Jackson Jambalaya

Cue the Thad/Barbour conspiracy rants in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

That was quick. Wednesday press conference a bit premature?

Can't wait for Tyner, McDaniel and Watson (the cat, the rat, and their dog) to say 9 members of the Mississippi Supreme Court are part of the vast and ongoing conspiracy! Really, though, it is going to take the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions to get these guys to quit making unfounded accusations.

What's a rule 11 sanction?

Cochran loses in Nov. Heard it here first.

Yes, the press conference was premature, and it further demonstrates how disconnected McDaniel and his advisors are to reality. Look at the time line. McDaniel files an "emergency" (keyword) petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court on Monday, July 14. On Tuesday, the Court, acting with, based on my experience, record speed even in terms of emergency petitions, entered an order instructing Parker and the AG to respond by 2:00 pm the following day. So McDaniel had to know that a ruling would hand down this week. Why not postpone the press conference in the interest of damage control. Yes, the press conference was already scheduled, however, knowing how swiftly the Court was proceeding, any experienced campaign staff would have postponed it, especially in light of the fact that McDaniel didn't even plan to attend. McDaniel and his legal team look like amateur fools.

The Cat, The Rat and their Dog need to pay the expenses for the carnival and sideshow they have created.

1:39
Please stay at home in November

Did the full court hear this?

How come only anonymous seems to be the only one(s) with anything to say on this website?

JJ readers wear brown bags over their heads?

Mr. Weir:
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides:
(b) Sanctions. If a pleading or motion is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false and the action may proceed as though the pleading or motion had not been served. For wilful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or both, to pay to the opposing party or parties the reasonable expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

The above is not to be construed as legal advice

No way Cochran loses to Childers.

It's truly rare when one gets to laugh this much reading court documents. Titling a section "The Sky is not falling" gave me a good laugh.

Kudos to Tim Holleman. When this is over he should consider a career in writing for late-night comedy.

McDaniel and his legal team ARE amateur fools.

1:21 pm: Do you really thing that sanctions will reign these guys in? McDaniel will no doubt be issuing an email today informing his supporters that: “Last, I mean, This week’s runoff election I mean, Order was a sham, plain and simple . . . . Please, take a moment to contribute to the Election Challenge Fund I mean the Supreme Court Corruption Fund to help me contest this corrupt election Order.”

Kim Wade: yes, the full court heard it, that is what "en banc" means. And some of us have jobs that prohibit us from taking part in political discussions.

Hey Stupid, asking voters to stay home helps Childers.

With apologies to the Tudors who said similarly of Richard III:

"The Cat, the Rat, and Michael their Dog, ruleth all Mississippi under a Pine Log".

Breaking: McDaniel promises to remove RINO Supreme Court justices

Democrats are going to run a freight train through Thad's Webber problem. They already have video of them in DC.

Wait...does the Supreme Court's ruling make Mississippi a judicial hellhole again? Someone alert the U.S. Chamber...

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.

Of the four that did vote, it would appear the count was 4-0.

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.

"The following is not to be construed as legal advice."

Umm...you are posting anonymously.

This just in:

McDaniel was just seen near a press conference...

That is all

Three of the most liberal justices on our Supreme Court ruled on this one.

How many chapters has John Grisham already penned on this, and who will the director pick to play McDaniel?

I read it as 5 - 0, with 2 not participating and 2 in effect saying the record is incomplete and a decision is premature.

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?

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.

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.

I read it as 5-0 with 3 concurring in result only.

I envision when the tea baggers meet Kim wade it's like when the town folk meet the new sheriff in blazing saddles

Someone go fetch Steffey from his closet at WLBT so he can explain the votes

I read it as 4-3. With the 3 not concurring or dissenting. But 4 is a majority when 2 don't participate.

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!!!

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.

3:21 on 7/17, you said "Three of the most liberal justices on our Supreme Court ruled on this one."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
The whole thing seems more like a publicity stunt than a legitimate argument about the meaning of the statues.

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.

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.

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.