Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Lawsuit filed by conspiracy nuts against DNC is dismissed. [View all]R B Garr
(17,984 posts)98. Here you go again. You keep spamming with irrelevant sidebars to what the judge
actually said. The judge said that the courts were not the avenue for redress. That's what he said.
You're obviously deliberately taking the judge's own words out of context to fit some aggrieved narrative. The judge said the courts were not the venue for redress, so -- obviously -- he thought that the plaintiffs were misusing the process. That's why the judge wrote: "To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box........not through the judiciary."
You should focus on what the judge actually said instead of tangents on what he didn't say.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
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
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
They added four debates. And honestly that was too much because it was down to two
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#30
After much consideration...the best way to handle such things in the future is never allow
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#56
The parties are in charge of the primary process and can do as they choose. This is why you
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#82
Fair enough. I was using an informal notion of jurisdiction, which was incorrect on my part.
DanTex
Aug 2017
#12
"Fraud Actions Not Generically Unsuitable for Class Certification." That just screams "read me"!
DanTex
Aug 2017
#21
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
Is it your opinion that a new case in a DC court would be barred by res judicata?
Jim Lane
Aug 2017
#71
The first sentence says the judge recognizes that the redress is through the ballot box.
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#77
Here you go again. You keep spamming with irrelevant sidebars to what the judge
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#98
Yet you admitted in your post #8 that you hadn't even read the plaintiff's complaint.
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#101
lol, I prefer to read what the judge actually wrote. And what the plaintiff's actually wrote.
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#104
Ignoring what the judge actually said is what is hopeless and wrong. It looks like
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#115
Seriously, you make no sense. The most noticeable thing is you haven't read the
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#112
No, the judge didn't say the bias was real. Not a proud (as usual) moment for nutjobs.
Lil Missy
Aug 2017
#23
Now the courts won't act, even on evidence Democrats are abusing pizzas in the basement!
struggle4progress
Aug 2017
#17
I have less than no interest in discussing our party...I feel we need to discuss getting Trump
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#57
I don't agree. No rules were violated. However, this is a lesson...no more non-Democrats should be
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#81
Quite true using the Democratic party as a convenience to mount a campaign that might not be
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#127
It is quite easy. Have you joined? For example, Senator Sandors has a 'I' next to his name
Demsrule86
Aug 2017
#126
People who care need to get involved earlier and work to change things which takes time....
bettyellen
Aug 2017
#49
My vision is that the candidate who got 4 million more votes should have her victory respected
stevenleser
Aug 2017
#78
They are playing Infowars against the Dems. These are Russian/Republican plants fighting Dems.
L. Coyote
Aug 2017
#45
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