General Discussion

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

52. Ah, that's where you go wrong.

Mon Aug 28, 2017, 04:10 AM

Aug 2017

Judge Zloch's decision didn't turn at all on whether the DNC was being rigid and unfair. Plaintiffs said the DNC was unfair in that it violated its own rule of neutrality; defendants said that the DNC had been neutral; and Judge Zloch didn't take a position on the question (or, as lawyers usually say, he didn't reach that issue).

That's why, although you and I differ in our evaluation of the DNC's actions vis-a-vis the debate schedule, that difference has no bearing on the analysis of Friday's decision. Note that Judge Zloch makes no reference at all to the debates in the 2016 cycle. In fact, the word "debate" doesn't even occur in his decision except when, in analyzing federal rules concerning standing, he discusses a couple cases that were brought concerning the debates in the 2000 cycle.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lawsuit filed by conspiracy nuts against DNC is dismissed. [View all] DanTex Aug 2017 OP

K&R stonecutter357 Aug 2017 #1

Nuts! That's the perfect way to describe them! NurseJackie Aug 2017 #2

I Wish The Court Had Ruled The Plaintiffs Had To Pay All Court Costs Me. Aug 2017 #3

Agreed Gothmog Aug 2017 #87

K&R betsuni Aug 2017 #4

I bet there's wailing and gnashing of teeth at jpr right now. KitSileya Aug 2017 #5

Yes. Both there AND ... elsewhere. NurseJackie Aug 2017 #125

The judge rejected a truly outrageous defense offered by the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz Jim Lane Aug 2017 #6

As a Democrat, I'm mortified that the people who brought the suit participated in my party's primary DanTex Aug 2017 #7

Allow me to show your error by quoting the actual decision Jim Lane Aug 2017 #8

Your attempts at analysis are sad but funny Gothmog Aug 2017 #10

Sorry to disappoint you but I *was* on law review. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #11

You are defending a piece of shit lawsuit that is a joke Gothmog Aug 2017 #14

I think it's the Seth Rich crap that sent it OTT. Although amusing isn't the word I'd choose. bettyellen Aug 2017 #22

Could be. I've paid no attention to that. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #24

Point being, they are crackpots. And being upset he DNC used legal reasoning to explain their bettyellen Aug 2017 #25

The DNC's legal obligations don't depend on whether these individuals are crackpots. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #26

But they didn't go into a backroom at all. Some discussed their preferences and wish bettyellen Aug 2017 #27

I don't agree with you about the debates. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #28

They added four debates. And honestly that was too much because it was down to two bettyellen Aug 2017 #30

I still don't see the connection to Judge Zloch's decision Jim Lane Aug 2017 #43

You should concentrate on what the judge actually said, R B Garr Aug 2017 #46

That's great advice. I wish other people would follow it. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #47

Not really. "My assertions", as you call your own R B Garr Aug 2017 #50

The connection is your argument that the DNC was being rigid and unfair. bettyellen Aug 2017 #48

Ah, that's where you go wrong. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #52

Read the complaint Gothmog Aug 2017 #62

Well yeah, the judge didn't say they weren't neutral enough.... you did. bettyellen Aug 2017 #68

You're finally agreeing with what I wrote in #28. Thank you. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #69

After much consideration...the best way to handle such things in the future is never allow Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #56

My question about that approach has never been answered. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #70

The parties are in charge of the primary process and can do as they choose. This is why you Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #82

Sorry, I don't understand your answer. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #84

You have not read the pleadings or the DC statute Gothmog Aug 2017 #88

i am amused that you think that this stupid lawsuit had merit Gothmog Aug 2017 #32

The judge did not make the ruling you ascribe to him. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #40

You are wrong yet again Gothmog Aug 2017 #61

Fair enough. I was using an informal notion of jurisdiction, which was incorrect on my part. DanTex Aug 2017 #12

Your notion of jurisdiction wasn't incorrect, just incomplete Jim Lane Aug 2017 #15

Thanks for the clarification. DanTex Aug 2017 #18

More about fraud Jim Lane Aug 2017 #20

"Fraud Actions Not Generically Unsuitable for Class Certification." That just screams "read me"! DanTex Aug 2017 #21

The legal analysis above is mostly wrong Gothmog Aug 2017 #38

Did you read the opinion? Gothmog Aug 2017 #33

K&R for this discussion. appal_jack Aug 2017 #74

This was a crap lawsuit brought by an idiot cray baby lawyer Gothmog Aug 2017 #9

The lawyers are real pieces of work. DanTex Aug 2017 #13

JPR posted that video from Alex Jones Gothmog Aug 2017 #34

+1000. The judge was actually kind by calling it not R B Garr Aug 2017 #36

Yes the judge was being kind Gothmog Aug 2017 #39

It's a good thing we have folks like you and Gothmog to tell us what the judge really meant. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #55

lol, of course the judge won't and didn't use the word" R B Garr Aug 2017 #64

Your understanding of legal terminology is incorrect Jim Lane Aug 2017 #66

The judge was very clear. And polite. You don't need R B Garr Aug 2017 #67

Is it your opinion that a new case in a DC court would be barred by res judicata? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #71

This is why you should focus on what the judge R B Garr Aug 2017 #73

Please enlighten me. I asked a simple yes-or-no question. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #75

The first sentence says the judge recognizes that the redress is through the ballot box. R B Garr Aug 2017 #77

Look at the what the judge actually said? That's a great idea. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #94

Here you go again. You keep spamming with irrelevant sidebars to what the judge R B Garr Aug 2017 #98

Do you understand the phrase "To the extent that"? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #100

Yet you admitted in your post #8 that you hadn't even read the plaintiff's complaint. R B Garr Aug 2017 #101

I haven't read the Warren Commission report, either. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #103

lol, I prefer to read what the judge actually wrote. And what the plaintiff's actually wrote. R B Garr Aug 2017 #104

No such a case would be laughed at Gothmog Aug 2017 #85

Let's distinguish two different questions Jim Lane Aug 2017 #95

Read the pleadings Gothmog Aug 2017 #97

Here's where you're wrong. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #99

I am stunned by your patience KTM Aug 2017 #105

Thanks for your kind words. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #114

Ignoring what the judge actually said is what is hopeless and wrong. It looks like R B Garr Aug 2017 #115

No you are so wrong that it is funny Gothmog Aug 2017 #106

I am stunned by your patience R B Garr Aug 2017 #107

You are welcomed Gothmog Aug 2017 #108

That's what was most noticeable about the judge -- the politeness. R B Garr Aug 2017 #113

Good lord KTM Aug 2017 #109

Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #110

Seriously, you make no sense. The most noticeable thing is you haven't read the R B Garr Aug 2017 #112

Where did the judge imply that the Plaintiff's should resubmit their "case"? R B Garr Aug 2017 #117

When will you run out of straw? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #118

But your straw is okay, I see. R B Garr Aug 2017 #119

I have read the pleadings and the DC statut Gothmog Aug 2017 #89

Yes but the judge said the bias was real Egnever Aug 2017 #16

That's completely false. The judge most certainly did not say that. DanTex Aug 2017 #19

No, the judge didn't say the bias was real. Not a proud (as usual) moment for nutjobs. Lil Missy Aug 2017 #23

No the judge did not make that finding Gothmog Aug 2017 #35

No he didn't. He said that even if he looked lapucelle Aug 2017 #76

What? the DNC prefers Democratic candidates...shocking. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #83

Now the courts won't act, even on evidence Democrats are abusing pizzas in the basement! struggle4progress Aug 2017 #17

K&R Scurrilous Aug 2017 #29

Is it your vision for our party that our rules and bylaws don't mean anything? davsand Aug 2017 #31

The courts are not the forum for bad losers and crybabies Gothmog Aug 2017 #37

I can see you have no interest in discussing our party. davsand Aug 2017 #41

I have less than no interest in discussing our party...I feel we need to discuss getting Trump Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #57

Trump was elected by sanders supporters who voted for trump Gothmog Aug 2017 #59

I don't disagree...but it is time to move on...and look to the future. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #63

I truly feel we are all going to have to get together or keep losing. davsand Aug 2017 #72

I don't agree. No rules were violated. However, this is a lesson...no more non-Democrats should be Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #81

Or, in '18, for that matter. GoCubsGo Aug 2017 #96

Who or what determines that somebody is really a "Democrat"? davsand Aug 2017 #120

There is no danger in being a Democrat. That's what you R B Garr Aug 2017 #121

The danger I see lies in closing the doors to the party. davsand Aug 2017 #123

Why would someone want to run if they don't R B Garr Aug 2017 #124

Quite true using the Democratic party as a convenience to mount a campaign that might not be Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #127

Thanks, I had to read that a couple times to make sure that it was saying R B Garr Aug 2017 #128

It is quite easy. Have you joined? For example, Senator Sandors has a 'I' next to his name Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #126

I am very active in the party Gothmog Aug 2017 #58

It was unwise for the DNC lawyers to make that argument geek tragedy Aug 2017 #42

Lawyers tend to deliver up whatever defense they can muster. davsand Aug 2017 #44

People who care need to get involved earlier and work to change things which takes time.... bettyellen Aug 2017 #49

No you are wrong Gothmog Aug 2017 #86

I understand lawyers' job is to win the case geek tragedy Aug 2017 #91

That's a very good point. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #102

The DNC was correct in dispuring this ignorant lawsuit Gothmog Aug 2017 #111

Rules and bylaws should be respected but bluedye33139 Aug 2017 #53

My vision? No, that's not my vision at all. DanTex Aug 2017 #65

My vision is that the candidate who got 4 million more votes should have her victory respected stevenleser Aug 2017 #78

Again, I stress that I, personally, think there was no class action there. davsand Aug 2017 #79

3 million more votes in the general, 4 million more votes in the primary stevenleser Aug 2017 #80

And that's it in a nutshell +++++++ JHan Aug 2017 #116

They are playing Infowars against the Dems. These are Russian/Republican plants fighting Dems. L. Coyote Aug 2017 #45

Hence...The Solution Being Me. Aug 2017 #90

There is no "Our Revolution" because there is no revolution. L. Coyote Aug 2017 #92

While I Agree That No Revolutioon Has Occurred Me. Aug 2017 #93

Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #51

A lot of the "Berniecrats" were manipulated by Trump and the Russians to schism Dems, no doubt L. Coyote Aug 2017 #54

Take heart! It appears that you're not alone in that belief. From what I can observe... NurseJackie Aug 2017 #60

What you said about whatever s/he said. ucrdem Aug 2017 #122