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."

Comments

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[stinerman]

This rationale has been used in the SCOTUS decision Bush v. Gore.

7 out of 9 justices believed there was a violation of the equal protection clause in that ballots were counted differently in different counties. 4 out of 9 believed it was aggregious enough to extend the deadline past the mandated day for election results.

In short, there should have been a full recount, but there simply wasn't enough time to get it done.

Doctrine of Laches

[slithytove]

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.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[Anil]

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?

The issue here wasn't the 15% clause. The injunction was based upon the Arizona State Constitution. The argument centered on the fact that the LP is on the ballot and an officially recognized political entity in Arizona. Therefor, the state was unlawfully providing contributions to only the Democratic and Repulican parties. From the summary on the blog:

... argued the case based on the violation of Arizonas 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.