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 dry on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:05AM
The American system is common law. Under common law higher courts have always been able to set precedent and once you get to the highest court, only statute can override the courts and in America the highest statute is the Constitution, with treaties next, then acts of Congress along with the Acts of the various States, who have their own Constitutions to limit them.
When Statutes conflict, it is up to the Courts to straighten it out, unless the Legislature(s) does. Congress passes a law limiting speech, the courts should cast down the speech limiting parts of the law. Unluckily as often as not the courts re-interpret the law, eg the 1st only deals with political speech and then various cases and precedents about what is political speech.
Try to follow the Constitution, and when it is realized that it can't be followed in the modern era, amend it so it can be followed. There's a high enough bar to amending that it should be an improvement. It is really a bad habit to have the entire government routinely ignore the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:15AM
Not to mention illegal [cornell.edu]:
Unless you honesty think that pushing for the government to routinely ignore the constitution doesn't qualify as "advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government". A government which is not bound by its constitution is not a constitutional form of government.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:40AM
Unluckily legality only matters if it is likely to be prosecuted. Lots of things are illegal but defacto legal as they're never prosecuted, and the government ignoring the Constitution falls into this category.