2004 Presidential Election

[SRO]

Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.

[FLZapped]

I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.

Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

On a lighter note, a few words from Jay Leno......

In an interview in USA Today, Teresa Heinz Kerry said she didn't think Laura Bush, who was a public school librarian for nine years, had ever held a "real job." Let me tell you something -- if you're a librarian married to George W. Bush, there is no harder job on Earth. .... Both candidates are trying to scare voters for votes in the last weeks of the campaign. And they're doing a pretty good job. Voters are petrified that on November 2nd they're actually going to have to pick one of these guys. What's scarier than that? .... The town of Bloomfield, New Jersey, was holding a lottery to determine who would get a flu shot. It's terrible. And the winner doesn't even get the flu shot all at once. It's injected very slowly, once a year for 25 years. .... The Kerry campaign announced today they will have "10,000 lawyers at the polls in battle ground states." 10,000 lawyers. Well, let's hope you don't slip and fall on the sidewalk outside a polling place. You could be buried alive in business cards.

-Bruce

[SRO]

Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

[FLZapped]

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

[SRO]

Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

It was Dean_Martin who said the parties were responsible. Maybe he is around and could clear it up.

What I got from re-reading his post ( #88 in this thread ) was that the parties are to present the rules they wnat to use to pick their candidate. I assume the county board of elections agrees or disagrees.

Dean?

[piece-it pete]

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

Not to jump Deans' answer but I too believe the primary system is run by the parties, which makes sense to me.

Ohio has open primaries. Honestly it DOESN'T make sense to me. Why should I be able to vote for the Dems' candidate?

Activist court = one that legislates from the bench. Most are liberal. Some are conservative. All are tyrants!

Pete

[dean_martin]

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

It is true that the primary process is a political process, not a legal one. The primary process by which a party's nominee is selected is determined by that party. Your Constitutional right to vote really attaches during a general election. However, gov't funds and election officials are used to give effect to a primary election. Because it's a political process and limits on our right to vote are not subject to strict scrutiny in primaries, states and their state party leaders are allowed to tinker with the process. For example, Iowa has caucuses. Louisiana has an open election for all candidates which usually results in a run-off. And, California can attempt to amend its constitution or adopt a law calling for open primaries. It would be interesting to see if such a law would stand if challenged on the ground that the parties have the right to select their nominees in the manner they choose. Finally, you can be left out of the primary process all together if you don't declare a party affliliation.

To your next point regarding activist judges, I would like to provide an example of a conservative/pro-Republican court taking an activist position. During the debates, Bush said he would select "strict constructionists" as judicial nominees. One of his selections for the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was Bill Pryor, former Attorney General of my home state of Alabama. The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Bush's appointment of Pryor came during a Senate break for a long holiday weekend. Bush attempted to skirt the Senate advice and consent clause by using the recess appointment clause of the constitution. The Recess Appointment clause states in its entirety as follows:

The President shall have Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Capitalization in original.)

One issue was whether the President has the power to fill vacancies that occur during the Recess of the Senate, or does he have the power to fill vacancies during a recess no matter when they happen? Another issue was whether a long holiday weekend constitutes the Recess of the Senate. How do you think a strict constructionist judge would answer the first question? The 11th Circuit, which is considered one of the 2 or 3 most conservative circuits in the country, said that it didn't matter when the vacancy occurrs. They also said that a long holiday weekend is a recess even though the constitution makes a distinction between the end of "the" Session and an adjournment during a session. Why would a President who says he is pro-strict constructionist try to expand his authority beyond the plain language of the recess appointments clause?

[SRO]

The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.

[dean_martin]

The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.

Thanks for asking! We're doing well. It's been slow and on some streets you can't see the houses for all the debris piled up in yards. But, no one was injured during the storm. I posted some pictures over in the gallery section, but we've come a long way since then. We know some people in Pensacola near the water who are going to go through rough times for a while.

On a related topic, I've dogged insurance companies pretty hard here in the off topic forum, but I hope by the end of this week I'll be able to say some nice things about mine!

[FLZapped]

I wou

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

No, they generate law, rather than interpret it.

-Bruce