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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Stallion

(6,476 posts)

14. Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor

Reply to merrily (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:41 PM

Apr 2016

of the Closed Primary based on binding SCOTUS precedent unless there has been subsequent statutory changes. I'm sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of closed primaries several times with regard to the closed primaries in several states-otherwise, they wouldn't exist. They may have included the unconstitutionality argument to preserve for appellate review but that's not likely in a trial court-they'll likely have to take it up on appeal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008) [View all] LiberalFighter Apr 2016 OP

I haven't seen anyone here claim it's unconstitutional. It is, however, undemocratic. merrily Apr 2016 #1

So are caucuses. Zynx Apr 2016 #2

That a lawyer even took the NY deadline case to court is very telling. merrily Apr 2016 #4

Not really. Lawyers take nonsense cases to court all the time. Zynx Apr 2016 #6

Baloney. Lawyers can be personally liable for fines for filing frivolous lawsuits. Besides, this merrily Apr 2016 #8

Poster, please. merrily Apr 2016 #9

Verified Pleading Filed Today Claimed it Was Unconstitutional Stallion Apr 2016 #5

Please see Reply 7. merrily Apr 2016 #10

Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor Stallion Apr 2016 #14

The issue in my post is not closed primaries, but deadlines and democracy, merrily Apr 2016 #18

You Might Want to Re-Read that SCOTUS Case Which Clearly Upheld the New York Deadlines Stallion Apr 2016 #19

Awww, but I do understand what I am talking about. You apparently did not understand my post or you merrily Apr 2016 #20

Things only get settled until the next lawsuit... if the argument is made on different issues HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #11

Thurgood Marshall dissented, agreeing that this disenfranchises voters. -nt- chascarrillo Apr 2016 #3

5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four of five justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans. merrily Apr 2016 #7

Interesting point! GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 #12

Not quite. The majority included White, a Kennedy appointee. JustinL Apr 2016 #16

THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING! I am not sure how I misread the info. merrily Apr 2016 #17

Everything old is new again Lucinda Apr 2016 #13

Interesting and in 2008 NY held their primary on February 5th, not two months later. nt slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #15