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

Does this shock anyone?

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[not_a_witch]

No, I am not shocked; however, I do believe that a disservice has been done to the American people by NOT blocking the debate. The judge provided flimsy rationale for overlooking the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to support two of the three candidates on the Arizona balance. (That is against the Arizona constitution.) The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.

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.

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.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[worldtechguy]

Yes, I believe that the public WOULD be served by having Bushie and Kerrie back out. It would show, in no uncertain terms, that these are not really debates, but publicly funded infomercials for the Ds and the Rs. Picture the CNN/Fox/PMSNBC news stories if B and K dropped out in protest over Badnarik showing up. They would have an impossible time keeping the Libertarian party secret anymore.

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.

Commission on [fake] Presidential Debates

[sofakingon]

CPD EXPOSED: Commission on [fake] Presidential Debates.

Re:I think this quote says it all

[isotope23]

DOH missed an L there :

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell - Animal Farm

BTW look at the media blackout,

cnn1 cnn2

nader

alexabadnarik alexanader

I could see maybe 5 or 10 mentions on CNN but ZERO? zilch, nada. Yet 523 seperate items on nader. Then compare the alexa links, put in votenader.org on the compare sites.(Wouldn't let me do it via a link)

Re:I think this quote says it all

[Selecter]

Considering Badnarik is polling *higher* in some states than Nader and is one the ballot in MANY more states than Nader, I think Isotope's example is a STERLING example of total media bias in action. My mad props to you.

Notice also a search on BADNARIK also returns zero hits on CNN.

How come /. is full of R's and D's who are always complaining of media bias against each other. How come they cant see it here?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion