On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Bob Barr’s application for a place on the Louisiana ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has not granted an injunction, putting anyone on a ballot, since October 1990, when it ordered Cook County, Illinois, to put the Harold Washington Party on the ballot for county office.
wow McCain is desperate, I am so upset
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5127.html
more than ever I will work as hard as I can to convince people not to vote for McBama and I don’t care which Third Party candidate they pick
One more losing case by the armies of MORON lawyers for third party candidates and independents — doing the same old stupid stuff and getting the same old results — the very definition of legal INSANITY — if not ACTUAL insanity.
Separate is NOT equal.
Much too difficult for MORON lawyers to understand — and the many juveniles and *experts* on this list.
The W-A-R for Democracy continues — regardless of MORONS and the party hack Supremes.
Based on the 2000 and 2004 elections, it’s a loss of about 3,000 votes for the Libertarian ticket.
This is amazingly bad news.
The US Supreme Court is obviously a fascist-socialist institution.
Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.
What on earth does “separate is not equal” have to do with this case?
We have a troll living among us. His life is separate from us and his IQ is quite low and therefore not equal to ours.
#5 For non-MORONS —
Separate is NOT equal was NOT brought up in the first *modern* ballot access cases in the Supremes in 1968.
Result – a mere 40 years of armies of MORON lawyers losing ballot access cases for third party and independent candidates in the Supremes.
The obvious equal remedy –
Equal nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area — with equal/same deadlines, petition checking, etc. etc.
Sorry – third party and independent candidates can NOT get on the ballots easier than D/R candidates.
Sorry – separate is NOT equal must be brought up in each original case. It is TOO LATE if brought up in appeals.
On to 2010 and 2012 ballot access cases — hopefully with fewer lawyer MORONS involved.
Yes, these are relevant words:dumber than average,untested low IQ’s, fascist,socialist,morons,equal signatures for all, same deadlines for all, same fees for all. It is very doubtful that lawyers and/or judges will get any smarter in 4 more years, or at any time. Judge Sargus said my case was not “moot” and actually believes I will go thru this “crap” one more time in 2010, and I have no idea why he believes I would do that, knowing the fascist bent of our courts?
“Of course, at least one member was picked because he had promised to vote against ballot access for third parties. And, so far, he has the worst record, a 100% anti-democratic voting record on the court.”
Which Justice was that?