Slashdot Mirror
Libertarians Lose Case to Block Presidential Debate
PMoonlite writes "As a followup to the previous Slashdot story, the judge ruled in favor of the Commission on Presidential Debates, refusing a restraining order on the basis of the doctrine of laches (unfairness due to delay of suit) and public interest, but allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages. So the debate will go forth at Arizona State University with only two of the three candidates on the state ballot."
While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause does anybody seriously think that the American public would have been served by having the debate canceled? And make no mistake that's exactly what would have happened. There's no way Bush or Kerry's people would let them debate w/Badnarik.
Of course it probably would have been worse off for Bush then Kerry. I doubt that the LP gains many converts from the Democrats. I can see them stealing away Republicans who aren't happy with Bush (deficits, big government, erosion of civil liberties). A three person debate also seems to focus all of the attacks on the incumbent -- look at poor H.W. Bush being attacked from both sides by Perot.
In any case even the court agreed that it was in the public interest to allow the debate to proceed: "No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate".
As far as damages go -- what damages? Can the LP put a dollar figure on the damage? Can they show that if allowed into the debates they would have won (or even gotten 5% for Federal funding)? I doubt it -- then again IANAL.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wow. That took a long time. I'm shocked at the result.
This is sucky. There's really very little else to say about this subject. Some will try, writing a lot of words about the topic, explaining the reasoning, balancing the opinions. But, it all boils down to one point. "This is sucky."
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
I'm just shocked. I really thought there was going to be a 3-party debate. Wow.
You're absolutely right. Neither Bush nor Kerry's people would allow them to debate Badnarik. Hell, Bush can barely debate one opponent anyway. But shouldn't this fact bother us a little bit?
"Al animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I doubt that the LP gains many converts from the Democrats.
I've never voted for a Republican for President. I have voted for a Democrat. I'm about to vote for a Democrat for US Senate (Feingold). In fact, I've rarely voted for any Republican. I will most likely be voting for Badnarik for President.
A friend at work just took the SelectSmart test -- Badnarik was the first candidate on his list, the rest were Democrats until Bush showed up in position 17.
The only polling data I've seen on the subject of who Libertarian voters would otherwise cast their votes for indicates that Democrats and Republicans fair equally well (at 30%).
This is really terrible for democracy as a whole. Once a real third party got that much media attention, it would be the beginning of the end for the big 2 (Atleast on a local level). I was hoping this was going to be the day that decided the future of america in a positive way, but I fear that the battle for that will come another day.
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
Stephen Gordon had this to say:
I clearly disagree with the ruling with respect to the doctrine of latches is incorrect for several reasons. To begin, we filed initially on October 1, and not the October 7 date the judge mentioned. The Washington Post reported that Bush did not even agree to debate until September 20. The CPD did not announce who would be excluded until October 6. It takes time for a pattern of illegal spending to occur, and for Libertarians to be able to document the pattern and respond. We did this in the most timely manner possible. Additionally, we filed in enough time that the hearing could have occurred earlier than the day before the debate.
Apparently the American public disagrees with the judge in regard to sufficient public purpose. Depending upon the poll cited, between 57% and 68% believe that the debates should be open, at least to those having a mathematical possibility of obtaining enough electoral votes to win an election.
http://badnarik.org
2:54PM
Michael Kielsky of the Arizona LP explains in detail:
The Arizona Libertarian Party and co-plaintiff Warren Severin were represented by attorney David Euchner.
Arizona State University was represented by Carrie Brennan of the Attorney General's office.
Commission on Presidential Debates was represented by Glen Hallman of the firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, physically in court, as well as Lewis Loss, General Counsel for the CPD by phone.
The judge started by ruling that the service was sufficient for purpose of notice of this hearing. Then, each side was given 30 minutes to argue the issue.
Euchner reserved 15 minutes of his argument for rebuttal, and argued the case based on the violation of Arizona's Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 7, which prohibit gifts to private entities. He presented additional arguments based on the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and case law which was on point.
Carrie Brennan argued the doctrine of latches (that the delay in bringing this suit worked an unfairness against the defendants). She further argued that the funding was provided by private parties, that there is great value to the University in hosting this, and that case law provides that such expenditures are allowed as long as they are not excessive or unreasonable.
Finally, she stated that there is an adequate remedy for any violations of the constitutional gift clause, therefore injunction is not appropriate.
Glen Hallman argued that Libertarians are not a special protected class, thus only a rational basis test applies to the equal protection argument, and using that test, the Libertarians were not discriminated against.
Lewis Loss argued that the CPD is non-partisan, and that Bush & Kerry would not proceed if Badnarik were admitted to the debate.
Euchner then rebutted, arguing that nobody remembers the location of the debates, and thus there is no value to the University in this expenditure, in other words, it is a gift to these two parties. As an example, Euchner argued that the only way debates are even remembered for any time is if they are parodied, such as on Saturday Night Live, and the rerun repeatedly. Further, even with a rational basis test on the equal protection clause, the judge should find for the Libertarians, because the discrimination is so blatant.
At the conclusion of the arguement, the judge issued his ruling from the bench:
1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate.
2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions.
In summary, we couldn't stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages.
Post this far and wide.
I'm reminded of the time Ralph Nader was kept from watching one of the 2000 presidental debates even though he had a valid ticket to watch it.
He left and then later sued the pants off of the CPD for violating his civil rights and won easily.
Since the judge basically said there wasn't enough time to resolve the case, and the damage to the public interest is irrevocable if they were to go ahead with an injunction, Badnarik still may have a case after the fact. I'd be willing he could get a pretty penny for his troubles.
continues on to destroy the damned CPD by asking for the equivalent of their 2008 budget for damages.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
seriously why OSS is gaining so much is because it is an open process. Create a date and a place where every presidential candidate can partake in the "Official" debate. Invite all presidential contenders. Record the show and air it online for free giving the other presidential contenders the right to bitch and moan about the lack of choices. :)
I've never voted for a Republican for President. I have voted for a Democrat. I'm about to vote for a Democrat for US Senate (Feingold). In fact, I've rarely voted for any Republican. I will most likely be voting for Badnarik for President.
Your voting for a Democrat for the Senate yet you are going to vote for Badnarik? Do you hate Kerry or do you have a really unique set of political views?
Has anybody around here really looked at what the Libertarian party stands for? Some of the more extreme (or committed depending upon your viewpoint) elements of the LP advocate getting rid of all Government institutions and replacing them with private companies or contractors. They purpose private companies to do product labeling (think of the FDA label you have on all food productions w/nutrition information), private companies to regulate our safety issues (replace the FAA), private companies to do airport security (that one worked out real well), etc etc etc.
Usually around here people are appalled by ideas such as those -- and for good reason. When Diebold or Microsoft pay a "third-party" to "verify" their product we rightfully call it biased. Yet the Libertarian platform would have us trusting private companies that are being paid by the very companies whose products they are responsible for verifying as safe.
Not that the entire Libertarian platform is crazy. I for one would welcome their inclusion in the debate about immigration or legalized drugs -- the former issue especially as one both the Democrats (fear of being called racist) and Republicans (fear of pissing off big business) ignore -- while a large majority of the American people desperately want the problem solved.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages.
What, so they can get all the publicity they want after the election?
Welcome to America, Land of the Free! Please don't try and force your type of "democracy" on any more sovereign nations.
Three points to consider:
1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona.
2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted.
3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
CPD EXPOSED: Commission on [fake] Presidential Debates.
Note: I live in Arizona
Well, Bush has arrived and Kerry will be here soon. The media circus is ramping up. No one seemed to doubt that "the show" would go on.
I don't plan on watching the debate, though. If Badnarik had been able to participate, I probably would have, because a three-way debate might have offered me a lot more insights into the candidates views. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a libertarian, and most probably won't vote libertarian. But watching Bush and Kerry spout their canned and polished diatribes at each other won't enlighten me any.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
I'm voting for Feingold because of his opposition to the Patriot Act. The Republican (Michels) keeps bashing Feingold for voting against the Patriot Act and promises that he (Michels) will vote to renew it. Feingold has also been in the front lines of legalizing importation of Canadian drugs while Michels keeps claiming that Feingold is against importation. Frankly, Michels scares the cr*p out of me.
When it comes to the Presidential race, I don't like Bush's policies (he doesn't deserve re-election) and I don't like Kerry's policies (he doesn't deserve election).
As for the "third-party" product verification -- what makes you think I'm going to trust a "third-party" that has Microsoft (or Diebold or GM or ??) as their largest (or only) customer? I'm far more likely to either make my own judgement OR trust an expert of my own selection.
For some reason, a lot of people think that the choice is limited to corporations or government. That's a very limited view of the options -- especially since corporations only exist by government decree.
LP advocate getting rid of all Government institutions and replacing them with private companies or contractors.
well, getting rid of the non-constitutional institutions. The fed, to me, _is_ a company. One that has a monopoly over what it does and can force it's customers to do whatever it wants. I trust private companies which can't force me to do something.
you have no control over the federal government.
slight control over your state government.
a bit more control over your local government.
regulate using your $$$, not the government.
-metric
At least, the 3rd party candidates (except Nader) all were televised debating on C-span. The video (.rm format) is temporarily linked from the C-span home page, under "recent programs," and can also be found using a search for "third party" on c-span.org.
Does anybody know how to save this video as a more storeable format (i.e., mpeg)?
IMO this is something that Libertarians do not communicate well. While many Libs may disagree with me on this, I would like to point it out.
There is nothing in most STATE constitutions which say you cannot make a state social security system, state owned roads, state taxes etc.
If the Libs were ever elected on a federal level, I forsee each state and/or local communities making their own laws reagarding those local issues which the local populace is more concerned and informed about. Thus, you would have some "Green" cities and states, some "Libertarian" cities and states, etc. Big government for the sake of Homogeniety is not IMO a good thing.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Slashdot had an article about the third-party debate at Cornell University. unfortunately, it was not broadcast.
I am not a big fan of their platform, but the Constitution Party has posted a page with a link to a download of the debate. (warning: the movie is a 67.4MB download).
I just got done watching it. It is a good debate, and a good chance to learn about some of the third-parties.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
And you have less control over private corporations than you do over the federal government. Sounds like a good reason for regulation.
Besides, if non-regumental companies were actually effective, they'd already exist and be used because there's a significant percentage of the population that wants more accountability. The fact that they don't now makes it laughable to think they'd pop into existance if we got rid of existing regulation.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
While getting rid of most federal programs they also want to put responsibility on corporations. It should be easy to put someone or a group of someones in charge of a horribly negligent product/process/manufacturing etc... One thing is investors, making investors responsible for what they invest in. I think it would help many many things.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When it comes to the Presidential race, I don't like Bush's policies (he doesn't deserve re-election) and I don't like Kerry's policies (he doesn't deserve election).
That is exactly how I feel. Unfortunately one of them will get it anyway.
I'm a libertarian. This was such ridiculous leftist drivel that it made me want to support Bush until I snapped out of it.
Get a life!
And you have less control over private corporations than you do over the federal government. Sounds like a good reason for regulation.
Huh? I have complete control over private corporations. I can choose to not interact with them. I don't have to use Windows, I don't have to eat at McDonald's, I don't have to drink Coke, I don't have to wear Nikes, I don't have to buy clothes from The Gap.
On the other hand, I do have to pay taxes, wear a seatbelt, fill out an application to improve my home, and a million other hassels. I can decide to not do these things, but then men with guns will be happy to show up at my door and lock me up.
I'm not a fan of private corporations (which would be largely eliminated under a Libertarian administration), but clearly I have more control over them that I do the Local, State or Federal Government
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I just took the selectsmart test. I guess I will be voting for Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33
^^
Michael Moore? Is that you!?! ;)...
Haha I completely agree. I bet I could find more information on Clinton...particularly in his second term.
I'm just too nice, I feel glad though knowing that I am not voting for the same man that these idiots ransacking Bush's headquarters all over the country are voting for. I'd shoot myself first.
the Political Inquirer
Because Cobb was involved in the previous protest I tried searching for him on CNN after seeing these claims for Badnarik. Cobb is a common word so I got some agricultural stuff and movie reviews, but the actual political articles were 2 about Nader and 1 that did not actually seem to mention Cobb.
I for one am glad this suit did not interrupt the debates.
The bottom line is that none of the third-party candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and the outcome of this election is too important to further muddy the waters. For those of you who don't think there is much difference between Kerry and Bush, don't even bother replying, but a lot more of us recognize that this will probably be the most important election in our lifetime. That various twit third-parties want to create a repeat of the last election's mess where a candidate that had no chance of winning critically upsets the balance, is really disturbing. As disturbing as Nader claiming there was "no difference between Gore and Bush."
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line, and all the alternative candidates who are exploiting the current scenario instead of endorsing Kerry are showing how completely short-sighted and self-absorbed they are... nobody is more disgustingly representative of such selfishness as the infamous Mr. Nader.
I like much of the agenda of some of the third parties, but I will be taking names and notes on the selfish candidates who show their true colors by trying to compete in this current election when they have no chance. Their political career will be over, just like Nader's.
Third party candidates should drop out in 2004 and prepare for 2008. The way things are going, if they screw up this election, there's a much greater chance many of us may not see 2008, much less feel very free or democratic.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Not only did this communist nutcase criticize Bush from the far communist perspective, but he also messed up on the issue of foreign policy and the wars (we shouldn't have been in the wars, and our foreign policy should be one of military isolationism, like G. Washington suggested, and completely unhampered free trade). It is rare that one finds one's self "defending" Bush against attacks of not being enough of a fascist/socialist/big-spender. The normal libertarian position is to criticize Bush for being a lying worthless human being who spews free-market-rhetoric but is all about State-action, regulation, socialization, and interventionism (both at home and abroad).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In the UK we have a similar state of 2 party politics however, there is a 3rd party gaining ground at the expense of the main 2. The Liberal Democrats, a centrist party.
They are starting to take serious chunks of support at a national level and they've done it by concentrating at a local level first. Get seats on local councils first, target resources at councils where you are most likely to gain seats or win. Leverage the councils and council seats to demonstrate competence.
It's taken 20 years so far and realistically they're still well back in 3rd place but as their vote increases, the other parties are having to take account of and answer questions posed by the LibDems, in addition, there are now no majority parties at all, it's painfully obvious that the existing electoral system is not up to the task of representing the population.
Deleted
if people would just understand the facts: http://www.Kerry4Bush.com seriously.
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line,...
And then 2008 rolls around and you'll say:
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line,...
I've heard this line of crap every year since I became seriously interested in politics (let's see...One, two, three, four, five, six, oh my god, seven presidential elections ago!).
"I'm not on the list? How about looking me up under the name 'Washington!'"
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Electable.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Has anybody around here really looked at what the Libertarian party stands for?
I have, and while I think they take just about every issue too far to the extreme, I find myself essentially a moderate Libertarian.
And I've never voted for a Republican, have voted for a number of Democrats (including Hillary Clinton), and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
I know the World's Dumbest Political Quiz likes to put the Democrats and Republicans into groups based on bigger/smaller government in Economic and Personal freedom, but there's really very little truth to that particular distinction. Republicans and Democrats both want to spend about as much money, Democrats just want more progressive taxation, and Republicans want a flatter taxation. I'm not in favor of income taxes, but if we're going to have them, they shouldn't kick in until you're making at least $50,000 or so. Maybe Reagan ran on a platform of cutting government spending (and there were a lot of so called "Reagan Democrats"), but I haven't seen a real push toward this since Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
I don't care very much about gun laws, at least not to where I think it matters who's President (the vast majority of gun laws are state, not federal). Get rid of that, and why do people vote for Bush? Because he'll kick ass in Iraq? Not exactly a Libertarian value. Because he's in favor of a law banning partial birth abortion? Sure, the Libertarians are neutral on the abortion issue, but they're still against federal laws banning it. Because he wants a flag burning Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act and a stronger PATRIOT Act and prayer during high school football games and a war on drugs and corporate welfare and tort reform? The Libertarian Party is against him on all these issues.
I'm sorry, if the Republicans stuck to their original principles, maybe I'd be willing to vote for them once in a while. Maybe I'd even join the party. But vote for Bush just so people making more than $200,000 a year pay less in taxes? It's just not worth giving up all those much more important issues.
but allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages
How do you fix that after that fact? About the only solution I can think of that even approaches being fair is that they have to buy Badnarik 30 minutes of prime-time 30-second spots.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Fuck off
http://george.w.bush.canfuckoff.com
While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause
There is no debating the 15% clause, it's unfair to third parties. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).
Exactly when should Nader come back?
I hope that the rest of you have registered to vote. The election of 2004 is too important to leave in the hands of people who don't have time for democracy.
Eminem video irks Michael Jackson
Elvis 911 call ends in Blues Brother's arrest
Office pool claims $214M Powerball pot
Are these stories really more importnant than this one, even if Badnarik is a fringe candidate? Even if you click on CNN's "politics" section you won't see a story about this. I think the news outlets have become far too involved in politics and spinning politics rather (no pun intended) than just reporting them.
I'm tired of people voting in people from their own political party, or using that as their argument. You should vote in who is the most qualified and will do their best to do what you want, no matter if they're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, or whatever.
Ah, you found me!
What part of "-1 Offtopic" don't you moderators understand?
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Could this be the argument libertarians are looking for? They'll never make the White House, but if they make 15% they'll get into the debates. This is commonly held to be a good thing, even by non-Libertarians, and the Libs could tap into a large pool of disillusioned voters who aren't going to vote anyhow, but who might like the idea of seeing the two main parties face down a third candidate.
The bright side is that if the LP suceeds in pursuing damages, future debate venues may be less thrilled to host the CPD's kind of debates. Either the CPD will allow 3rd parties into the debates (when pigs fly), debates will be moderated by a new entity which is more inclusive (also unlikely), or the campaigns themselves will have to pony up the $$ to pay for these joint commercials (more likely, and would result in fewer of those smarmy little ads we're bombarded with).
Of course, all of this depends very much on the shape of local laws near proposed venues. It's possible that there are locales in which it would be hard to win damages, and we'll see the debates happen there. In any case, it'd be one more thorn in the side of the demopublicans. :-)
I think you have Libertarianism and Anarcho-Communism confused. Hope this helps.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
For the most part you are correct, however I have a beef with your first "mistake":
1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.
How was he supposed to build a real coalition when most of the world opposed our Iraq adventure? I'm not saying they should have supported us, I'm just saying it's unreasonable to expect they would given the blatently aggressive nature of the war. Bush DID try (though not very hard) to get the support, when it was clear they we weren't going to get he he basically thought, "well, fuck the frenchies, we're invadin' anyway". I don't think nicer talk would have nessecarily gotten us UN approval for the invasion.
You're confusing the concepts of what the government should be versus what the government to some extent is.
The government should protect its citizens, whether against threats from foreign nations or domestic companies.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
There is nothing in most STATE constitutions which say you cannot make a state social security system, state owned roads, state taxes etc
And what happens when I retire from Ohio and want to get a place in Florida? Do I get charged out of state taxes on the roads I travel on between Ohio and Florida? Do the roads through Kentucky or Tennessee have narrower lanes to save on maintenance and cost of materials such that my car is unsafe to drive there? How do my social security benefits follow me to my retirement home? Is the Florida retirement age higher than in Ohio?
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
No, you can't choose not to interact with them. Even if you don't buy from them, you don't live in a magic world where MS isn't killing competition, where corporations aren't polluting the airs and waters, where Nike doesn't use child labor. These things happen wether you buy their product personally or not, and you have no control over them. If these decisions were being made by a government, you could at least vote out the leaders. So yes, you have less control over corporations.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
How is this not offtopic? I've said it many times and it keeps getting re-proven. If you bash Bush you can say anything and get modded up.
Gee, you must really dislike most Republicans. Where I live, most people have voted Republican their whole life. It's like a doctor checking for a reflex...
And I've seen comments on Political boards from Republicans stating that Democrats would have better luck if they enforced "loyalty to the party" like the Republicans do. Sounds like a regular Hitler zone over there on the right.
I bet I could find more information on Clinton...particularly in his second term.
Does this excuse the current President's behavior, comparing him to his predecessor? Surely we have higher standards than that for our Commander-in-Chief.