I don't care what you are. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" commonly refer to beliefs about abortion. Whatever you want those words to "really" mean is irrelevant, and saying Rossi -- also Catholic -- is not pro-life based on your unclarified redefinition is stupid.
Your ideas behind those redefinitions are stupid too -- if Bill Gates gave away all he had upon becoming a millionaire, he never would have been able to become a billionaire, and give away the *billions* he has donated to charity -- but that's beside my point, which is that saying Rossi is not pro-life based on your own pet definition is not conducive to reasonable communication.
No recount has never changed the result of an election in WA in recent years. What gets me is that usually there is a huge swing in the Democrats' favor, including in the two recounts in 2000. Makes you wonder if the Democrats in King County aren't cheating.
And who is "D. Ashcroft"? Do you mean John? And what did John Ashcroft ever say about recounts?
You think that proves anything? Nader said he thinks he pulls more votes from Bush than from Kerry, and we know that's ridiculous. What the candidate thinks about such things is irrelevant to what is true.
You DO understand that the States' decision to fund Primaries was made by the Republicans and Democrats in the local state governments......and the people who voted for them.
The decision wasn't made in order to "better choose the candidate", it was made to "better lock out the third parties".
Too bad we have a third party on our primary ballots, else I would believe you.
Only if you have a State-funded Primary. Which you wouldn't have if the two Major Parties hadn't thought it would help them.
No. Stop making things up. It is as I said. The parties can choose their own candidate, and even if they do not participate in the primaries, the state would hold it without them, and decide for them who their candidate is.
So, he wants to run as a Democrat, since he is a member of that Party. Why should he be forbidden to?
Because the people of that party get to decide who they let represent them. This is the concept of right to association, and it is a Constitutional right that the Supreme Court has upheld. If we, the members of the group, decide we don't want you to represent our group, then you may not represent our group.
You would strip away my personal right to association. Shame on you.
What's exceptionally odd is that you are virulently anti-party, and yet you think it is so important that someone get to wear the label of a party, perhaps even against the will of the people of that party. Why do you care so much about party affiliations, when you hate parties so much?
In YOUR system, people have to get approval of the Party to get on the ballot.
Why do you keep saying such patently false things? There is nothing true in that statement. Anyone can get on the ballot if they have enough signatures: all that they cannot do without the approval of the people of a party is say they are affiliated with that party.
So, you let the Party run your life?
So, have you stopped beating your mother?
You work under the assumption that the Party is some monolithic entity.
No, that is what YOU are doing. I work under the assumption -- well, no, the known fact -- that the party is comprised of people, all with differing interests and values and beliefs, who have enough in common to come together for shared goals.
Conservative Democrat? Hardly to be found. Liberal Republican? Likewise.
It's odd you would say you can't find a conservative Democrat when you have one as your (outgoing) Senator. Are you that ignorant of your own state representation? And I've met many of liberal Republicans in the Northeast, including in NYC (e.g., Giuliani) and Boston (e.g., Weld).
I agree they are more rare now, but eh, big deal. The words have changed their meaning such that the distinction is largely boring anyway. At the state Republican convention here in WA, we had a Log Cabin group, and while they were a minority voice, they still had a voice as much as anyone.
The Party exists in order to further the... agenda of its members
Like any group of people, yes. A union, a church, a neighborhood association, a school. Of course. This cannot reasonably said to be a negative thing.
it does NOT exist to promote the general well-being of the dear people.
It depends on whether that's part of the platform of the particular party (and it is a part of the platform for both the major parties).
"we won't get involved in Party affairs. We're going to put on the ballot anyone who meets the conditions, regardless of Party affiliation or lack of same".
You're begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. The whole point is HOW the candidate meets the conditions: by people willingly giving him their signatures to get on the ballot, as in a normal closed primary, or whether those signatures are stolen by the state to gi
The taxpayers should foot the bill to allow some subset to choose the person favoured by a subset of the subset want on the ballot?
I never said that, and as best I can tell, neither did Scalia.
You just can't restrict MY right to choose who represents ME
No one is doing so.
even by the artifice of holding a "Party Primary" for the purpose of excluding the minority of your own Party.
That doesn't make any sense, sorry. The party gets to choose who represents it. If you are not a member of that party, then what you think about who they put on the ballot is irrelevant.
I think you're right that the states should not be funding the primary. But that they choose to does not mean anything in regard to who should be able to choose the candidates who will represent that party.
You keep talking about this like it's the issue, but it is not. The state does not have to pay for a primary, that is its choice.
And note that in WA, even if the parties do choose their own candidates outside the primary, someone else could win the primary and get to represent that party on the general election ballot, against the party's wishes.
NO reason that the Voters should be forbidden to vote for Edwin Edwards just because the Democratic Party didn't approve of him.
That's absolutely true. They can either write him in, or nominate him as the candidate of another party with enough signatures, or get enough signatures to get him on as an independent.
Everyone gets on the ballot the same way. Everyone. You get enough people to give you their signature, and you get on the ballot. What could be more democratic? But this system destroys that, by taking my signature and giving it to someone I did not pledge it to.
Of course, it might be seen as infringing on the Rights of the other four Dems, who thought that they could do the job better then the one
How could it be seen that way? They do not have a right to my signature. I give it to the party who acts as a proxy.
I tend to think that individual civil rights matter more than the Parties' "civil rights".
And yet you would steal the signature I promised to the choice of the Republican party, and give it to someone else entirely. What about my rights?
The Parties have flimflammed you into believing that THEIR interests come ahead of YOUR interests.
I am a member of the party, and it is there *for the purpose of* representing my interests. When you take away its power, you take away my power.
If he said that the Parties "rights" to a closed Primary were paramount, then he's saying exactly that.
He didn't. He said the party's right to decide their own candidate is paramount. If the state chooses to fund a primary to help the parties pick their candidate, then so be it. If not, that's fine too.
Give me a good reason why your State should pay to pick a Republican Candidate. Or a Democratic Candidate. But not, say, a Reform Candidate (used as a third Party example, I don't know whether WA recognizes the Reform Party or not. But surely there is ONE "third Party" you don't recognize, if not more.).
As noted in the other reply, it's about voter support, and we have three parties on our primary ballot.
Yes, it is [just labels].
If that were true, then you would always have the runoff. You do not. So it is not the same, even at this most basic and important level.
I can see where you'd like an entrenched Two-Party system
I wouldn't. I don't. So I can't see how you could see something that is entirely false. One of my major reasons opposing I-872 is that it shuts out third parties entirely. All the parties oppose I-872: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Workers World, Socialist Workers, Socialist Equality, the independents, Greens, etc.
This is not about two-party dominance, it is about two things: parties deciding their own candidates, and people (including the people collectively represented by the parties) having the ability to get candidates on the general election ballot.
It's clearly labels. Just depends on how the law defines "general election" and "primary". In our system, we call it an "election" and a "runoff". Runoff is required if no candidate gets a majority of the vote, not otherwise.
So... it's not just labels then, is it?
(No, it isn't.)
Scalia's theory that the State has an obligation to spend millions of dollars to help the Parties choose their candidates is frankly ludicrous.
I don't recall him saying anything like that. I think you're making it up.
Note further that national Parties REALLY don't like our system, and REALLY don't want the idea to spread - it weakens the political Parties, and strengthens the Voters at their expense. Which is enough reason for me to approve the system wholeheartedly.
Yeah, because it is so ludicrous that a group of people should get to choose who represents that group on the ballot. Sorry, you're not making any sense. You are weakening the voters by giving them less opportunity to get someone on the ballot. You think a party is not comprised of a group of people with like interests; you think this system is not open to ANY group of people that wishes to participate in a like manner. You think wrong.
I'm curious. Exactly how is it different, other than a few labels?
It clearly is different, in that the general election is not closed off. That's not mere labels: the general election is the actual election, and the primary is not.
It might fall because of what Scalia wrote in the 2000 decision anyway, but it is clearly different, and I can't reasonably say whether it would apply.
our's... has survived court challenges, as I recall
So, given less than 100% accuracy it becomes impossible to state definitively what the will of the electorate... so what? Is this intended to be interesting or relevant? Because it ain't. You follow the laws as accurately as possible and you get your winner.
More deceptions. The fact is, Sam Reed has come out in favor of certified electronic voting machines with a paper trail, which is the same thing favored by the Democratic and Libertarian candidates.
The job of the justice system is simple: to settle disputes according to the law. Period. Early on, Marshall established that this necessarily included deciding whether a law violated the Constitution. But in all cases, the point was and must remain the law, not some arbitrary sense of justice or fairness.
Voting method: plurality voting is here to stay, thankfully. I don't even consider alternatives because it's a waste of time, and antithetical to republicanism (which the Constitution guarantees).
If any of that were remotely accurate, I'd be against him too. But none of it is. I can see why you are now wish to move on: you have no hope of reasonably defending any of this.
I've not seen a specific plan, no (not that there isn't one). But I would rather keep the B&O than move to an income tax (which is something Ron Sims supported, not "the Dems"). That said, if Rossi is elected and he doesn't do something about the B&O, that he has railed against so much, then that will instruct voting the next time around.
I frankly think way too much emphasis is put on specifics, especially from challengers. As we all know well, including Rossi -- especially a former legislative chair -- you have to make changes and compromise, especially when you have an opposition legislature. I am more interested in the principles (in his case, lowering the burdens on businesses) than the specifics he takes to get there, as long as the end result is true to those principles, and the means are not somehow too negative.
I see where you are coming from now, but I just don't agree with you. Judges are human, and they can make bad judgement calls.
I am not talking about mere mistakes, or simple differences of opinion. The law here was very clear, and he chose to read it differently than it was written. This is not the best example -- there are better ones -- because we cannot be absolutely sure about what went on in his head (and motive is integral to charges of activism). But it was the most appropriate to the current discussion.:-)
The issue is that they aren't currently elected, but rather they are appointed, which takes away alot of their accountability.
Heh, no. Dean Lum was elected, as most judges are in WA.
Ultimately a judge is supposed to uphold justice, not necessarily any one particular law (some laws are contridicary).
No. A judge is supposed to uphold the law. When laws conflict, you pick the higher and most recent law, in this case the federal law, HAVA. Of course, that is overly simplistic, but the point is that the judge should not seek to impose his sense of justice, but instead to follow the law, whatever that law may be. We are a nation of laws, not of men, the saying goes.
The real solution to the problem is to get judges -- by whatever means -- who follow the law, whether they agree with it or not, and to elect officials who write better laws.
I this month voted for a judge who made a decision that I thought was unfortunate. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders penned the decision a couple of years back that said a charge of murder could not be applied when the death is the result of a predicate offense (such as arson), where no intent to kill was proven.
I think this law is a bad one, but I think Sanders was correct in his verdict. As a result, violent criminals were released from prison. This makes me and many people angry. But Sanders did the right thing, because he followed the law, and so I voted for him.
If they are really interested in helping make Washington "business friendly" they should eliminate the B&O tax. Funny how the Democrats are the ones pushing tax reform, while the "pro-business" Republicans like the tax code as-is.
What are you smoking? Dino has been quite vocal about the B&O tax and how it harms business in this state. I agree this is one of the biggest problems we have in this state, and everyone else who agrees should have voted for Rossi.
I am against such targetted tax breaks, and it was the Democrats who were in control when the deal was struck. The Republicans supported it, but so did many Democrats, including Gary Locke. Trying to lay this all on Dino's feet is a sad attempt.
So you only oppose "judicial activism" when they rule against your position?
Uh... no.
I don't believe judicial activism exists.
I don't believe you exist.
There are many clear examples of justices doing what they think is "right" or "best" or "fair" in direct contravention of the law. Just because some people choose to use the phrase to apply to every ruling they disagree with, that doesn't mean the phrase is meaningless.
One example is in this particular story: last Friday, King County Superior Court justice Dean Lum granted the Democratic party the right to access the list of contact information for provisional voters whose ballots were incomplete, in direct contravention of governing law, the Help America Vote Act, which states:
The appropriate State or local official shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information collected, stored, or otherwise used by the free access system established under paragraph (5)(B). Access to information about an individual provisional ballot shall be restricted to the individual who cast the ballot.
Lum fumbled about how this when read "in context" only applies to whom the people voted for, not their personal information, but that's clearly false, and he doesn't even attempt to explain how "personal information" does not include their identity or contact information. The fact is, Lum thought that counting every vote possible was more important than following federal law he deemed a technicality, so he overruled the law. This is judicial activism.
Yes. He's got the greatest name, huh? When I first moved here, I almost voted for him just because of that. But my sense of responsibility got the better of me, and I merely declined to vote until I knew the candidates and issues better.
No, I didn't miss your point. I am saying the incumbent is going to win anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. Oh sure, you could get some name recognition, but you could do that by running in the primary, too, and that swings both ways: losing maybe gives you name recognition, but not always the best kind (cf. Dick Gephardt in Iowa).
Slashdot Mirror
And somebody who says they believe in something and then does nothing about it is what?
When did you stop beating your mother?
Hey, I'm not the one who's being hypocritical, claiming to be pro-life and then refusing to do everything possible to reduce abortion.
Actually, you have done precisely that. By your own standard, you are certainly hypocritical.
I don't care what you are. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" commonly refer to beliefs about abortion. Whatever you want those words to "really" mean is irrelevant, and saying Rossi -- also Catholic -- is not pro-life based on your unclarified redefinition is stupid.
Your ideas behind those redefinitions are stupid too -- if Bill Gates gave away all he had upon becoming a millionaire, he never would have been able to become a billionaire, and give away the *billions* he has donated to charity -- but that's beside my point, which is that saying Rossi is not pro-life based on your own pet definition is not conducive to reasonable communication.
You're an idiot.
No recount has never changed the result of an election in WA in recent years. What gets me is that usually there is a huge swing in the Democrats' favor, including in the two recounts in 2000. Makes you wonder if the Democrats in King County aren't cheating.
And who is "D. Ashcroft"? Do you mean John? And what did John Ashcroft ever say about recounts?
You appear to be uninteresting.
Rossi is pro-life.
You think that proves anything? Nader said he thinks he pulls more votes from Bush than from Kerry, and we know that's ridiculous. What the candidate thinks about such things is irrelevant to what is true.
You DO understand that the States' decision to fund Primaries was made by the Republicans and Democrats in the local state governments... ...and the people who voted for them.
... agenda of its members
The decision wasn't made in order to "better choose the candidate", it was made to "better lock out the third parties".
Too bad we have a third party on our primary ballots, else I would believe you.
Only if you have a State-funded Primary. Which you wouldn't have if the two Major Parties hadn't thought it would help them.
No. Stop making things up. It is as I said. The parties can choose their own candidate, and even if they do not participate in the primaries, the state would hold it without them, and decide for them who their candidate is.
So, he wants to run as a Democrat, since he is a member of that Party. Why should he be forbidden to?
Because the people of that party get to decide who they let represent them. This is the concept of right to association, and it is a Constitutional right that the Supreme Court has upheld. If we, the members of the group, decide we don't want you to represent our group, then you may not represent our group.
You would strip away my personal right to association. Shame on you.
What's exceptionally odd is that you are virulently anti-party, and yet you think it is so important that someone get to wear the label of a party, perhaps even against the will of the people of that party. Why do you care so much about party affiliations, when you hate parties so much?
In YOUR system, people have to get approval of the Party to get on the ballot.
Why do you keep saying such patently false things? There is nothing true in that statement. Anyone can get on the ballot if they have enough signatures: all that they cannot do without the approval of the people of a party is say they are affiliated with that party.
So, you let the Party run your life?
So, have you stopped beating your mother?
You work under the assumption that the Party is some monolithic entity.
No, that is what YOU are doing. I work under the assumption -- well, no, the known fact -- that the party is comprised of people, all with differing interests and values and beliefs, who have enough in common to come together for shared goals.
Conservative Democrat? Hardly to be found. Liberal Republican? Likewise.
It's odd you would say you can't find a conservative Democrat when you have one as your (outgoing) Senator. Are you that ignorant of your own state representation? And I've met many of liberal Republicans in the Northeast, including in NYC (e.g., Giuliani) and Boston (e.g., Weld).
I agree they are more rare now, but eh, big deal. The words have changed their meaning such that the distinction is largely boring anyway. At the state Republican convention here in WA, we had a Log Cabin group, and while they were a minority voice, they still had a voice as much as anyone.
The Party exists in order to further the
Like any group of people, yes. A union, a church, a neighborhood association, a school. Of course. This cannot reasonably said to be a negative thing.
it does NOT exist to promote the general well-being of the dear people.
It depends on whether that's part of the platform of the particular party (and it is a part of the platform for both the major parties).
"we won't get involved in Party affairs. We're going to put on the ballot anyone who meets the conditions, regardless of Party affiliation or lack of same".
You're begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. The whole point is HOW the candidate meets the conditions: by people willingly giving him their signatures to get on the ballot, as in a normal closed primary, or whether those signatures are stolen by the state to gi
The taxpayers should foot the bill to allow some subset to choose the person favoured by a subset of the subset want on the ballot?
I never said that, and as best I can tell, neither did Scalia.
You just can't restrict MY right to choose who represents ME
No one is doing so.
even by the artifice of holding a "Party Primary" for the purpose of excluding the minority of your own Party.
That doesn't make any sense, sorry. The party gets to choose who represents it. If you are not a member of that party, then what you think about who they put on the ballot is irrelevant.
I think you're right that the states should not be funding the primary. But that they choose to does not mean anything in regard to who should be able to choose the candidates who will represent that party.
You keep talking about this like it's the issue, but it is not. The state does not have to pay for a primary, that is its choice.
And note that in WA, even if the parties do choose their own candidates outside the primary, someone else could win the primary and get to represent that party on the general election ballot, against the party's wishes.
NO reason that the Voters should be forbidden to vote for Edwin Edwards just because the Democratic Party didn't approve of him.
That's absolutely true. They can either write him in, or nominate him as the candidate of another party with enough signatures, or get enough signatures to get him on as an independent.
Everyone gets on the ballot the same way. Everyone. You get enough people to give you their signature, and you get on the ballot. What could be more democratic? But this system destroys that, by taking my signature and giving it to someone I did not pledge it to.
Of course, it might be seen as infringing on the Rights of the other four Dems, who thought that they could do the job better then the one
How could it be seen that way? They do not have a right to my signature. I give it to the party who acts as a proxy.
I tend to think that individual civil rights matter more than the Parties' "civil rights".
And yet you would steal the signature I promised to the choice of the Republican party, and give it to someone else entirely. What about my rights?
The Parties have flimflammed you into believing that THEIR interests come ahead of YOUR interests.
I am a member of the party, and it is there *for the purpose of* representing my interests. When you take away its power, you take away my power.
If he said that the Parties "rights" to a closed Primary were paramount, then he's saying exactly that.
He didn't. He said the party's right to decide their own candidate is paramount. If the state chooses to fund a primary to help the parties pick their candidate, then so be it. If not, that's fine too.
Give me a good reason why your State should pay to pick a Republican Candidate. Or a Democratic Candidate. But not, say, a Reform Candidate (used as a third Party example, I don't know whether WA recognizes the Reform Party or not. But surely there is ONE "third Party" you don't recognize, if not more.).
As noted in the other reply, it's about voter support, and we have three parties on our primary ballot.
Yes, it is [just labels].
If that were true, then you would always have the runoff. You do not. So it is not the same, even at this most basic and important level.
I can see where you'd like an entrenched Two-Party system
I wouldn't. I don't. So I can't see how you could see something that is entirely false. One of my major reasons opposing I-872 is that it shuts out third parties entirely. All the parties oppose I-872: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Workers World, Socialist Workers, Socialist Equality, the independents, Greens, etc.
This is not about two-party dominance, it is about two things: parties deciding their own candidates, and people (including the people collectively represented by the parties) having the ability to get candidates on the general election ballot.
It's clearly labels. Just depends on how the law defines "general election" and "primary". In our system, we call it an "election" and a "runoff". Runoff is required if no candidate gets a majority of the vote, not otherwise.
... it's not just labels then, is it?
So
(No, it isn't.)
Scalia's theory that the State has an obligation to spend millions of dollars to help the Parties choose their candidates is frankly ludicrous.
I don't recall him saying anything like that. I think you're making it up.
Note further that national Parties REALLY don't like our system, and REALLY don't want the idea to spread - it weakens the political Parties, and strengthens the Voters at their expense. Which is enough reason for me to approve the system wholeheartedly.
Yeah, because it is so ludicrous that a group of people should get to choose who represents that group on the ballot. Sorry, you're not making any sense. You are weakening the voters by giving them less opportunity to get someone on the ballot. You think a party is not comprised of a group of people with like interests; you think this system is not open to ANY group of people that wishes to participate in a like manner. You think wrong.
I'm curious. Exactly how is it different, other than a few labels?
... has survived court challenges, as I recall
It clearly is different, in that the general election is not closed off. That's not mere labels: the general election is the actual election, and the primary is not.
It might fall because of what Scalia wrote in the 2000 decision anyway, but it is clearly different, and I can't reasonably say whether it would apply.
our's
Not since this recent SCOTUS case, as I recall.
So, given less than 100% accuracy it becomes impossible to state definitively what the will of the electorate ... so what? Is this intended to be interesting or relevant? Because it ain't. You follow the laws as accurately as possible and you get your winner.
More deceptions. The fact is, Sam Reed has come out in favor of certified electronic voting machines with a paper trail, which is the same thing favored by the Democratic and Libertarian candidates.
The job of the justice system is simple: to settle disputes according to the law. Period. Early on, Marshall established that this necessarily included deciding whether a law violated the Constitution. But in all cases, the point was and must remain the law, not some arbitrary sense of justice or fairness.
Voting method: plurality voting is here to stay, thankfully. I don't even consider alternatives because it's a waste of time, and antithetical to republicanism (which the Constitution guarantees).
Somebody needs to listen to You're Clueless!
If any of that were remotely accurate, I'd be against him too. But none of it is. I can see why you are now wish to move on: you have no hope of reasonably defending any of this.
What he said is not a lie either. Compared to her, he is an outsider: she's been involved much longer and much more intimately.
I've not seen a specific plan, no (not that there isn't one). But I would rather keep the B&O than move to an income tax (which is something Ron Sims supported, not "the Dems"). That said, if Rossi is elected and he doesn't do something about the B&O, that he has railed against so much, then that will instruct voting the next time around.
I frankly think way too much emphasis is put on specifics, especially from challengers. As we all know well, including Rossi -- especially a former legislative chair -- you have to make changes and compromise, especially when you have an opposition legislature. I am more interested in the principles (in his case, lowering the burdens on businesses) than the specifics he takes to get there, as long as the end result is true to those principles, and the means are not somehow too negative.
Eh. It's more true about him than most politicians. It's more sad that Gregoire attacked him for having "big business friends."
I see where you are coming from now, but I just don't agree with you. Judges are human, and they can make bad judgement calls.
:-)
I am not talking about mere mistakes, or simple differences of opinion. The law here was very clear, and he chose to read it differently than it was written. This is not the best example -- there are better ones -- because we cannot be absolutely sure about what went on in his head (and motive is integral to charges of activism). But it was the most appropriate to the current discussion.
The issue is that they aren't currently elected, but rather they are appointed, which takes away alot of their accountability.
Heh, no. Dean Lum was elected, as most judges are in WA.
Ultimately a judge is supposed to uphold justice, not necessarily any one particular law (some laws are contridicary).
No. A judge is supposed to uphold the law. When laws conflict, you pick the higher and most recent law, in this case the federal law, HAVA. Of course, that is overly simplistic, but the point is that the judge should not seek to impose his sense of justice, but instead to follow the law, whatever that law may be. We are a nation of laws, not of men, the saying goes.
The real solution to the problem is to get judges -- by whatever means -- who follow the law, whether they agree with it or not, and to elect officials who write better laws.
I this month voted for a judge who made a decision that I thought was unfortunate. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders penned the decision a couple of years back that said a charge of murder could not be applied when the death is the result of a predicate offense (such as arson), where no intent to kill was proven.
I think this law is a bad one, but I think Sanders was correct in his verdict. As a result, violent criminals were released from prison. This makes me and many people angry. But Sanders did the right thing, because he followed the law, and so I voted for him.
If they are really interested in helping make Washington "business friendly" they should eliminate the B&O tax. Funny how the Democrats are the ones pushing tax reform, while the "pro-business" Republicans like the tax code as-is.
What are you smoking? Dino has been quite vocal about the B&O tax and how it harms business in this state. I agree this is one of the biggest problems we have in this state, and everyone else who agrees should have voted for Rossi.
I am against such targetted tax breaks, and it was the Democrats who were in control when the deal was struck. The Republicans supported it, but so did many Democrats, including Gary Locke. Trying to lay this all on Dino's feet is a sad attempt.
Uh
I don't believe judicial activism exists.
I don't believe you exist.
There are many clear examples of justices doing what they think is "right" or "best" or "fair" in direct contravention of the law. Just because some people choose to use the phrase to apply to every ruling they disagree with, that doesn't mean the phrase is meaningless.
One example is in this particular story: last Friday, King County Superior Court justice Dean Lum granted the Democratic party the right to access the list of contact information for provisional voters whose ballots were incomplete, in direct contravention of governing law, the Help America Vote Act, which states:
Lum fumbled about how this when read "in context" only applies to whom the people voted for, not their personal information, but that's clearly false, and he doesn't even attempt to explain how "personal information" does not include their identity or contact information. The fact is, Lum thought that counting every vote possible was more important than following federal law he deemed a technicality, so he overruled the law. This is judicial activism.
Yes. He's got the greatest name, huh? When I first moved here, I almost voted for him just because of that. But my sense of responsibility got the better of me, and I merely declined to vote until I knew the candidates and issues better.
No, I didn't miss your point. I am saying the incumbent is going to win anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. Oh sure, you could get some name recognition, but you could do that by running in the primary, too, and that swings both ways: losing maybe gives you name recognition, but not always the best kind (cf. Dick Gephardt in Iowa).
But it won't be the norm, unless the person was going to run unopposed anyway, in which case what's the difference?
:-)
Anyway, it will get overturned, so who cares?