SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ballot Access News reports:
On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.
[...] The 27-page decision[Redirects to a PDF] [...] says, "Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law."
[...] Footnote three, based on the judge's own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were [...] in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion's list of candidates is erroneous.
[...] Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House.
In the comments, Richard Winger notes a similar case.
the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court
The presidential debates were previously moderated by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, 1984). The Democrats and Republicans screwed things up in 1988. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday August 08 2016, @06:02AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:11AM
Amendments are fine. That's still an example of following the constitution. The very fact that the constitution can be amended indicates that it was known that changes would need to be made over time. Nothing religious about that.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:10AM
There's a real reluctance to amend. For example, where is the will to amend the Constitution to allow an Air Force? That is an example of an amendment that should be easy to pass, instead everyone just says defence is one of the reasons for the Constitution so it's fine, whereas right from the beginning, the Navy and Army were treated differently and the 2nd amendment mentions the Militia because it was considered important to avoid the tyranny that always comes with a large standing army.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday August 08 2016, @02:12PM
The one you have isn't even written in a language that the people understand.
No, the language is plenty understandable. It's just in some people's interests to act like it isn't and purposely misinterpret it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @03:19PM
no shit! and coincidentally it's always people who want to take rights from the people, no matter the cause. all you statist authoritarians will get yours soon.