of [a] substantial federal question" in Miller v. California, 418 U. S. 915 (1974):
"[Miller] was an appeal from a decision by a state court upholding a state statute against federal constitutional attack. A federal constitutional issue was properly presented, it was within our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), and we had no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its merits, as would have been true had the case been brought here under our certiorari jurisdiction. We were not obligated to grant the case plenary consideration, and we did not; but we were required to deal with its merits. We did so by concluding that the appeal should be dismissed because the constitutional challenge to the California statute was not a substantial one."
422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 343-344. Because the Court had jurisdiction over the appeal in Miller, the dismissal involved a rejection of "the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U. S. 173, 432 U. S. 176 (1977) (per curiam).
On the other hand, the order disposing of the appeals in Langone read:
"Appeals from Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied. Reported below: 388 Mass. 185, 446 N.E.2d 43 [1983]."
460 U.S. at 1057 (emphasis added). Because the Court dismissed the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, we had no occasion to adjudicate the merits of the constitutional questions presented in the jurisdictional
Page 471 U. S. 461
statements. Nor did the denial of certiorari have any precedential effect. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912, 338 U. S. 919 (1950) (opinion of Frankfurter, J., respecting denial of the petition for certiorari).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated to the extent it relied on the dismissal of the appeals in Langone, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
In the 1982 Democratic Senatorial Primary in Massachusetts a Larry McDonald type conservative Democrat, an apple farmer, teacher and book store owner named Alwyn E. Hopfmann, was kept off the ballot against Kennedy despite having collected the required number of signatures specified by state law and having had them duly certified by the clerks of the townships where the signers lived. This exclusion from the ballot was justified by the Massachusetts Secretary of State on the basis of the a private rule of the Democrat Party known as the "15% rule." This rule required a person seeking tdo become a candidate to attend a convention of the party and obtain there the vote of 15% or more of the delegates in attendance. Al Hopfmann had attended and attracted 90 some votes to be on the ballot against Ted Kennedy but did not attract the 15% vote that the party rule required. The Democrat party had tried repeatedly to get its 15% rule enacted into law by the state legislature but had failed, not even able to get it out of committee.
This exclusion of Al Hopfmann from the Democrat primary ballot by the Massachusetts Secretary of State violated the "Times, Places and Manners" clause of the Constitution which states that the times, places and manner of electing U. S. senators shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.
Dukakis and the Demcrat state leadership got around the Constitution and the balkiness of the legislature by having Dukakis pal Liakos, Chief Justice of the state supreme court, give an "advisory opinion" that the clear language of the Constitution violated one of those "penumbras" of the First Amendment. The linked opinion appeared to vindicate the Constitution's clear language, but upon remand the Kennedy "damage control" machinery went into full swing.
They sent in a visiting judge to the First Circuit, a Lyndon Johnson hack, to undo the Supreme Court's initial work.
They rigged a parallel case in California and brought it up to the Supreme Court in order that the Supreme Court could stall the case involving Kennedy from coming back up once it was stifled in the First Circuit because the public might have caught on that the judges were more interesting in protecting Teddy than the Constitution.
A West Supreme Court reporter was rigged so as to misreport what the Supreme Court had held, probably by bribery.
Using the false report from the West Supreme Court reporter a parallel case brought in recalcitrant western Massachusetts by one of the party mavericks who had stood up for Hopfmann was dismiessed and when the mistake was pointed out, the Kennedy-allied court refused to reinstate it.
That western Massachusetts official and all of the handful of Democrats who had stood for the Constitution were attacked and purged by Kennedy operatives.
Members of the media who conducted honest inquiries into the matter were attacked and purged or silenced by the Kennedy operatives. The syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, for example, was sllenced by threats from Kennedy operatives within the DOJ to prosecute him for felony in connection with grand jury minutes he had obtained in connection with another Kennedy scandal.
With only a few exceptions the Kennedys managed to silence all the media, particularly in a 50 mile radius circle around Boston, "the Hub."
When the rigged California parallel case came up, finally, for review in the Supreme Court, the idea of declaring Kennedy's election constitutionally invalid and, therefore, void, had become so unthinkable that even supposed strict constutionalists such as Scalia held for the penumbra that had originated with the Massachusetts supreme court.
There is a serious possibility that something similar could be tried and could be successful at present with regard to the present controversy surrounding Barack Obama's eligibiity to be President and so this precedent should be studied and discussed. Unfortunately we at U.S. Defense-American Victory have been unable to interest World Net Daily, where up until a few years ago we had a good relationship, to publish anything about it, despite the good job that they are otherwise doing on this issue. In the last two years or so WND and Joe have basically stopped working with us. If any Freepers have a media connection that would be interested in working with our group on this and other matters we would like to know about it.
For example, we have a story we submitted to WND recently about the first hotel shootout terror incident on American soil, in 1973, in which our chairman was involved, and WND indicated no interest in the matter.
We have several hundred high-ranking former military who are interested in speaking out on topics that they are uniquely qualified to speak on and also significant stories about the breakdown of the rule of law in this country and its strategic damage to our foreign policy, particularly among judges in the Nation's Capital. While we published much on WND about energy developments and the lack of leadership in that area while we had a good relationship with WND there is much more that needs to be said now. If any Freepers have any suggestions in this regard we would appreciate them. Our relationship with FR began in the early 1990's with our first article on WND and has been strong ever since. At this point we think FR is of enormous strategic importance.
Bump for later read.
Live in Massachusetts long enough - pretty soon you realize that nothing is beneath the Kennedys. Nothing.
Well, sometimes someone from the secretarial pool...
Where’s Gretta when you need her?
That is what Nina Tottenberg, of all people, said when we were working on Al Hopfmann’s case, and then she actually did help us break the Kennedies’ “circle of silence” around Boston. She did this even though we who were involved, including Al Hopfmann himself, differed from her on most political views. She said at the outset that though she disagreed with us she grew up on Boston and knew how corrupt the Kennedies were.
Am trying to remember the US terrorist incident in '73--can you provide some info?
About two years ago or so Joe stopped responding to our e-mails and got a new column editor who, on the whole has been quite unresponsive.
We understand that Joe ordered him in any case only to accept columns from us about energy, which, with one exception, since then, has been the case.
Since our focus is strategic thinking in the blind spots illucidated by the two Chinese Communist Colonels in "Unrestricted Warfare" this has hurt us in getting our messages out and now, it seems we get no response at all except turndowns, albeit polite ones.
The incident I mentioned was at the HoJo that was then in New Orleans on Loyola Avenue near city hall. It was described in a book entitled "Terrible Thunder," by an author named Peter Hernon, a Chicago area reporter who covered New Orleans at one point, and which was published by Garrett County Press. You can look it up online. It occurred in January.
You can also read about in an account from TruTV at this link. From my personal knowledge as one who was involved in some matters there which led me to believe that I might have been a target I can tell you that the TruTV emphasis on the Black Panther connection is not as accurate ss it could be. The Black Panther connection of the gunman who ultimately was killed, thanks to a Marine chopper pilot, was not as strong as his Muslim connection. When I read the book after some friends there presented me with an autographed copy I was truly upset at the New Orleans police accepting an alibi from the Imam about what I and many others who were there believe was a second shooter.
The Black Panthers seemed to disappear from the news later in the '70s, but have come out in recent times w/ the rise of radical Muslims.
Yes, one wonders why shows such as Hannity and Colmes give air time to the “New Black Panthers,” particularly in light of the accurate exposure of their criminality and hypocrisy by David Horowitz and others. Every time that the “New Black Panthers” are given airtime by white media one wonders if they too are going to stomp their treasurer to death if she reveals their corruption and embezzlement.
I just read the accounts of the N.O. incident and now remember it vaguely--the Panthers then are Muslims, mostly or all?
I’m fairly new to FR & glad I found it. Now, do you mean presenting a category on the Forum? Have you presented anything to Jim Robinson? This could be a vital area to explore.
No, the Muslims and the panthers were totally separate. The panthers were never that effective in New Orleans. In fact when they tried to establish themselves by doing security in the 9th ward housing projects, they did not last one night because the existing gangs, who were much tougher, ran them off.
The second shooter in the incident, whom I and many others thought we heard, was an active Muslim, and he was the mentor who really led Essex down the path to his insane hatred and explosive destructive rage.
By the way the TruTV account leaves out that there were some casualties among the police due to friendly fire in the chaos that occurred.
TruTV should of course mentioned the casualties of law officers.
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.