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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
That's the part that chills me the most. The judge has basically said that the activity he's allowing might just be illegal. But instead of evaluating the plans before they become history, he's putting the question off until later (and given the effort pursuing such a suit requires, it's possible the suit will die here and now).
As a general case, such a deferment of justice is bad enough, but in this specific case, the effects are chilling to the core. I personally think the LP would be far worse for America than "four more years" (and *that's* saying a lot). Even so, we need fresh views and true "spoilers" in the debates. What the judge has, essentially, done is sold-out our democratic process.
He's taken away our responsibility to provide, and right to demand, that our democratic process serve to inform and mobilize our electorate. In exchange, we get "the possibility" of a few bucks down the road.
Even if the LP were to win $10million in damages, we'll have all gotten the shaft. Doesn't the judge realize that if both parties had to fork over $50million each to keep the debates closed, they would? Isn't it abundantly clear that even if there were no other reason submitted before him, that *that's* reason enough to force reform in the debate system?
Like the sign said, "Now, we're all wearing the blue dress."
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!).