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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:57AM
The First Amendment. Everyone thinks it is OK for Congress to pass laws limiting speech, they just have to say National Security. Something that the 1st doesn't mention as an exception.
The 1st amendment also doesn't say you lose your right to say "swear words" over a public broadcast, but that doesn't stop people from pretending that's the case. I don't see 'If it's considered publicly-owned, then free speech no longer applies.' in the 1st amendment, but that's the excuse people typically use. The 1st amendment also doesn't allow for protest permits, free speech zones, or any censorship in general.
Basically, many people feel it's okay to take away other people's rights if they don't like that right. Oh, you said a word that I'm offended by? You're looking at pornography that I'm offended by? Then I'm going to do everything in my power to get the government to at least limit those activities even if an outright ban isn't possible; to hell with the Constitution.
Then there are parts like the Interstate Commerce Clause that should probably be better defined.
Sometimes the federal government even claims the power to regulate activities that are not commerce, not interstate, or not either. The excuse is usually the "necessary and proper" clause, but the text of the commerce clause simply does not grant the government such a power.