Cornel West Appeals Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case to Third Circuit

On October 11, Cornel West appealed his Pennsylvania ballot access case to the Third Circuit. West v Pennsylvania Dept. of State, 24-2913. He had been kept off by the U.S. District Court on October 10, strictly because it is too late to reprint the ballots. However, the U.S. District Court virtually said that West would have won the case if there had been more time. The U.S. District Court said it seems discriminatory that qualified parties need not submit signed affidavits of candidacy for their presidential elector candidates, whereas petitioning candidates must do that.


Comments

Cornel West Appeals Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case to Third Circuit — 12 Comments

  1. The easiest way to tell that John Taylor Bowles got caught brown handed being John Taylor Bowles.. on said:

    ..is that he’s starting this crap in every thread now. He’s obsessed with himself.

  2. I must admit John Taylor Bowles is clever and pretty smart. I guess that’s why I’m obsessed with him and impersonating him and you suckers believe me. lol

  3. Bowles is a fucking retard who hears voices. Nobody besides him thinks this nazi piece of trash is clever or smart or is obsessed with him.

  4. …Yes, well anyway, moving past all the BS… How ridiculous is it that judge Nicholas Ranjan ruled West should be on the ballot, and that he should have been put on the ballot, but that they won’t make Pennsylvania put him on the ballot “because it is too late to reprint the ballots”?

    What kind of sorry excuse for justice is that? Either Pennsylvania’s SoS Al Schmidt was wrong to keep West of the ballot and needs to clean up this mess of his own making which is neither West’s fault nor his problem, or Schmidt was right and District Court Judge Nicholas Ranjan should have ruled that West should not be on the ballot.

    This should be very black-and-white, there are no shades of gray here: If West have should not have been kept off the ballot, then he must be put on the ballot no matter how inconvenient. What is this nonsense excuse from a court to let a defendant who has been ruled against, get away with it because of the inconvenience rectifying their error would cause?!

  5. YES/NO —- SEE BUSH VS GORE. 2000

    FL MORON FAILURE TO DEFINE A VALID VOTE VIA NOW DEAD PUNCHCARD BALLOTS

    >>> 2002 USA HAVA LAW – REQUIRING SUCH DEFINITION

    >>> SCANNER VOTES IN HOW MANY STATES ???

    STILL SOME E-VOTE MORON STATES — WITH ENEMY HACKERS ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.