Kucinich Asks for Supreme Court Review of Texas Case

Source: Washington Post

Kucinich Asks for Supreme Court Review of Texas Case
By Robert Barnes
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich yesterday asked the Supreme Court to prohibit the Texas Democratic Party from keeping him off the March 4th primary ballot because he refused to sign a loyalty oath.

Kucinich, supported by singer Willie Nelson, objected to a requirement from the Texas Democratic Party that says a candidate must agree to "fully support the Democratic nominee for president, whoever that shall be." Kucinich said that was an infringement on his First Amendment rights, and crossed out the oath while filing as a candidate. The party then refused to list him on the ballot.

Kucinich has not had much luck in the lower courts. A federal judge in Austin last week said the party has the right to require the oath, and yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to intervene. Texas says it needs to start printing absentee ballots on Saturday.

According to the court's rules, emergency applications from the Fifth Circuit are assigned to Justice Antonin Scalia, who can either act on his own or refer the matter to the full court.

Read more: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/kucinich_asks_for_supreme_cour.html

I just hope he says the Texas Party can't do this.

good for Kucinich -- !!!

ALL wrote in Kucinich's name on the ballot. It wouldn't make a difference one way or another in the election outcome; but it'd send a special message to the TDP.

for requiring 'loyalty oaths' like in Kansas and Florida and other places. We said only the republicans would do something like this...we forgot about Texas...the democratic party there does whatever they want..bigots or not

They still think that they can get that Dem machine going again.

even if you lose.

Makes sense to me. If Dennis didn't want this happening, he should have run as an independent.

IMO he's making a big mistake getting nostalgic about restoring the Dem party.
They don't have his back and he isn't getting any press, or debate time out of it. He should be a realist and jump in with the progressives.

The Greens are as easily bought out as anyone. Look at Pennsylvania in 2006! Just because it is a another party means NOTHING!

It has to be us, not the party, not the media, not the Government, not our "heroes."

It has to be us.

I say the Democratic Party is the best route. Let's take it over!

I don't get your point.


"Pennsylvania requires that third party and independent candidates for major office submit over 67,000 signatures, while only requiring 2,000 signatures for Democratic and Republican candidates. After Mr. Romanelli submitted nearly 95,000 petition signatures (more than any candidate in the state's history), lawyers acting on behalf of the Democratic Party undertook a line-by-line challenge of the petitions.

"The judge never looked at our signatures. They just took the word of Democratic Party lawyers," said Mr. Romanelli. "When we were able to show the validity of a large portion of the signatures the Democratic lawyers claimed were invalid, we were not allowed to enter the evidence in court."

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court also honored a request from Democratic lawyers to impose punitive expenses on Carl Romanelli because of the disqualified signatures. The court ordered Mr. Romanelli to pay more than $80,000. In Mr. Nader's case, the fine neared $89,000.

"The fees imposed were an attempt to bankrupt me personally. The court also ordered my lawyer to pay expenses for the disqualified signatures, which is like sentencing a defendant's lawyer to prison along with the convicted defendant -- and which intimidates lawyers from representing third party candidates in future disputes," added Mr. Romanelli."

http://gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=1


Sounds like underhanded third party suppression to me.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php

It does not matter what party one is talking about. Corruption can occur in any of them. The Dems are not more capable of it than the Greens. Perhaps less so, as the Greens still believe that it can't happen.

That violates at least 4 of their "10 key values".
I see they haven't booted him out of the party yet either.

Thanks for the link, I'll raise hell about this.

All I can say is
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You so funny

:eyes: