tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post6274998014508177022..comments2024-03-29T10:06:43.321-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Supremes reject McDaniel's petitionKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-25226822697727712992014-07-21T16:03:00.006-05:002014-07-21T16:03:00.006-05:00So who will Chiders support for majority leader? H...So who will Chiders support for majority leader? He could be to the right of Atila the Hun, but if he goes to the Senate as a Democrat, he will keep Harry Reid in power, and it matters not one whit how conservative Childers is. He will have supported the liberal agenda by continuing Reid's grip on the Senate. <br /><br />Who did he support for speaker? Pelosi, right? So we already pretty much know how he will vote on the most important vote he will have. The rest of his votes will largely be irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-51528712894952994002014-07-21T13:49:59.646-05:002014-07-21T13:49:59.646-05:00Childers only wins in November because 184,000 dis...Childers only wins in November because 184,000 disenfranchised McDaniel supporters (which by the way IS the majority of Republicans in Mississippi) will not vote for Thad. Childers happens to be much more conservative than Thad ever thought about being. "Anonymous"...you just might want to vote for Thad because of that reason.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210930423354929221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-4715570915807090832014-07-20T18:00:02.872-05:002014-07-20T18:00:02.872-05:001. McDaniel sought no relief under federal law in ...1. McDaniel sought no relief under federal law in his petition to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the Mississippi statutes was not at issue, and federal law was not at issue. The law is clear. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of the court.<br /><br />2. The opinion of the court is the opinion of the court because it was the opinion of the majority of the justices participating. The three justices who did not join the opinion did not dissent from the legal holding, but did not believe the case was ripe for a decision. Frankly it really isn't clear that any evidentiary record would matter, since as a matter of law, the poll books aren't part of the ballots or contained in the ballot boxes. <br />3. As to the briefs of the opponents to the petition, the court clearly sided with the legal arguments and understanding of the statutes advanced in those briefs. <br />4. I see little likelihood of success for a rehearing. There just isn't a compelling reason for it because the statutes are clear, and a Rule 33 conference will not change that.<br />5 I would not think that a challenge to the statues under federal law will fair much better since there are other avenues to verify the legitimacy of the votes cast. Which may be why such a challenge was not made in this instance. We shall see if he pursues that course, but it will be a dead end too.<br />The whole thing seems more like a publicity stunt than a legitimate argument about the meaning of the statues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-40328472014028304832014-07-20T12:13:11.421-05:002014-07-20T12:13:11.421-05:0012:36, you said "Anyone should have his day i...12:36, you said "Anyone should have his day in court, but only if there is a legal basis for it. The court's opinion and the briefs in opposition pretty clearly demonstrate a complete lack of a legal basis to request the information being sought by the McDaniel campaign. The law clearly requires the redaction of the information sought."<br /><br />The redaction of information is one of the issues. In your opinion, the "law clearly requires the redaction of the information sought." While state law may be on your side, federal law may not. That is an issue for the MS Supreme Court or the federal court to decide.<br /><br />You said, "The court's opinion and the briefs in opposition pretty clearly demonstrate a complete lack of a legal basis to request the information being sought by the McDaniel campaign." Well, of course, the briefs in opposition take that position - that's pure advocacy. As to "the court's opinion," 3 justices could not or would not decide due to the need for a Rule 33 conference and 2 justices did not participate. The right thing would have been for the Rule 33 conference to take place, and then the decision might have been 7 against McDaniel's position or the conference might have changed the opinion of 1 or more of the 4 voting against McDanel's position.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-19117258681458064962014-07-20T00:36:27.913-05:002014-07-20T00:36:27.913-05:00Anyone should have his day in court, but only if t...Anyone should have his day in court, but only if there is a legal basis for it. The court's opinion and the briefs in opposition pretty clearly demonstrate a complete lack of a legal basis to request the information being sought by the McDaniel campaign. The law clearly requires the redaction of the information sought. Therefore, there is no right to claim the information. End of case. There are other legal ways to verify the legitimacy of the votes cast. There is no need to divide the court along political lines since the law is clear on this one. It has nothing to do with political orientation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-78689768346429396452014-07-19T15:00:28.701-05:002014-07-19T15:00:28.701-05:003:21 on 7/17, you said "Three of the most lib...3:21 on 7/17, you said "Three of the most liberal justices on our Supreme Court ruled on this one."<br /><br />Dickinson and Pierce did not participate at all. Randolph, Kitchens and Chandler did not vote because they wanted more information. Only four (4) participated: Coleman, Waller, Lamar and King.<br /><br />Your interpretation of "liberal" is questionable. King may be liberal and and Waller sometimes writes opinions deemed somewhat liberal. But, Lamar is not liberal and Coleman is ABSOLUTELY NOT liberal.<br /><br />Coleman wrote the opinion.. Who supported Coleman for office? Thad supporters! Maybe Coleman was fair and impartial, but the appearance of impropriety would suggest Coleman should have recused.<br /><br />Before anyone accuses me of being a disgruntled McDaniel supporter, nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone challenging an election should have their day in court. If the challenger has no evidence hidden from him/her and then loses the challenge, then justice, hopefully, will have prevailed.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-26218160061235175412014-07-17T18:10:59.105-05:002014-07-17T18:10:59.105-05:00Watson said only three judges heard it but the rul...Watson said only three judges heard it but the ruling says en banc - meaning all of them. Need to add $5 to the requested $50 to hire a better lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-49149770806242680462014-07-17T17:16:01.168-05:002014-07-17T17:16:01.168-05:00Is JRA Attorney Zach Taylor one of the 331 Hinds D...<br />Is JRA Attorney Zach Taylor one of the 331 Hinds Democrats who voted in the Democratic primary on June 3 and then for Cochran in the GOP runoff June 24th? Say it ain't so!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-5570850825537611952014-07-17T17:09:42.015-05:002014-07-17T17:09:42.015-05:00I read it as 4-3. With the 3 not concurring or dis...I read it as 4-3. With the 3 not concurring or dissenting. But 4 is a majority when 2 don't participate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-71162595735565345112014-07-17T16:51:40.572-05:002014-07-17T16:51:40.572-05:00Someone go fetch Steffey from his closet at WLBT s...Someone go fetch Steffey from his closet at WLBT so he can explain the votesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-82442278034833159372014-07-17T16:41:40.108-05:002014-07-17T16:41:40.108-05:00I envision when the tea baggers meet Kim wade it&#...I envision when the tea baggers meet Kim wade it's like when the town folk meet the new sheriff in blazing saddlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-36643906266809297322014-07-17T16:31:19.904-05:002014-07-17T16:31:19.904-05:00I read it as 5-0 with 3 concurring in result only...I read it as 5-0 with 3 concurring in result only. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-8854223750879423252014-07-17T16:25:01.379-05:002014-07-17T16:25:01.379-05:00143.. would rather have an amateur that looks ...143.. would rather have an amateur that looks like a fool - pure innocence towards the crooked political system versus a "wise" old man that is a professional to manipulative tactics due to experience. all start off as amateurs. it's what they acquire through experience and only inhibition will dictate their behavior as they become wiser. In which we have seen the ethical behavior during the last election. Yep - a wise old man and a bunch of youngins' that have grown up in the same environment. .....but that's just my little ole' opinion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-42863288253853962292014-07-17T16:15:12.986-05:002014-07-17T16:15:12.986-05:00156 ever heard of retaliation? and in politics ...156 ever heard of retaliation? and in politics it's dirty - would make a good John Grisham book. if it ain't never happened to you then you don't know how nasty it can be. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-3299627894611993562014-07-17T15:51:59.579-05:002014-07-17T15:51:59.579-05:00I read it as 5 - 0, with 2 not participating and ...I read it as 5 - 0, with 2 not participating and 2 in effect saying the record is incomplete and a decision is premature.<br /><br />En banc means the full court is available to hear the case, not a three-judge panel. Its a devastating loss for Chrissie. Wonder what kind of hissie from Chrissie this time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-50615518342582478312014-07-17T15:51:55.934-05:002014-07-17T15:51:55.934-05:00How many chapters has John Grisham already penned ...How many chapters has John Grisham already penned on this, and who will the director pick to play McDaniel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-50204320633129589412014-07-17T15:21:16.567-05:002014-07-17T15:21:16.567-05:00Three of the most liberal justices on our Supreme ...Three of the most liberal justices on our Supreme Court ruled on this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-65818709894517317912014-07-17T15:14:16.892-05:002014-07-17T15:14:16.892-05:00This just in:
McDaniel was just seen near a press...This just in:<br /><br />McDaniel was just seen near a press conference...<br /><br />That is allAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-7021670386660018942014-07-17T15:05:10.911-05:002014-07-17T15:05:10.911-05:00"The following is not to be construed as lega..."The following is not to be construed as legal advice."<br /><br />Umm...you are posting anonymously. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-34550188248212166242014-07-17T15:02:28.150-05:002014-07-17T15:02:28.150-05:00It appears five of the justices didn't vote. ...It appears five of the justices didn't vote. Pierce and Dickinson didn't participate and Randolph, Kitchens and Chandler said they weren't voting yea or nay because no exhibits from the lower court were attached to the Petition. <br /><br />Of the four that did vote, it would appear the count was 4-0.<br /><br />The comment by the three justices that stayed neutral seems to be reflective of what the McD campaign has been engaging in these past three weeks. All rhetoric and no actual proof. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-65914749781551951072014-07-17T14:51:58.387-05:002014-07-17T14:51:58.387-05:00Wait...does the Supreme Court's ruling make Mi...Wait...does the Supreme Court's ruling make Mississippi a judicial hellhole again? Someone alert the U.S. Chamber...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-28293624731172352662014-07-17T14:42:54.663-05:002014-07-17T14:42:54.663-05:00Democrats are going to run a freight train through...Democrats are going to run a freight train through Thad's Webber problem. They already have video of them in DC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-20813778288423619582014-07-17T14:30:31.900-05:002014-07-17T14:30:31.900-05:00Breaking: McDaniel promises to remove RINO Supreme...Breaking: McDaniel promises to remove RINO Supreme Court justicesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-42016143720589896232014-07-17T14:19:41.799-05:002014-07-17T14:19:41.799-05:00With apologies to the Tudors who said similarly of...With apologies to the Tudors who said similarly of Richard III:<br /><br />"The Cat, the Rat, and Michael their Dog, ruleth all Mississippi under a Pine Log". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-39319198020260829862014-07-17T14:13:05.128-05:002014-07-17T14:13:05.128-05:00Hey Stupid, asking voters to stay home helps Child...Hey Stupid, asking voters to stay home helps Childers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com