Below is my column in the New York Post on a reported plan of the Democratic National Committee and allied groups to try to block third-party candidates from the 2024 ballot. The contradiction is stunning as these groups raise money to “save democracy” by limiting democratic choice. In the meantime, the leading third-party candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. will be reportedly announcing his running mate this week.
Here is the column:
The last time that the Chicago Democratic Convention was held in Chicago in 1968, the resulting riots led to one of the greatest Freudian slips in American politics. Mayor Richard Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”
The Democratic National Committee has now added its own gem: the Democratic Party is not here to preserve democracy, it is here to prevent democracy.
That’s because the DNC is seeking to block third party candidates from ballots — Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornell West, and Jill Stein. All three are liberal and are considered a threat to Joe Biden.
This effort will likely include any ticket put forward by the No Labels group, seeking a moderate alternative to the two parties.
The media does not appear at all alarmed or critical of the effort to limit democratic choice. The Washington Post stated clinically “Democrats are taking third-party threats seriously this time.” Taking it seriously appears to mean using legal means to keep them from the ballots.
It is true that the main political parties have challenged qualification signatures and paperwork in the past. However, the reports indicate a systemic effort geared toward reducing the choices for voters. What is striking is that this is coming from democratic groups and the DNC, which are raising money on the “save democracy” narrative.
The contradiction is spellbinding. On the same sites promising to oppose the third party candidates, the DNC and other groups push the narrative that only the Democrats are working to protect the right to vote.
The Post reports that Democrats have studied the Hillary Clinton campaign and vowed not to allow third party candidates to drain away millions of voters as they did in 2016. Of course, the comparison is particularly telling because in both 2016 and 2024, the DNC chose the least popular Democratic candidates. Polls showed that Clinton was the worst possible candidate for the party, but the Clintons had control over the DNC and state party organizations.
Of particular concern is the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by only 67,000 votes. In just those states, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Stein received more than half a million votes.
Rather than actually pick a candidate that most citizens want, the DNC wants to replay the 2016 strategy of forcing the choice between two evils in a Biden-Trump choice. That can only work reliably if there is no other choice for citizens tired of the duopoly and the political (and media) establishment. So Kennedy, Cornell, and Stein just have to go.
I am one of those misguided voters. Years ago, I wrote a column saying that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils — leaving every election as a moral hazard. I am prepared to vote for candidates from the two main parties in any given election, but I will only vote for the candidate who I believe is the best of candidates to be president. We are played as chumps by a political and media establishment in every election system. Over two decades ago, I pledged to vote for the best candidate, even if they are with a third party.
The DNC is reportedly to be joined in this effort by a well-financed array of groups including the liberal think tank Third Way (which has filed complaints with secretaries of states); American Bridge (a Democratic opposition operation), and Clear Choice (a super PAC composed of “allies of President Biden”).
While these groups work to limit the choice of voters, the effort continues in Florida, Georgia, Washington, and New York to keep Trump in court until the election, including a possible trial running up to or even through the election.
There is hope that this multi-front effort will be the winning ticket, particularly if the ultimate ticket denies voters any other choice.
The open discussion of these efforts in the media illustrates the contempt for voters, who need to be protected from their bad choices. I have previously compared the underlying assumptions to a type of electoral Big Gulp law. Before they were also struck down, these laws sought to take away the dietary choices of citizens because they were making the wrong choice in the view of experts.
Activists are now big gulping the election. Voters cannot be trusted with something as important as democracy.
President Biden has said “make no mistake: Democracy is on the ballot for all of us.” Of course, he could end this effort by denouncing further ballot cleansing (something he refused to do when Trump was removed by the Colorado and Maine ballots). It appears that the last thing that democracy needs is free democratic choice.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
The American mainstream media is a state media. The only difference between Pravda of the Soviet Union and the current American media is that one was written in Russian and the other is in English. A ship crashes into a bridge due to a loss of power, the government says there was no terrorism and the media dutifully repeats it. Anyone with half a brain knows that inserting a virus into the ships computer system at just the right moment could have caused the power loss and collision. I’ll agree with some that Trump is a terrible choice but the Biden people appear to be purposely working to destroy current American society.
I don’t recall ever being more ‘afraid’ that the millions of citizens from coast to coast will be needing (or wanting) Kevlar, beginning as early as late November, 2024 and throughout 2025 and beyond. I hope I’m wrong but I know I’m not alone in this fear.
Anonymous said: “I don’t recall ever being more ‘afraid’ that the millions of citizens from coast to coast will be needing (or wanting) Kevlar”
For a number of reasons, I am more partial to AR500, but your concern is understood and reciprocated.
South Park said it best:
Let’s get out and vote!
Let’s make our voices heard!
We’ve been given the right to choose
between a douche and a turd
It’s democracy in action
so put your freedom to the test!
A big fat turd or a stupid douche
Which do you like best?
Dennis, Dennis, the menace!
There you go again confusing and spinning facts to your misrepresentations.
It wasn’t an armed group in Maricopa 2020, it was the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in 2008, intimidating people on behalf of the Chocolate Jesus. The traitor to our Nation that is responsible for delivering us to where we now find ourselves.
Blocking candidates is SO democratic
Jonathan: The real problem this year is not so much ballot access for candidates but voter intimidation. It will be 2020 redux. How is that going to play out? DJT and the RNC have a strategy for this year’s election: Keep voters away from the polls. It’s really the only way DJT has of winning. How is this strategy being implemented?
We saw a preview in the 2022 midterm elections. In Maricopa County, AZ a group armed and wearing masks stood in front of voter drop off boxes yelling and intimidating voters trying to deposit their ballots. A federal judge had to intervene to prevent the group from being within 250 ft of the the ballot drop off box. We’ll see more of that this year.
Then, DJT put his daughter-in-law in charge of the RNC. Laura Trump has set up an “election integrity” division that has set aside efforts to reach out to minority voters. Instead, the innocuous sounding division is hiring hundreds of lawyers to challenge state election rules. Last week the RNC sued Michigan alleging, without any evidence, that voter rolls are not being kept up to date. A similar lawsuit has been filed in Nevada.
Michael Flynn, former WH national security advisor under DJT who was pardoned by DJT after he was convicted of lying to the FBI, has joined the effort at voter suppression. Flynn has set up a new “command center” in FL called “Guard the Vote”. The purpose of the “command center” is to harass and intimidate election workers (similar to what happened in Fulton County, GA in 2020), “monitoring” ballot boxes with 24/7 video surveillance of voter drop off boxes and similar efforts to intimidate voters (see AP article, 12/6/23). DJT is also trying to get Jewish voters to switch. In anti-Semitic tropes DJT said last week “Jews who don’t vote for me hate Israel”. It’s DJT strategy of dividing voters by religion and ethnicity.
This is not 2020 when DJT had to file 60-70 unsuccessful legal challenges AFTER the vote. He learned a valuable lesson from that experience. This year DJT and his MAGA minions will try to keep voters away from the polls through harassment, intimidation and legal challenges to voting rules. It’s not about a free and fair election. It’s about getting back into power at any cost!
Is that koolaid on your chin?
Why didn’t you mention the millions in ACTBlue small dollar donations to democrats coming from individuals who have confirmed they didn’t make those donations?
Why didnt you mention filthy voter rolls in every state that democrats refuse to allow anyone to clean up?
It’s because partisan hacks never mention those things. I’m all for counting every legitimate vote, it’s a shame you and your ilk aren’t.
You are clearly blind to the larger issue Mr. Turley explores.
Dennis, the first thing you need to do is get your facts straight. When you quote, make sure you didn’t make up the quote like you did here.
It is true. Many Jews don’t like Israel, and many are Democrats. Many want to pretend it doesn’t exist so it doesn’t affect their lifestyles. Israel is facing an existential threat, and many Democrat Jews protest along with Palestinians, supporting the barbarism we saw with the Palestinian savagery as the Palestinians killed and took hostages while hiding behind women and children. People like that should be condemned for supporting terrorism and barbarism.
Your brain lacks the ability for you to exist in the civilized world.
My name is Paul Hager – I’m a former Democrat, Libertarian, and now a Republican. I’ve been on the ballot as a “third party” candidate three times: in 1996 and 1998 I was the Libertarian Party candidate for 8th District, US Representative in Indiana and in 2000 for US Senate for Indiana. I became a Republican in 2002 and ran for State Representative. My profession was a Computer Scientist for the US Navy – I retired at the end of 2020. One thing that became clear to me in my political endeavors was that 3rd parties are, at best, disruptive – the last successful one was the Republican Party, which produced the Civil War. Around the mid-1990’s I learned about the mathematical discipline of “Social Choice Theory” – this is the study of voting systems. It is unfortunately highly esoteric – it is largely ignored in academia. The point is that there is actually a voting system for single-seat races that is BEST. It is known as Condorcet Voting, which was developed by French mathematician and scientist, the Marquis de Condorcet in the late 18th Century. It is a ranked choice or preference voting system that eliminates split-vote and the lesser evil problem that exists in plurality voting. Note that any sort of runoff system is still basically plurality and will frequently succumb to split-vote, causing the candidate who is the actually preferred by voters to lose. NOTE: the group known as FairVote, which was founded in 1992, is promoting what it calls “Ranked Choice Voting” but is actually the ranked system known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This system is actually the worst of all ranked systems and operates by discarding legitimate votes (rankings). There is a huge amount of misinformation surrounding voting – much of it fostered by FairVote, which operates in many ways like a cult. You will need to do some research on your own. Let me modestly suggest that you start with my Youtube video, Paul Hager, “Count Every Vote”. I also have a link to it on my Facebook. Another good source is an article by economists Tabarrok & Spector titled, “Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War” It makes a very strong argument that the “Condorcet Winner” (the true majority winner) in the 1860 election was Stephen A. Douglas. The title of the article is a little deceptive – the Borda system was a ranked magnitude system developed by Borda, a contemporary of Condorcet’s. The article looks at a number of systems, including IRV, and a good introduction to Social Choice. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Ranked choice is garbage , akin to three card monty in election engineering.
Here’s the funniest story of the day: the Biden administration is criticizing, and threatening, the Maduro regime in Venezuela for trying to keep the leading opposition candidate off the ballot in July’s Presidential election. Biden’s press secretary said: “We support the will and right of . . . the Venezuelan political parties to select presidential candidates.”
Breitbart.com (“White House Slams Venezuela. . . ‘)
The “Joe Biden” regime wants fair elections for others but not for us. It wants border security for others (Ukraine) but not for us. Gotta keep those tens of billions of dollars flowing from American taxpayers to their wealthy donors.
What, no Jonathan Turley post for today?
IIRC, he was in Idaho for a speaking engagement.
Might be a travel day for him back to the East coast.
D’s “block third-party candidates from the 2024 ballot.”
Nothing says “saving democracy” like:
Vote for the only candidate listed.
You say it so well -chump – now imagine how vets feel.
And I don’t buy the bridge accident narrative how was the ship so past channel. And the bridges legs didn’t even have lights?
Odd. Yet here we are not terristas advantage of our negligence.
And we say that without even knowing who contracted the ship?
The first power failure could not be what we see on u tube _ bc there was a port pilot that let it out of green red buoys of channel in the first instance. It was already out of channel and past the bouy but unlike light towers the legs of the bridge had no bouy comenserate universal lighting? Exploit that terrorists.
It was already out of channel either the tugs from shore drifted it or it didn’t have reliable engine power way b4 it tried to correct course. The thing speaks for itself. How was it out of the channel to begin with?
It was either out of the channel by tugs _ or out bc it couldn’t power itself ad went out
_ yet the narrative wants us to believe an accident_ doesn’t work it was already off course bc it didn’t have power or was tugged of course, res IPSA someone is negligent at least and this could have been prevented. Now good hard working men are dead and innocent off guard people drownded _ bc someone knew they were out of channel _ and greedily tried to get back in. Who had the contract for the Singapore flagged ship? What role do our merchant Marines play in defense of infrastructure ? And non them ever wondered why the bridges legs aren’t listed?very incompetent.
Meanwhile major buttideig is strapping on a boob to breast feed his purchased child and the commmodies regulator turns a blind eye that humans can be commodities. Let gay men play house – and they wonder why even with lowered end stregth and standards the volunteer force isn’t volunteering!
Lited_ why didn’t the bridge legs have lights on?
???
Bouy _ this is as bad as loose lips sink ships. And now pundints compare it to the last water bridge diasater like i35 never happened _ or the Pensacola unmoored barge never happened! Can we pretty please get competent ppl in charge?
Boat experts say they don’t use tugs anymore.
This is your modern woke movement and cancel culture, where DIE trainings require whites to confess their privilege. About the same as the cultural revolution in China in the 1960s, with its requirement of self-abasement. Odd that the cultural revolution has received virtually no portrayal in modern cinema. Now it has:
https://twitter.com/GrantSlatton/status/1771638670774141067/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1771638670774141067¤tTweetUser=GrantSlatton
When DNC / MSM show us they represent authoritarianism and lack of diverse views (i.e. censorship), believe them.
NBC Drops Former RNC Chief Ronna McDaniel Amid Backlash
The move, which was announced Tuesday in a memo, caps a frantic four days for NBC News, which had looked to bring in a conservative voice to its political coverage ahead of the presidential election but instead became the target of broad condemnations from observers and employees alike.
“No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned,” Cesar Conde, NBCUniversal’s News Group chairman, wrote in the memo. “Over the last few days, it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal.”
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/ronna-mcdaniel-nbc-610d30bc
Memo to the Vatican: you were not hierarchical, patriarchal nor inquisition-like enough to rid the world of the heretics that now rule America. Bring back Tomas de Torquemada
McDaniel is NOT a “conservative voice “—she was a co-conspirator in plotting the insurrection. She not only joined Trump in trying to pressure state election officials to falsify election results, she also used her platform to push The Big Lie and garner support from Republicans to believe The Big Lie. What she did is treasonous and counter to American values and the values of the hosts of MSNBC, who made their voices heard that she would NOT be welcome on their programs. Mc Daniel is damaged goods. These are the reasons that she was booted from NBC network.
God save us from idiots.
Gigi – YOU do not get to decide what a Conservative voice is.
Regardless Rona should be right up your alley – while not quite as nuts as Chenney, she is literally a Romney.
As to the rest of your garbage – a majority of americans beleive the 2020 election was not kosher.
You have pretty much lost the “big lie” argument.
Worse still – are you actually so stupid as to beleive that a minority in the country can censor the majority – because youi think the majority is not correct ?
I am not aware of Rona having any consequential role in Trump election challenges.
But if NBC really wants to appeal to all americans – rather than just left wing nuts – they should Hire Sidney Powell.
But that would be very disruptive – as she is more intelligent than the entire NBC lineup combined.
I wish you would learn to spell “believe.” i before e except after c. And it’s “Cheney”, not “Chenney.”
Anonymous said: “I wish you would learn to spell “believe.”
I have some concern with the spelling of ordinary words, to the extent that misspelling may impair conveying the intended meaning. Proper and sur-names, not so much, particularly those of well-known figures, as the mispelling may itself be a comment on the person, e,g, “Shrillary”. In the case of the Cheneys, I think “Chicanerys” might be a good example.
Agreed Sidney Powell would be great or hire Rudy as an avuncular Brit Hume type.
Yet, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, well-known election deniers, are welcome.
Stacey Abrams!
GIGO
Love the inquisition reference
Out of a potential audience of 140 million viewers, they are lucky to cobble together a viewership of 1 or 2 million. NBC is no longer a news organization. They have pundits who hold radical beliefs. They cater to their loyal, dwindling, mindless followers.
E.M. said: “They cater to their loyal, dwindling, mindless followers.”
I don’t think they cater to anyone but themselves. Their followers are nothing but a ragtag of zombies shuffing along behind them. I thiink that it may not be very long before they discover out the hard way what a pointless, useless, circle jerk of an exercise they engage in.
Estovir said: “NBC Drops Former RNC Chief Ronna McDaniel Amid Backlash”
Yes, and Trump’s reaction capsulizes all of the issues I have with Trump (in spite of the fact that I will likely vote for him), How much forethought would it take to undestand that the best reaction would be to use her firing and Psaki’s tenure to hammer away at how biased NBC and the rest of the MSM is against Republicans. Instead of fighting a fight he has already won by gloating that she “only lasted two days”. Sheesh!!!
Estovir said: “NBC Drops Former RNC Chief Ronna McDaniel Amid Backlash”
Pathetic. I also say that of Trump’s reaction, which is pretty well representative of the issues I have with Trump (although it’s probably 70/30 that I will vote for him). Instead of taking the opportunity to use McDaniel’s firing, and Psaki’s tenure, to harp on how biased NBC and the rest of the MSM is against Republicans. which would be good campaigning, all he is apparently capable of doing is rehashing a fight he has already won, by gloating that she “only lasted two days”. Sheeesh!!!
Estovir said: “NBC Drops Former RNC Chief Ronna McDaniel Amid Backlash”
That’s pathetic. And imo, so is Trump’s reaction. He, or someone in his campaign, should have had the intelligence and presence of mind to recognize what a great example McDaniel’s termination, and Psaki’s tenure, is of the total bias at NBC and the rest of the MSM against Republicans, and Trump should be hammering away with that. But, instead, he appears to be doingnothing but fighting yesterday’s battle (a battle that in fact, he actually won, which is even stupider) by gloating that McDaniel “only lasted two days”. Sheeesh!!!
Number 6 said: “the same damned thing, three times”
Apologies. For some reason those posts were very much delayed from appearing. When I post illustrating a point I really want to make does not appear, I sometimes repost, as I did in this case.
Ross Perot Deja Vu!
Professor Turley Writes:
The DNC is seeking to block third party candidates from ballots — Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornell West, and Jill Stein. All three are liberal.
***
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is collecting checks from past Donald Trump donors at a much higher rate than former Joe Biden contributors, a sign the independent presidential hopeful may pull more from the Republican
electorate than Democratic voters.
Though both parties insist Kennedy will be a non-factor in the campaign, there’s clear anxiety about his potential impact, especially among Republicans. The analysis of Kennedy’s campaign donations as of the most recent filing deadline shows why: His large-dollar donor base has a clear Republican lean. That also fits with limited polling that suggests Kennedy might draw more support from Republican-leaning voters.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/01/rfk-jr-2024-campaign-donors-00124621
……………………………………..
One can be sure Turley heard Kennedy is drawing support from Republican donors. Yet Turley identifies Kennedy as a ‘liberal’ threat to Biden. How disingenuous!
Robert Kennedy Jr is threat to Biden only because of his name and for no other reason. The fear is that know-nothing voters may ASSUME Kennedy is liberal based on name-only.
Yet RFK Jr is appealing primarily to wacko conspiracy mongers. In that regard he is more of a threat to Trump. The Kennedy family has, in fact, disowned RFK Jr’s campaign. And that has been widely reported in mainstream media.
But this blog is well-within the rightwing bubble. So here Turley can pass-off RFK Jr as a ‘liberal threat’ to Biden and that will surely go unquestioned by the wacko conservatives who traffic this blog.
ATS – lets presume you are correct – though pols say you are not.
Regardless lets say RFK is pulling from Trump more than Biden.
So WHY are Democrats fighting so hard to keep him off the ballot ?
I am unlikely to vote for RFK and certainly not voting for Cornel West.
I am highly likely to vote for the libertarian – though I can not commit until we know who that is.
regardless I would like to see atleast half a dozen candidates on every ballot everywhere for every office.
As well as a box for NONE OF THE ABOVE.
I can favor more candidates – even if I do not intend to vote for them.
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore.
Anon, did you happen to note the RFK choice for VP? Still think he’s not a liberal threat to Biden?
Anonymous said: “Kennedy is drawing support from Republican donors”
Why would you assume that the intent of those Republican donors is to elect Kennedy? Are you not aware that Democrats have been engaging in hypocritical cross-party politics by funding weak Republican candidates, and/or encouraging Democratic voters in non-partisan primary states like Maine to cross party lines and help sabotage the candidacy of the stronger Republican candidates by voting for weaker ones? I, personally, don’t like that kind of BS at all. Republicans have condemned those tactics, but Republicans have also shown themselves capable of condemning a shoddy Democrat tactic, and subsequently adopting it for their own use.
Jonathan: Both the Democratic and Republican parties try to limit 3rd party candidates. The Dems are doing it this year because they are afraid another candidate will drain away votes Biden desperately needs to hold on to the presidency. Although DJT doesn’t face the same problem he is worried that Niki Haley might try to run as an independent. So you can bet he will pull out the stops to try to prevent her from taking her votes with her.
The problem in this country is we have a duopoly–dominated by only two parties. That leaves voters with few choices. Some Dems don’t like Biden–his age and their opposition to his policies in Ukraine and Gaza. Some Republicans don’t like DJT over his attempt to violently overturn the 2020 and his criminal prosecutions and civil cases. A recent Gallop poll shows 39% of voters are Independents. An indication a lot of voters are unhappy with the status quo.
So how do both parties prevent 3rd party candidates? Through arcane state rules. In Texas, for example, the GOP controlled legislature limits ballot access by requiring a filing deadline in December of the preceding year. Texas could easily move the filing date to June. So why not? Because the GOP doesn’t want an independent candidate to emerge.
In other states the Dems and the Republicans do similar things. In many states if you are a Dem or a Republican you need only about 6,000 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. An independent candidate has to collect around 37,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Another way for both parties to limit ballot access.
What we need in this country is an electoral system in which legislative seats are awarded in proportion to the percentage of votes garnered by a party in any election. Yes, proportional representation. This is the system common in Europe and ensures that parties can represent the interests of their varied constituencies. In Europe 60-70% voters participate in elections. Here it is less than 50%. A sign that voters in the US don’t have much faith in the present system.
Another thing we need to do is eliminate the electoral college. The candidate who wins the popular vote should be declared the winner. That’s the way it is in almost all other countries and would have prevented DJT from trying to subvert the electoral college system to stay in power. But the GOP likes the present system because it knows that it’s unlikely it could win another presidential election. DJT lost the popular vote to Clinton in 2016 by a wide margin but still became President–thanks to the electoral college system. If we want voters to have faith in our political system, that our votes do count, we need to make some fundamental changes. That one way of “Saving Democracy”!
DM – a filing deadline, that has been part of the law for a long time, is not an impediment to ballot access.
We can debate what the law regarding ballot access should be. But applying the existing law – as written in TX or anywhere else is the defining attribute of the rule of law.
If RFK jr. has missed filing deadlines that have not been arbtrarily changed recently – in TX or WA – that is his problem.
Democrats are trying to do what they have done in prior elections – force the law to be applied with political bias, ignored or transformed into something unintended – depending on what suits at the moment.
We can debate changing the law. I would support radically different means of gaining ballot access.
I would be happy to discuss changing the law. We might even agree.
But until then we follow and enforce the law we have – narrowly with respect to government power and broadly with respect to individual rights.
We do so with laws we like, and those we do not – until we repeal the laws we do not like.
We do so in red states and we do so in blue states.
“I would support radically different means of gaining ballot access.” Glad to hear that John. So do I and hopefully may others.
Nevertheless, the argument you present is an odd one. For if it’s taken seriously, it can be extended to rubbishing the age-old prerogative/right of Juries to nullify the law when the law is so odious as to insult the foundations of society and culture as represented by the attitudes of the Jury. I’m dubious that you want to do that. Moreover, there is another long tradition of voting by write-in. And this has no bearing whatsoever of the arbitrary deadlines set by state bureaucrats regarding candidate eligibility. Those votes still get counted and sometimes the candidate wins ( e.g., Strom Thurmond’s Senate win in 1954 or Charlie Wilson’s 2006 Congressional seat win, etc.). I think the best you can say is that candidates who miss these deadlines are not as organized as those who do – but that’s a far cry from arguing that because the letter of the law says such and such the we must all live or die by it. In the immortal words of Mr. Bumble “If the law supposes that, … the law is a ass – a idiot”.
JJ – though I have made specific suggestions in pther posts if you have followed me long enough – I did not offer any specific ways to improve “ballots access” – meaning the ability of candidates outside of republicans to get onto the ballot.
Regardless, I offered to discuss – as in to have a public debate on alternatives. Not to impose my will or yours by force.
Further I can not make sense of your Jury nullification metaphor.
First I absolutely support jury nullification. Rather than the courts lying to Juries and telling them they are required to follow the letter of the law – the courts should tell the truth – that Juries can find someone innocent for any reason they please or none at all – even if they beleive the person is guilty. If juries beleive certain drug laws as an example are wrong, they are free to ignore them.
I trust that for the most part juries are not going to let murders off for stupid reasons.
But they are free to do so.
But I can not see how that applies to Candidates getting onto the ballot.
Regardless. though I have my own ideas. At the same time this is a perfect venue of the laboratory of federalism.
And albeit slowly we are seeing that. California has Jungle prmaries. I do not hate that, though it is not my preference, Still it is an interesting experiment – lets see how it works out.
Regardless, I am not looking to do anything by circumventing the law.
Propose your approach – persaude the voters of some state to get that eneacted into law and try it and lets see how it works.
@JS – “But I can not see how that applies to Candidates getting onto the ballot.” I’m suggesting the argument you present: “But applying the existing law – as written in TX or anywhere else is the defining attribute of the rule of law.” is one that can equally be applied against (and often is) the case for Jury nullification. If it doesn’t work in the latter (Jury nullification) I don’t see how it can work in the former (candidate ballot access). To say, as if definitive, something like, “the law is the law” is not a libertarian argument. If the law is an ass, as in this case, then we have every right to ignore the law and demand state election bureaucrats stop playing silly-buggers in the “name of the law”. This is all I’m saying. And to that end I believe that any candidate excluded from the election process due to bureaucratic constipation has a legitimate beef with the system.
JJ you seem to jump from my statement that I am open to explore new ideas to a willing ness to just impose new approaches willy nilly thoughtlessly without reference to whether they are legal, constitutional or a good idea.
I said I woudl LISTEN. That I would do so HONESTLY and not reject what others offer out of hand.
But even if I tghink someone else’s idea sounds acceptable – on the surface,
it must still be constitutional and be enacted constitutionally through normal processes.
I do think that this is a good venue for federalism – I noted that CA is trying some things. AK is trying a form of ranked choice voting. I beleive NYC another. GA and Lousianna have had runnoff elections for a long time.
I think Runnoffs are an excellent idea – I would like to see all state CHOOSE to adopt them.
I would like to see them for presidentical contests too.
I beleive the GA law requires a candidate to win by 1 full percent of the vote. Or there is an automatic runnoff.
I think that is an excellent way to resolve election conflicts. I do not beleive there is a single swing state that Biden won by a full percent of the vote in 2020. Rather than corrupt our courts – because we really do not want our courts to have to make decisions on highly politicaized issues. That has NEVER worked well. What is every state that does not have a winner by a full percent of the vote has an automatic runnoff in 4 weeks. Actual fraud is exponentially more likely to get caught if it has to be repeated in short order.
Forget using courts to sort outr questions – aside from those regarding whether the law was followed before and where not ordering it to be followed in the runnoff.
I beleive individual states can do that on their own – but doing it nationwide would require a constitutional amendment.
Or a different alternative would be to divide the electoral votes proportionately in any state where a candidate can not win with a clear majority.
Or another alternative might be to just not count states where the election does not produce a clear winner. That would require a constitutional amendment.
I have proposed a bunch of ideas..
Ideas are actually easy – which is again Why I keep mentioning federalism. We have 50 states.
We can try and idea in one or two and see how it works.
it is wrong to presume that because you have an idea you like that it is going to work well.
Most ideas FAIL. We should always assume that and prepare for that possibility.
OK JS. But I,m not sure what that has to do with my reply to you which was an attempt to to answer your statement/questing “But I can not see how that applies to Candidates getting onto the ballot.” I reiterate: “This is all I’m saying. And to that end I believe that any candidate excluded from the election process due to bureaucratic constipation has a legitimate beef with the system.” You’re original post seems to disagree with that sentiment which is why I responded.
PS. RE: “… it must still be constitutional and be enacted constitutionally through normal processes.” I truly don’t mean offense by this, but Perhaps it time for you to reread “No Treason. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority” — Lysander Spooner, 1870.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-no-treason-no-vi-the-constitution-of-no-authority-1870
I do not see any republican effort to get libertarians removed from the ballot.
Do you know something the rest of us do not ?
Republicans here gripe about libertarians – several noteable conservatives here – that I am otherwise generally in agreement with are fairly forcefully trying to tell me I should not vote libertarian.
But they are not in court trying to remove libertarians from the ballot.
If democrats want to gripe about 3rd parties – they are free to do so.
Though the claim that democrats own green party votes is even more condescending and stupid than that republicans own libertarain votes.
Personally I would prefer a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on every race on every ballot all the time.
None of the above wold win most elections.
DM every state has different laws, and near universally those laws tilt heavily towards the established parties
That said – pretty universally – if you win a states primary – you qualify for the general.
While if you look to get on the general without winning a primary – that requires far more work.
Most states also allow for ease of access to candidates that are nominated by a party convention.
Libertarians have been working on Ballot access for 50 years. They have gotten tot he point where they very nearly have the same ballot access as Republicans and democrats. I would prefer that we had less bias against 3rd parties.
But libertarians have worked it all out. Others can too.
RFK jr. should be subject to the same ballot access laws as everyone else – Blind to political status.
Turley’s complain is NOT that RFK is being blocked by valid application of existing law – but by the same lawfare that the left has been using against trump.
“What we need in this country is an electoral system in which legislative seats are awarded in proportion to the percentage of votes garnered by a party in any election. ”
Nope, I would note that is NOT how most of Europe works – the left is nearly always ignorant of the reality of europe.
Mostly europe has geographical constituencies – just as in the US – though they use different names – even in the US – some places like lousiana use unique names.
you will massively distort US politics in very stupid ways if you abandoned geographical political districts.
Most of europe just has more political parties and more fragmented politics.
“Another thing we need to do is eliminate the electoral college. The candidate who wins the popular vote should be declared the winner. That’s the way it is in almost all other countries”
Both still a bad idea and FALSE. The majority of countries elect representatives in their local district – they do NOT vote for Prime minister or president AT ALL. The leader of the party that is able to cobble a majority gets to try to form a government..
That is an obvious distinction between the US and Europe. That anyone with the slightest knowledge of europe would know – once again you post about things you do not know.
Trhoughout europe and much of the rest of the world – nearly all of which uses a parlimentary system. The countries executive is from the same party as the countries legislature – The majority in Parliament is always the party in control of the executive.
If the US had the european system – house republicans would decided who the president was.
Divided govenrment – which americans fairly consistently vote for – does not exist in europe.
The electoral college has been arround for 250 years – it is not going away.
You will NOT get 3/4 of states to vote to repeal it.
“That one way of “Saving Democracy”!”:
Still not a democracy
I can not find the exact link to the Bloomberg page – but Bloomberg has just reported that Monday was supposed to be the single worst day of Trump’s life – the 500M bod was supposed to come due and Trump purportedly was going to default with no way to pay it.
Instead in MINOR news the judgement was reduced by 300% and the deadline extended 2 weeks.
But the REAL news was that on Monday Trump for the first time made the list of the 500 richest people in the world – an ambition he has had for a LONG time.
At the close of the day Monday Trump’s net worth as calculated by Forbes was $6.4B up from $2.6B the week before.
Today DJT is up another 42% raising Trump’s net worth to $7.1B and breking him into the 400 richest people in the world – at #377.
Trump would have to sell about 5% of his DJT stock to fully pay the bond in cash – something that would have a very small negative impact on the stock.
We have nutjobs like you talking about Pump and Dump – a term you clearly have no idea what means.
As one financial analyst noted – the high value of Truth is because Trump posts on Truth and left wing nut reporters keep showing his Truth posts on the networks – driving more and more people to Truth to see what Trump is saying.
You said Trump was going to tap his supporters to pay his bond – and you are actually correct.
It is likely that Truth stock is rising because a significant portion of buyers are Trump supporters.
It is POSSIBLE as you claim that their purchases will just line Trumps pockets.
Most of them understand that.
It is also possible that not only do they have an oportunity to support Trump by buying DJT stock,
But they have an oportunity to piggy back on Trump’s success.
DJT is at $70 right now. In 6 months it may be down to 20. It also may be up to 300.
Absolutely it is a volatile stock.
The fundimental value of Trump’s social media holdings depends on the behavior of the rest of social media.
The more oppressive the rest of social media is, the more valuable Truth is.
Regardless, DM – how does Crow taste ?
Most countries in the world have parliamentary forms of government, with electoral systems far more complicated than ours. Some have presidents and some don’t.
Another thing we need to do is eliminate the electoral college
I know your a troll spewing talking points you cant comprehend. But just for grins and giggles.
What is the purpose of Electoral College?
Look up Chesterton’s Fence. Don’t remove that fence, until you understand why it was built. But your statement tells me you have no concept of why it was built.
In other SCOTUS news, ….
In the case of Trolls: Svelaz, Peter Shill, Gigi, Wally, Dennis McIntyre, Media Matters employees et al vs. Americans for Civil Discourse, the Supreme Court hereby declares Svelaz Trolls et al as the vermin of cyberspace, akin to the pesky creatures one might find scurrying beneath a bridge. Their penchant for mischief and mayhem wreaks havoc upon the tranquil waters of online discourse, disrupting the flow of meaningful communication with their cacophony of nonsensical banter. Like jesters with a twisted sense of humor, they parade their folly at the expense of others, turning the once-serene cyber landscape into a carnival of chaos. Therefore, let it be known that trolls shall henceforth be banished to the darkest depths of the digital abyss, where they may frolic among themselves to their heart’s content, far from the eyes and ears of civilized netizens.”
SCOTUS Unanimous opinion aka ChatGPT
March 15, 2024
Ides of March
😜
Why are people still surprised at the totalitarian aspect of the Democrat Party, at this point? The entire party has squashed dissent for years now.
People were censored for going outside of Democrat talking points, from saying the origin of Covid being the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that the Covid vaccines were not preventing infections, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Democrat activists routinely either prevent invited conservative speakers from speaking on college campuses, or they scream over them so they can’t be heard. Activists in control of social media censor conservative views.
There has long been a trend where Democrats do all they can to prevent their opponents from being heard.
A Democrat judicial activist fined Donald Trump half a billion dollars, because he disagreed with Trump’s stated net worth on loan applications. The banks had the right to agree, or disagree, with Trump’s stated valuation, and of course to do their own due diligence. The banks were repaid on time, made money off of Trump, and in fact are eager to engage in further business with Trump. Yet, the Democrat activist judge felt he knew better, and wanted to ruin Trump. It is an absolutely staggering abuse of power. He abused his position of authority to interfere with the election, to try to prevent Trump from getting elected.
It’s Stalinesque.
Karen S said: “…the totalitarian aspect of the Democrat Party… ”
Great summary!
Karen, I love how you remember all these things. You provide a valuable contribution. When I read your list I remember each thing you mention but at my age my brain is too tired to create such a list.
Yours as always,
Uncle Henry
“It’s Stalinesque.”
Yes it is. How quickly people forget Stalin and embrace his tactics.
Karen S.
Great comment!
Pretty amazing interview of Scott Rassmussen on a variety of polling he has done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qng4jqdgfDw
Of particular interest was his observation that his top 1% elites – defined as those in this country with post graduate degrees.
These people are RADICALLY different from the rest of the country.
They are dismissive of the core values of this country.
They are almost polar opposite to ordinary people regarding trust in government.
They are very wilsonian in their view of govenrment – they want this country run by an unelected clerisy – by experts.
They are not only anti-democratic, but they have no problems with cheating to win elections – with super majorities perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to get the election outcome they beleive is correct.
They are the new bolshevik. Zero intolerance as they’re precariously credentialed education makes them think they are so far above the “herd” that only their oen tainted POV holds water…intolerance at it’s bolshevik finest.
John Say said: “They are almost polar opposite to ordinary people regarding trust in government”
That is likely because, in their vision for the country, the government is capable of doing only what they wish it to do: nothing more; nothing less; nothing different.
John Say,
They are the real threats to society.
They hold in contempt anyone who does not have a degree, own a big house with a big lawn, and think themselves as superior to anyone who does not fit into their country club.
Today SCOTUS Heard Arguments On Mifepristone
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas repeatedly invoked the Comstock Act during Tuesday’s oral arguments regarding the abortion drug mifepristone, pressing lawyers about whether the 1873 federal law should apply to abortion drugs sent through the mail today. Alito rejected the Biden administration’s argument that the law is obsolete — it has not been applied in nearly a century — with the conservative justice insisting that Food and Drug Administration officials should have accounted for the law when expanding access to mifepristone by mail in 2021.
This is a prominent provision. It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law,” Alito said. “Everybody in this field knew about it.”
The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the FDA wrongly approved and expanded access to mifepristone, and, based on questioning during Tuesday’s hearing, legal experts anticipate that the court will rule to preserve the health agency’s authority. But some experts and Biden officials fear that Alito and Thomas are planning to write a separate opinion focused solely on the Comstock Act, arguing that the law remains viable and providing legal cover to a future administration that seeks to invoke it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/26/comstock-act-supreme-court-abortion-pill/
……………………………………
In all fairness to the court’s conservative majority, most seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs during today’s Mifepristone arguments. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett repeatedly questioned if the plaintiffs had any real standing in this case.
Said plaintiffs, a small group of anti-abortion doctors, based their whole case on the hypothetical possibility that they might one day have to treat a woman whose pregnancy has been complicated by Mifepristone. And this possibility, they argued, should warrant severe restrictions on the drug; an argument the court seems ready to dismiss.
But Justices Alito and Thomas used today’s hearing to promote the idea that red states might revive the long-dormant Comstock Act as a vehicle to ban the mailing of Mifepristone. Never mind that the Comstock Act is widely regarded as a relic of the 19th Century. Alito and Thomas imagine this law could be brought back to life 100 years after it was last applied.
Even Professor Turley has referred to the Comstock Act as so “broadly defined” it could be used as a major threat to free speech.
Never mind that the Comstock Act is widely regarded as a relic of the 19th Century.
You mean like The Espionage Act of 1917 ?
Only forgotten laws used tothe disadvantage of the left are relics.
But you might be able to sell me on the idea of criminal laws having a statue of limitations. No action is 50 years. That stature of limitations kicks in on the Government.
. . . or the disqualification section of the 14th Amendment, previously thought to be moribund.
I considered the 14 amendment. Buts its an Amendment. Only another amendment can alter the constitution.
Just get rid of the FDA.
Problem solved.
With respect to the comstock act – what is this nonsense about “dormant” law.
It either is the law, or it is not.
The comstock act bars the distribution of contraceptives across state lines or through the mail.
I would reject that as unconstitutional. Buit then I would reject the FDA as unconstitutional for the same reason.
There is no argument that the FDA is legitimate that is not also an argument that the comstock act is binding.
Either get rid of them together as unconstitutional. Or if you accept that congress can regulate drugs – follow the comstock act or repeal it.
Our legal system has no provisions for “dormant” laws – further – as evidenced here – they are dangerous
The comstock act makes it a federal crime to diseminate contraceptions in the mail or over state lines.
While I doubt this will occur – Trump’s DOJ would be perfectly able to arrest anyone selling contraceptives over the internet.
And far more justified in doing so than this lawfare against Trump.
Again get rid of the comstock act and get rid of the FDA.
Find them unconstitutional or have congress repeal them.
Yeah, John Say. We should let folk remedies be sold as treatments for whatever. Consumers don’t need to know if drugs are safe or effective. Let the free market determine which drugs really work.
Did you know regular use of Listerine mouthwash can prevent common colds?
“We should let folk remedies be sold as treatments for whatever.”
Absolutely.
Life expectance throughout the world has risen dramatically over the past 200 years as a result of 3 things.
Antiseptics, antibiotics, and IV fluids.
Even the most backward nation with all 3 of those has seen life expectance rise from the 40’s to the late 70’s.
As these have become available broadly even in third world countries – the differences in left expectance betweent he most advanced nations and developing nations is tiny.
Further those nations with the highest life expectancy generally have higher overall healthy behaviour – NOT medical care.
They do not overeat as much, they have better diets, and they get plenty of excercise.
I am all for medical inovation, and there is no doubt that it has made life dramatically better – FOR A FEW.
But if you are after evidence that the FDA has been a net positive – IT DOES NOT EXIST.
For many decades people like the president of the AMA have sought to eliminate or radically curtail the FDA.
Finally – I would note that you really have no idea how free markets work.
You likely eat all of your food from a box and can not conceive of food getting to your table without government approving it.
But significant numbers of people grow significant portions of their own food in the US – without any government regulation.
In much of the rest of the world NONE of the food comes from a box.
Yet miraculously mothers do not poison their families daily. Farmers do not poison their neighbors all the time.
The fact is the vast majority of the food in the world is unregualted – and yet there are not massive differences in life expectance between those countries with FDA equivalents and those without.
You presume that unregulated by government means anything goes – that fraud and posioning will occur all the time.
Yet in the real world – that is rare, and snake oil is as frequently approved by the FDA as it shows up in 3rd worlds.
Life expecance int he US is 76.2 years.
Life expectance in china a nation of 1.6B people at 1/3 out standard of living is 78.1 years.
China has no FDA. There are no perscrptions or food inspections. They have wet markets where all kinds of things that no american would eat are sold every day.
Folk remedies are sold every day. Yet the chinese are now living longer.
Life expectance in Algeria, cabo Verde and Tunesia are just barely higher than the US – do you think they consult the FDA ?
What is your evidence that the FDA actually serves a purpose ?
When countries with significantly lower standard of living have the same or higher life expectance – that means one of two things.
Either the differences in our systems provide some benefit other than life expectance, or that all the systems like the FDA, CDC, NIH, … that we have – provide no worthwhile function at all.
The US healthcare system does NOT deliver higher life expectancy – that would be because after antiseptics, anti-biotics and iv fluids, the actual benefits to life expectance of everything else we do is rather small.
The US healthcare system is not very expensive – because it delivers higher life expectance, but because it delivers better quality of life.
My wife just had her knew replaced. After 5 weeks she is walking better than before. This will allow us to go to italy or Japan or South Korea or travel wherever we wish in out late 60’s and early 70’s. But it will not make either of us live any longer, and it was very expensive.
My mother died of Colon Cancer. There was really nothing the hospital or doctors could do – though she spent alot of time her last year in the cancer wing of the hospital. That wing was like a 5 star New York hotel. Her room had a high end entertainment system, a mook where family members good eat or just kabitz while viisting – it had marble floors and wood panneled walls.
None of this helped her live any longer. But it made her and the families time with her in the hospital far better.
And it was very expensive.
Our health insurance pays for that and our healthcare system provides it.
The only real problem I have with that is that so much of that is controlled or paid for by government – meaning All of us pay to deliver luxury health care to cancer patients.
I have no problem with luxury health care. I have no problem with private insurance paying for it. I have major problems with government paying for it.
f you go to see your doctor today – the best health advice he can give you – which will improve both your life expectance and quality of life is eat healthy and get plenty of excercise. You do not need the FDA for that.
So what is the value add you think the FDA provides ?
Life expectancy is affected by 100,000 mostly young people dying from drugs every year, not the efficacy of the FDA.
John Say said: “So what is the value add you think the FDA provides ?”
The FDA provides no value at all, as you amply illustrate. The same, or possibly worse, could be said of nearly all other Federal bureaucracies. The US Dept of Education, for example, is a force for the prevention and/or destruction of a rational, productive, society.
I do not think the comstock act is a good law – but it most certainly appears to be THE LAW.
There is no dormancy standard on the law. The ADministration is required to follow the law as it is, and to go to congress to change it if they do not like the law.
Ignoring the law is lawless – it is the rule of man, not the rule of law.
Anonymous: Good analysis. I listened to the oral arguments. I think the anti-abortion crowd who brought the suit will fail on the standing issue.
The comstock act is federal law – red states can not “revive it” – any more than Bragg can legitimate prosecute Trump for his interpretations of Federal election law that the FEC and SDNY and past courts have rejected.
But the FDA is bound bythe comstock act.
The 1st amendment is almost 250 years old – it is from the 18th not 19th century – is it a relic ? Dormant ?
Do the courts and government just get to ignore it ebcause it si old or they do not like it ?
Look, I think the comstock act should GO as a violation of our individual liberty.
But that has not occured, Just as Bell V. Buck which allows the state to sterilize us has not been overturned.
Just as Scotus did not overturn numerous stupid covid regulations that infringed on out right to control our own bodies – I though left wing nuts supported that ?
Regardless, you can not make a law disapear by calling it OLD or a relic, or dormant.
You must either repeal it, or find it unconstitutional. I believe the com stock act is unconstitutional – for the same reason the FDA is unconstitutional.
Government has no business inserting itself into the free choices of individuals absent harm to 3rd parties.