Supreme Court denies Kucinich ballot bid (Texas)

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Texas to print presidential primary ballots without Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich's name.

The court refused to step into a dispute between Kucinich and the Texas Democratic Party over a loyalty oath all candidates must sign to make the ballot.

Kucinich and singer-supporter Willie Nelson objected to the party oath that a presidential candidate must "fully support" the party's eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed out the oath when he filed for a spot on the primary ballot.

A federal judge in Austin ruled against Kucinich last week. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled the state party has the right to require the oath. Kucinich and Nelson argued it violated Kucinich's First Amendment right to free speech.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_el_pr/scotus_kucinich_texas

Issues do not matter. Moral rightness does not matter. Only obedience matters.

no matter how one wins the win is all that counts.

I wish I could remember the proper quote, but it is something like that.

I see your papers are in order.

What the heck does that mean?

That's just wrong.

Decision. Their word and decision is final.

Why am I not surprised, what with their track record? I was thinking state Supreme Court when I read it. Thanks.

the Dems will be in a sorry shape if he decides to go third party. Just sayin'. I think people are sick and tired of war, treasury robbing and candidates talking and talking about absolutely nothing that is of importance. Peace, Kim

...another one being their support for electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, fast-tracked into place during the 2002 to 2004 period, to continue the war and corporate looting, ad infinitum.

I fear that much of our party leadership no longer believes in democracy.

No more calls, please. Peace Patriot has it NAILED in two sentences.

:freak:

Thanks, Peace Patriot, good catch.

Go Dennis!

:yourock: :applause:

thats for certain.

On the one hand, I find the whole 'oath' thing pretty objectionable. On the other hand, I was raised to believe that any party member had a right to run in the primary without incurring any sort of political 'odium', even against a popular incumbent, BUT it was absolutely, 100% *understood and expected* that if you lost the primary, you would cheerfully and publicly support your opponent in the GE.

Bad cases make bad law, the saying goes, and unfortunately for Rep. Kucinich, he chose to throw down a gauntlet in a situation where all legal precedent was on the side of the Texas Democratic Party. I admire his gumption, but wonder about the wisdom of his challenge.

getting hung up on the technicalities they use to justify a repeated pattern of behavior loses sight of the crime as a whole.
Why is he such a target? How far will they go?

A coin has two sides. Is he a target, or is he deliberately saying 'shoot at me'?

He sure gets around. You can either choose to see a pattern or not.
I think hes just trying to run for President.

As I said in my initial post, I find the whole loyalty oath bit loathsome. That said, the law is the law, and it's well-settled that political parties are private organizations and entitled to make (and enforce) their own rules. Rep. Kucinich chose to challenge those rules, and he lost the challenge.

If you wish to talk about a 'pattern', isn't it also just as valid to say that Rep. Kucinich has a pattern of behavior which suggests that he can not or will not follow the rules?

:shrug:

and disregard exactly what Im saying

I'm making a fact-based observation. Did he, or did he not decline to follow the Texas Democratic Party's rules?

:shrug:

the eventual nominee

why Dennis?

If you pledge to clean up government, you don't swear fealty to the dirt.

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

of Tom DeLay and his gerrymandering and other Repugnant politicians who were cross registering to throw Dem voting patterns. Lots of problems there just a few years back.

Dennis, not liking anyone's rules but his own lost this one. He has no complaints.

I'm still kind of new here, but if I recall a flap over Cindy Sheehan correctly if Dennis decides not to support the Democratic party and runs as an independent or something, his supporters won't be able to post on this board.

Can we fault Democrats in Texas for thinking the same way?

would never take an oath he wasn't sure he could fulfill.

Dennis has taken an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Without knowing the potential candidates position on civil rights abuses, accountability, etc, he can't honestly take the "Democratic" party oath when it might put him in conflict with his oath to the Constitution.

I disagree with the USSC here - no politician should be required to take any oath that could potentially conflict with their oath of office.

The Texas Democrats have figured out a way weed out the candidates with moral integrity.

who were planning on voting for him.

I'm not going to let my own party disenfranchise me!
They're on real thin ice as it is.