Jackson Jambalaya

This is the July 17 order...

Stamped July 24, and I don't think they made a suggestion on the order from the 17th.

no 2:42 its not.

It clearly is dated July 24.

Glasses much?

Then why does it have so ordered and today's date?

Yeah I'm confused too ... it says July 24, but how is it different from what we saw last week?

Last week they didn't suggest the Rule 33 motion. They just said they'd need more information.

It's not different other than to affirm the earlier decision and deny the reconsideration request, which was pretty obviously going to be the result anyway.

It's really not confusing. McDaniel filed a petition for mandamus. The Court denied it by a vote of 4-3. Waller, Lamar, King, and Coleman voted to deny rehearing; while Randolph, Kitchens, and Chandler voted to grant rehearing (Dickerson and Pierce did not participate).
So McDaniel filed a motion for reconsideration, basically attempting to sway one of 4 justices who voted to deny rehearing to change their vote. Actually, he would have needed two. McDaniel did not convince anyone to change their votes.

The votes are the same as last time: 4-3. McDaniel has now officially lost this particular battle.

Only the secret powers of the central government can engineer an electoral victory against the majority of the people in this poor third world state.

It is a denial, dated today, July 24, 2014, of McD's recent Motion for Reconsideration of the earlier En Banc decision. Not surprisingly, the Justices are saying nothing in the Motion changed any minds, and the overall vote was that McD should GO AWAY; DON'T YOU COME BACK HERE NO MORE, NO MORE. HIT THE ROAD JACK! DON'T YOU COME BACK HERE NO MORE! WELL HIT THE ROAD JACK!....

It's new because it denies a new motion (the motion for reconsideration, etc.). But the result is the same and the break down is the same. 4 to deny, 3 who want more information, and 2 who are not participating. But now it's really final, unless they can dream up a way to petition SCOTUS for certiorari, which would require quite a bit of creativity. However, creativity has not been lacking in this election in any regard.

Last week the dissenting/abstaining judges suggested it. Subsequently, McDaniel asked for it in his motion for reconsideration.

Sounds like they are giving a legal lesson to Tyner and Watson.

It wasn't before the whole Supreme Court!

Last week the dissenting/abstaining judges suggested it. Subsequently, McDaniel asked for it in his motion for reconsideration.

Does this mean the bus goes back to Jones County for good?

4:28 pm. It was before the whole Supreme Court. See there are 9 justices. Two did not participate for whatever reason (likely Pierce and Dickenson have some relationship to one of the parties and recused). Do that leaves 7. 4 voted to deny, 3 voted to grant. McDaniel lost before the whole Court.

Waiting to hear from Melanie on her issues.

no brainer

I can't imagine why Tyner isn't worried about this as a business decision.

4:32 - I'd hate to be on that bus trying to get back to Jones County in one piece. One wheel, already flat, went to the rim today with the Supreme Court decision. Another wheel is losing air in the US District Court. And then we'll see if the rest of the wheels are enough to go round and round for any real distance without running into Rule 11 sanctions if a challenge is filed. It will be an unsafe ride home, especially for the lawyers.

"It wasn't before the whole Supreme Court!"

Do you know what "en banc" means (hint: it means the same thing today that it did in their decision from July 17).

The "whole Supreme Court" had a chance to vote year or nay. This was the result. Deal with it.

Yep, I can just see it now. At some point McD and Tyner, while losing, are going to get cross-wise over fees. Nahh Mitch, you took this on contingency, remember?

It wasn't before the whole Supreme Court!

July 24, 2014 at 4:28 PM


It was before all the Justices that felt like they didn't have a conflict hearing the case. So it's as whole as it's ever going to get in this case.

Recusals happen all the time.

lost world

It's time for him to go home to wife and kids, if they'll let him!

Did anyone check under the bus to see if Melanie is doing okay? Hey, watch out for the next sewage dump, Mel. Chris has already taken a taken a poop on the Tea Party, so you'll just be another victim when it's your turn.

Interesting that 'two did not participate'. Wonder why? Their participation obviously would have had an alternative impact and opposite result.

So, you celebratory jackals, this is like MSU getting beat by Auburn by a score of 3-2 a few years back. A celebration is not really in order. Get over your arrogant selves, you mouth breathing Barbourites.

Tyner has no business worries because he is a plaintiff's lawyer that sues pharmaceutical companies. Look at his terrible website. http://www.tynerlawfirm.com/areasofpractice.html

He make money by being a plaintiff's lawyer but pretends to be a republican.

9:29 pm.
It is not like that at all, that is why it is called a majority opinion. And there is nothing unusual about two justices recuing. Especially in state court and especially a case like this. They might have recused for any number of reasons. Most of the justices have been practicing law for 30+ years. It is likely that they, at some point in their careers, have had dealings or some connection with one of the candidates or more likely, one of the circuit clerks being sued. Go to the Judiciary Website and pull up any hand-down list and you will likely find that there is at least one case on each hand-down in which one justice recuses.

You lost, yet, in keeping with your cultish master, you incapable of losing with grace. It has to be someone else’s fault.

A plaintiff's attorney can't be a republican. What a revelation. I thought Thad just proved the tent welcomes everybody ~ black folk, itinerant Mexicans, plaintiff attorneys, people who haven't lived in Mississippi for years. 9:36, your claim disturbs me.

Typical response from McDaniel followers concerning two justices not voting because they are certain those two would have voted McDaniel's way. This will sadly never end.

"Interesting that 'two did not participate'. Wonder why? Their participation obviously would have had an alternative impact and opposite result.

So, you celebratory jackals, this is like MSU getting beat by Auburn by a score of 3-2 a few years back. A celebration is not really in order. Get over your arrogant selves, you mouth breathing Barbourites."

The assumption that Justices Dickinson and Pierce would have voted for McDaniel's position is unjustified. There is no way to know that. Nor is it justified to conclude that the three justices who did not join the opinion would have ultimately sided with McDaniel. They did not dissent from the interpretation of the statutes, as such, but only indicated they would have allowed the Rule 33 hearing before deciding in the merits. To read anything else into their "statement" is not possible. If they had truly objected to the interpretation, they could have said so. They didn't.

Next time some drunk runs over your child, or a doctor negligently amputates the wrong leg, you might need plaintiff lawyer. Not all plaintiff lawyers are Democrats and liberal. Most of them don't fit the stereo type. I would even argue that most are pretty good people. There are many good ones and some bad ones, just like there are many good business people and some who cheat customers. They get a bad rap because of the excesses of a few, like Scruggs.
And yes, you can be both a conservative Republican and a plaintiff lawyer, maybe not the most common combination, but certainly not unusual.
That said, I disagree with McDaniel on this election and think he should concede and shut up.

10:48 - it already ended...only one fool doesn't see it...yet

Just dawned on me: the reason McD is pursuing this futile path against the Circuit Clerks and, through the Fed act case against the GOP itself, and the Sec of State, is that he wants scapegoats to blame when he either does not file a challenge or loses it for lack of evidence. He'll blame it on lack of access to the DOB info, even though there is a unique number for every voter and it makes no sense. No matter. His undereducated following will buy it. This is all about McD finding a way to excuse and save face with his gullible following. What a Nazi.

I'm still surprised that in the new and improved Mississippi that Josiah Coleman was elected to the Supreme Court. He's grandfather, JP Coleman, was the white segregationist governor that didn't allow Mississippi State and TSUN to play basketball teams that had African American players. From people that I know that worked with Josiah in Tupelo, the hood doesn't fall far from the burning cross.

So where's that amended report from Austin Barbour that was supposed to clear up the Amanda Shook "reimbursement" issue that was supposed to be amended "in a couple of days"? 3 weeks and counting.

Ummm....09:32 I don't know what you have been smoking. There has never been a more racially neutral person than Josiah. As far as the comments about J.P. Coleman, his reputation and actions stand on their own. What you mention is true, but later in life as chief justice of the federal court of appeals in New Orleans, he came into his own. You probably couldn't name one thing from that particular body of work. I don't know who you know, but I think most people associated with him in his short time in Tupelo would dissagree.

I wonder how many of these Anonymous commenters are on the Capital Resources payroll.... just say'n.

Fidel Idithun

9:32. I have long understood that JP Coleman was a moderate for his time, esp in contrast to Barnett, Johnson, etc.; otherwise he would never have made it to the 5th Cir. Speaks well for Josiah that they are from the same stock. Fine family.

9:32 just FYI, J.P Coleman directly is responsible for getting the land for Ross Barnett reservoir. He directly is responsible for placing the VA in Jackson. As you might not remember, at the time military wards were interacial. J.P. was unconcerned with this as the hospital was about getting better, not about skin color and further thought it would be a huge mistake not to have the hospital in Jackson, MS despite what a lot of people thought. Some say he was defeated his next race largely because Bobby Kennedy spent the night in the Governor's Mansion. But as I said, you probably don't remember those occasions.

"In his subsequent campaign for governor in 1963, lost the Democratic nomination to Paul B. Johnson, Jr., a son of a former governor. Segregationist Johnson painted Coleman as a racial moderate and friend of the Kennedy administration. Paul Johnson's campaign staff charged that during the 1960 presidential campaign Coleman had allowed U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts to sleep in the Governor's Mansion in the bed formerly used by the late Governor and U.S. Senator Theodore Bilbo.[2] Johnson went on to defeat the Democrat-turned-Republican Rubel Phillips in the 1963 general election, then a new political opportunity for Mississippi voters."
Wikipedia

Let's rename the reservoir the JP Coleman Reservoir, and the name Barnett off it since he brought nothing but shame and embarrassment to our Stare.

The need for DOB sounds good unless one THINKS!

First of all, someone would have to get a photo ID in the dead person's name.

Then, the assumption is that you need DOB to confirm a dead person didn't vote.

You can't tell by DOB if the person died since last voting , you need the obits lists. THEN if you were to see the same name of a deceased person , you simply ask the clerk for the DOB.

This is so ridiculous!

5:21 (continued). That brings us to the second aspect: bureaucrat money. McDaniel is being charged fees by the circuit clerks in ~17to22 counties, for redaction or viewing or both. Some of these fees are statutory, under MS public-records-law, but those same fees-n-laws conflict with MS election-law statutes, and also with the federal NRVA. So, part of the legal battle now is about setting precedent: can circuit clerks charge 20/hr + $0.25/pg for allowing records to be VIEWED by a candidate, to verify the election was legal? Same question, but for any citizen, like TTV? The state supreme court answered the first question: all counties, in future elections, can charge candidates to review. For a statewide race it will cost tens of thousands of bucks in fees (not counting the time and equipment of the human reviewers). The federal TTV lawsuit will answer the latter question.

Now, obviously, even though McDaniel is still seeking fresh donations, he has enough cash to pay Rankin cty their fees, which will give him the evidence needed for his runoff-challenge-lawsuit (still to be filed). Although I see the lawyer-logic of trying to get a precedent set now, and keep fees from being charged in future elections, politically it is a mistake for McDaniel to wait. It would be better to cough up the fees demanded by the dozen remaining counties, and file the runoff-challenge-lawsuit before July is over, since early Sept is when the state is supposed to have finalized general election ballots. But see aspect number one: dragging things out, and the question of whether it is team Cochran folks, or team McDaniel folks, who are doing more dragging.

My thanks to KF for keeping us informed, during this post-June phase of the primary.