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: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday August 08 2016, @01:07PM
Under the concept of "judicial review", the Supreme Court has decided that they can decide what the Constitution says and they have said (Citizens United) that everything is for sale to the highest bidder (not even excluding foreigners).
Sounds like you think this is a bad idea. Citizens United is about freedom of speech of groups of people. And judicial review is one of these reasons we still have a functioning democracy.
N.B. What the Constitution **actually** says is that SCOTUS is the final **appellate** court.
Citizens United came up to the Supreme Court by appeal and had originally been filed in the US District court in Washington, DC in late 2007. So this was a standard appellate jurisdiction case.
That is to say that their decision only applies to the case that they are hearing. For their previous decision to apply to -another- case, that case would have to make its way through the system on its own.
Then the Constitution should have said that. Last I checked "appellate jurisdiction" merely meant cases had to pass through lesser courts (which had original jurisdiction, assigned by Congress) first (meeting certain conditions such as standing) and then be appealed to the Supreme Court. And what's the point of keeping a law on the books that the Supreme Court is going to rule on a case-by-case basis as unconstitutional every time it comes to the Supreme Court? There's been a lot of bad law thrown out on the basis of its unconstitutionality.
Further, by overturning law rather than merely ignoring it, we reduce the risk that some future court will use reinterpretation of that nascent law to radically alter existing precedent.
The Constitution says that SCOTUS is -not- a law-making body.
No law was made in the Citizens United case. Instead, existing law was reversed. Roe v. Wade would be an example of actual law being made by the Supreme Court (particularly, the creation of the trimester framework).