On August 23, a Nevada state trial court held a hearing in Rockefeller v Aguilar, Carson City District Court 24OC-00107. This is the case in which a Democratic Party activist is suing the Secretary of State to remove Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., from the ballot.
The Secretary of State had determined that the petition has enough valid signatures. The lawsuit charges that Kennedy is ineligible because he was a registered Democrat, and also that he can’t be an independent candidate in Nevada because he is the nominee of some one-state minor parties elsewhere in the nation. Both of these claims are entirely without merit. No presidential candidate has ever been removed from a general election ballot on the grounds of how he or she was registered. John Anderson was affiliated with the Republican Party all during 1980 and he qualified as an independent in all states, and no one even challenged him on that basis. Lawsuits that did challenge Kanye West’s independent petitions in 2020 in Arizona and Idaho on the grounds that he was a registered Republican in Wyoming were both rejected.
At the hearing, the judge asked both sides if the case should be considered moot. There is no decision yet. Ironically, Nevada is one of the swing states, and on August 23 Kennedy said he wants to withdraw his name from the ballot in swing states. Yet he can’t withdraw in Nevada because the deadline to withdraw was August 20. So he will appear on the Nevada ballot unless the court rules that he isn’t eligible to be an independent candidate.
Both claims have merit. The fact that this nonsense was allowed in the past is not a reason that it should be allowed going forward. Your logic would disallow all forms of innovation and progress.
Radley, what exactly do you think “progress” is?
When the Defense suddenly agrees with the plaintiff. XD
Did that activist not get the memo to drop the suit now that the Democrats suddenly want to keep Kennedy on the ballot in swing states? LOL
————————-
Self-described progressives think progress (i.e. moving on to something new) necessarily means improvement, and regress (i.e. reverting to something old) necessarily means things get worse.
But in reality, it is the opposite way around more often than not: Things used to be better, so going back to them is improvement; and changing things only makes them go from bad to worse.
In fact, outside of pure science – so not accounting for its technological and medical (mis)applications – I would argue that progress and improvement are almost always anti-correlated.
Mike, it was a general statement. Use any standard reference dictionary, including free online ones, for definition of progress.
That is, I was much less specific to the example, or politics in general,than you read into it.