This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

Florida court throws out DNC suit

Posted: 10:45 AM ET

A Florida court threw out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Democratic Party's decision not to seat delegates from Florida.

A Florida court threw out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Democratic Party's decision not to seat delegates from Florida.

(CNN) — A Florida court threw out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Democratic Party's decision not to seat delegates from Florida — as litigants prepared to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Political consultant Victor DiMaio and his lawyer Michael Steinberg had compared the party's decision to earlier prohibitions against allowing African-Americans to vote and invoked the trauma of the Florida recount in the 2000 contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush, both arguments also used by Hillary Clinton to support the seating of the state’s delegates.

"This is nuts. This is not right. How can they remove Florida after all the things that Florida has suffered through– hanging chads, through Bush v Gore, and they're sticking it to us again," DiMaio said before the hearing.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean says the situations are not comparable.

"You cannot violate the rules of the process and then expect to get forgiven for it," he said.

Judge Richard Lazarra sided with the party, saying political parties have the right to make their own rules.

DiMaio's is the second Florida lawsuit protesting the Democratic Party's decision to be thrown out of court. An earlier one filed by Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats, was also dismissed.

I'm not sure if you're serious about the "other" being awarded to HC but I'll bite on this and tell you (not to be rude) that it's a laugh track moment but I don't think you're serious. There is no winner take all and taking it a step further, certainly not for a penalized state.

I don't know what they are going to do with the delegates or the ones in the "other" column if they seat them as is.

I hate to break it to you but, in some contests, there is a winner take all (for primaries).

Howard Dean has a point.....

Either delegates will be seated at 1/2 strength or they shouldn't be seated at all.

Period.

I think it was foolish for HRC to punish the states who broke the rules.......and now act like they are being disinfranchised when she needs them.

I don't know what they are going to do with the delegates or the ones in the "other" column if they seat them as is.

I hate to break it to you but, in some contests, there is a winner take all (for primaries).

Not for Democrats. It's proportioned. Only republicans do winner take all I believe (for some states).

I don't know what they are going to do with the delegates or the ones in the "other" column if they seat them as is.

I hate to break it to you but, in some contests, there is a winner take all (for primaries).

Were you not suggesting that HC could/should be awarded all the delegates in the "other" column or did I misunderstand you? I based my response on that. Her people would like her to get those delegates or for those delegates to go unpledged and that's unlikely to happen in a compromise.

I'm referring to MI and FL and what are you referring to? The Republicans have winner take all. Which of the Democrats primaries are winner take all?

Not for Democrats. It's proportioned. Only republicans do winner take all I believe (for some states).

BO would be stupid to let them be seated as is.

He needs to get a fair deal out of it. If that can't happen and they give her the nom.......if I were him, I wouldn't accept a VP spot. Let her have it her way.

And the party will get what they deserve.

I have a headache. I feel like we're talking in circles.

That's because the same talking points keep coming up, and folks act like they don't hear that.

Were you not suggesting that HC could/should be awarded all the delegates in the "other" column or did I misunderstand you? I based my response on that. Her people would like her to get those delegates or for those delegates to go unpledged and that's unlikely to happen in a compromise.

I'm referring to MI and FL and what are you referring to? The Republicans have winner take all. Which of the Democrats primaries are winner take all?

I said that all the delegates in the "other" column should go to her because she won both states, even MI despite his name not being on the ballot. He chose to take his name off whereas she keps hers on...if she could keep it on for MI, why not him?

I think Connecticut is Winner Take All, New Jersey is, and maybe one or two more states

I have a headache. I feel like we're talking in circles.

Well Ryan I can loan you some Ibuprofin here at my house...I can't have it because I am allergic to it

I said that all the delegates in the "other" column should go to her because she won both states, even MI despite his name not being on the ballot. He chose to take his name off whereas she keps hers on...if she could keep it on for MI, why not him?

If I may channel Wales here....

Obama never put his name on the MI ballot period. MI automatically put all the candidates' names on the ballot and they had to sign a document to remove it which they all did except HC.

FL has no provisions for removing a name (and may in fact require a candidate be on the primary ballot in order to be on the general election ballot) and that is why the same candidates could not remove their names from the FL ballot, otherwise they most likely would have.

The argument that it's Obama's fault he took his name of the ballot in MI is incorrect and the issue is irrelevant since the candidates knew upfront that those primaries violated the DNC's rules. Clinton is wrong on this and that's the bottom line.

I have a headache. I feel like we're talking in circles.

Uhmmmm that's because we are for the most part.

I'm glad they suit got thrown out and I thought this was the third one. I hope the Supreme Court tosses it as well. This is basically the prelude to the "give me the nomination" based on a civil rights argument. The DNC should have swooped in as swiftly as the RNC and issued the fifty percent penalty off the bat.

What you are wrong about, Ryan, is saying she did not sign a document that refuses to count MI and FL...she did sign that document.

If I am not mistaken, John Edwards or another candidate had their name on the ballot in MI

Uhmmmm that's because we are for the most part.

I'm glad they suit got thrown out and I thought this was the third one. I hope the Supreme Court tosses it as well. This is basically the prelude to the "give me the nomination" based on a civil rights argument. The DNC should have swooped in as swiftly as the RNC and issued the fifty percent penalty off the bat.

IA. If they wouldhave stuck with their guns this all would be over.

What you are wrong about, Ryan, is saying she did not sign a document that refuses to count MI and FL...she did sign that document.

If I am not mistaken, John Edwards or another candidate had their name on the ballot in MI

You are mistaken.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/10/...in3698117.shtml

What you are wrong about, Ryan, is saying she did not sign a document that refuses to count MI and FL...she did sign that document.

I'm not Ryan but if you're saying that she did sign a document that refuses to count MI and FL then she shouldn't try to count them should she? Doesn't that show her mission to now have them counted is self serving.

If I am not mistaken, John Edwards or another candidate had their name on the ballot in MI

It wasn't John Edwards but that's beside the point.

I think Connecticut is Winner Take All, New Jersey is, and maybe one or two more states

You're arguing that she should get all the delegates in FL and MI yet you have yet to declare that they are winner take all primaries, so you have no basis other than that you want her to get all the delegates because you want her to win.

I'm just going to add that for me to continue to debate over MI is moot since not only were they in violation of the rules but they also didn't offer any options for voters who wanted to select a candidate other than HC (if that candidate's name was not on the ballot). There is no way that voting uncommitted signifies a vote for HC when her name was an option. And there is no way that she should be designated all of those uncommitted delegates when they clearly did not vote for her whether it be in full or at fifty percent.

I've repeated myself more than once as to the names on the FL/MI ballots and this whole thing is cyclical and enough to cause not just a headache but a migraine. The seating intent will be revealed on Saturday.

Edited May 28, 200817 yr by Wales2004