Monday, August 07, 2006

Scalia Rejects Arguments in Application for RPT DeLay Stay

Antonin Scalia has denied the Republican Party of Texas' application for a stay of enforcement of Judge Sparks' July 6 decision. It seems to be the end of the road for the litigation portion of this affair.

Earlier today, lawyers representing Tina Benkiser and the Republican Party of Texas filed an application for a stay of enforcement of the judgement that the Texas Democratic Party obtained In TDP vs. Benkiser et al. That judgement, among other things, enjoins Tina Benkiser from removing Tom DeLay’s name from the November ballot for the CD-22 race.

But late this afternoon, Justice Antonin Scalia, who reviews appeals of 5th Circuit Court rulings, denied the application.

Final door slammed in the collective faces of Tina Benkiser, the Republican Party of Texas, and Tom “I’ll be back” DeLay.

There is no where else to go with this. Tom DeLay cannot be replaced on the ballot. Said James Bopp, the RPT’s lawyer in the case:
“The efforts to get relief through the courts prior to the election have been exhausted. Obviously the party is considering their options.”
Options? They have options?

The only person in this whole mess that has an option here is Tom DeLay. Now Tom will have an option to come back and run, or to exercise the other option, to announce what we all know he will announce.

That he is withdrawing from the race.

FortBendNow holds that Scalia denied the application because he disagreed with the arguments presented:

“The denial by Justice Scalia indicates he disagreed with the GOP argument. As a result, no replacement candidate will be allowed to be named.”
Now I think that’s possible, but I also think that he must have thrown up his hands after the first read of the 51 page long application, especially after seeing such whiney rhetoric like
“This application seeks to protect Republican Party of Texas’ First Amendment right of association by protecting its ability to nominate a candidate of its choice free from the intrusion of those with adverse interests, the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”). As a result of TDP’s intrusion into RPT’s nomination process, RPT is forced to retain as its nominee, a nominee who has announced that he will be ineligible to take office if elected, because he has moved to Virginia and plans to live there indefinitely, even though Texas Election laws allow political parties to replace ineligible candidates as their nominee with someone who would be eligible to serve if elected. The Fifth Circuit’s decision condones this intrusion by holding that RPT’s exercise of its statutory right to require a candidate to reaffirm his eligibility for office, once he has taken steps fundamentally incompatible with his previous promise that he would be eligible for office if elected, unconstitutionally adds a qualification for office."
[All the emphasis mine]

That’s three sentences boys and girls. Three long, whiney sentences. Intrusion. Where can their whiney little heads be? Obviously they were making a run at political bias. While Scalia’s politics run just left of Benito Mussolini’s, he is not a man to mess with the constitution.

I also want to point out an outright lie within that paragraph. “he will be ineligible to take office if elected, because he has moved to Virginia and plans to live there indefinitely.”

On July 6, in Sparks’ court, when DeLay was asked by TDP lawyers where he would be on Election Day, Chad Dunn, a TDP lawyer said that “[DeLay] stated he didn’t know where he was going to live on election day,” Actually, according to muse, DeLay’s exact words were "Uh, I dunno, dude. Where do you want me to be?".

Oh well, it’s over for now. I would expect a withdrawl announcement very soon, probably after Tom talks it over with his good friend and confidante, Almighty God.

7 comments:

muse said...

Remember, apparently God and Tina Benkiser are the same person because God is the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas. Tina said so. Oh, wait. Tina hasn't been right a whole lot lately, has she? As a matter of fact, I think she has been declared unconstitutional.

a good friend said...

Hey, Hal.

Don't you wonder why the RPT had to get a law firm from Terre Haute (as in Indiana) to represent it? Aren't there any good Republican law firms in Tejas?

Hal said...

Tom's got lawyers from nine (9) law firms working on his money laundering defense.

Maybe Texas firms are over subscribed right now?

Just a thought.

Or maybe The Lord God Almighty told Tina Benkiser (because they are one and the same - like The Father and The Son) to go to Terre Haute to get a lawyer because the translation of Terre Haute is "Hign Ground". A synonym for Heaven?

Montag said...

If DeLay quits, I wonder if the Republicans will try to run a write-in candidate or cast a protest vote for the Libertarian? Then again, considering their track record they'll probably get the bright idea to cast a protest vote for Lampson.

Hal said...

Montag:

It's not if, but when. Expect withdrawl soon. He literally cannot afford to be a candidate on the ballot.

Casting a protest vote for a Libertarian is not an unknown act in these parts. Trouble is, Ron Paul has shown the people of Texas what happens when you put a Libertarian in a congressional seat: nothing.

Casting a protest vote for Nick Lampson? Montag, it is a fait accomplit. I have talked to at least 30 people in my block walking who intend to do just that. They are hopping mad.

I would really like to watch a write-in campaign considering how, in my county at least, Republicans are absolutely splintered. A write-in campaign would have to be closely coordinated, something that GOP are very rusty at considering that they have relied on an easy plurality year after year. Regardless of who they are told to vote for, I predict a 30% solid write-in vote for Tom, and the rest share the other 10% to 15%.

And those are the predictions of an absolute pessimist. Remember that.

muse said...

Hal, I'm still not clear how you "write in" a candidate on the e-slate. There has been some discussion on this on the blogs in the past, but I don't remember how that works. It's not as simple as going to the polls and writing down a name. Those names have to be on the e-slate ahead of time - or something to that effect.

Hal said...

muse,

I don't know either. I am uninformed on the process, if there IS one.

Much of that must have to do with my polling place officials, none of whom count their years below 80, and all of whom rely on the instructional expertise of a clueless 50+ year old, who, it would seem, has been trained on the equipment the previous day.

If there is no mechanism in place for write-ins, the democratic process fails. This I firmly believe.

Here's what I think. If there is sufficient interest in a write-in campaign, all of our questions will be answered very soon.

Not that I will be asking them. My candidates WILL be on the November ballot.

I am a fair-minded person, but at times I find myself declining fair consideration of a scoundrel's plight.