Court decision on March 17 could determine who Democratic nominee is.

[madfloridian]

Though the author of the article I link to below admits it is a long shot, there is the possibility the decision at the appellate level or at the Supreme Court level will determine the nominee. In this case it would likely be Hillary Clinton, as the case is one filed by a Tampa activist.

The thought of Scalia having a say in the selection of our nominee is almost beyond being unbearable.

He is putting the party's rights in the hands of the courts. I have written about this case several times because it concerns me a lot.

Vic DiMaio's "blood is boiling". He is suing Dean, and will get injunction to stop do-over.

"We have been impatiently waiting for the Appeals Court to grant us this hearing considering the fact that time is running out if we have to appeal our case to the United States Supreme Court if the Florida Delegation is still shut out of the convention in August at the same time the Supreme Court takes its annual recess" according to Mr. DiMaio.

Here are more details about the case, and why the author thinks it could be important. Just reading it makes me sick in my tummy, and it really is a scary thought.

More about DiMaio v DNC

From the outset, DiMaio's suit was not taken very seriously and, after U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Lazzara dismissed it last September in a bluntly worded opinion, the matter seemed destined to be a mere footnote in the Clinton-Obama saga.

Undaunted, however, DiMaio decided to appeal. That, too, provoked little attention, the assumption being that the appellate court would similarly recognize the suit as being without merit, decline to entertain oral arguments and summarily dismiss it in a short memorandum.

But wait, as those annoying infomercials scream at television viewers, this lawsuit may have legs after all.

In fact, while it remains a long shot, DiMaio's legal action just might turn out to be the deciding factor in who becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

The first inkling that we may be in for a shocker here came with the recent announcement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that it will, indeed, hear oral arguments in the case next Monday.

My friends, never count my state out. Never assume the election will be won by voters. Never assume.

[redqueen]

1. This stinks to high heaven.

:grr:

[madfloridian]

18. I believe him when he says he will take it to the Supreme Court.

Even though there is already a precedent.

[flor de jasmim]

2. Not the whole nomination...just the majority of FL delegates - or am I missing something?

[UALRBSofL]

5. If Obama takes this to the Supreme Court in March to force Clinton out of the campaign

You can imagine what the Clinton supporters will do. It's not like she's winning just a few delegates, she has almost as many has Obama minus 100. Obama really doesn't want to go to the supreme court when noone can get the 2025 delegates needed.

[redqueen]

24. Where is that coming from? OBAMA taking it to the SC?

:wtf:

[madfloridian]

26. It is DiMaio taking it to the Supreme Court. Who is paying for this.

But first we see what happens March 17. DiMaio will also file an injunction to stop a revote.

Someone is funding this case big time....I would love to know who.

[riona]

31. I've been wondering about the financing also.

I wonder how we can find out.

[blogslut]

42. From minimal research

http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A1995
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/01/me-popular-activist-focused-on-ybor/

Mr DiMaio Jr. is an industrial developer. Sounds to me like he's one of those guys who works hand in hand with those economic development boards that have popped up in cites all over the nation - those groups that try to bring industry to a town by offering them land and tax incentives, with authority from that city.

Looks also like his father was once very influential in Ybor.

:)

[anigbrowl]

52. WTF are you talking about

Obama?! You have no clue.

[Zhade]

85. Um, Obama's not the one doing this. Stop lying.

NT!

[IDemo]

3. Haven't the courts turned back several similar challenges to the DNC?

Is there any reason to believe this one will gain any further traction?

Commendations for your continued input on this issue.

[madfloridian]

4. I simply don't know. It is being heard on appeal...so that tells you something.

.

[madfloridian]

14. Yes, Nelson V Dean was dismissed in a FL court..Nelson decided not to appeal

There was one dismissed against the state of FL, not on merits but because it was too near the election.

There is a Supreme Court precedent.

But they are trying to set another, I guess.

[jgraz]

6. She can't win, even with Florida

[madfloridian]

9. Why?

Not sure what you mean. She could win with both at this point for sure. Wouldn't the ruling force both primary delegates to be included?

[jgraz]

13. Even with the FL and MI delegates, she will still trail Obama after June 7th

Unless she manages to pull off massive victories like we've never seen her do before.

[madfloridian]

15. We will just have to see. Since there is Supreme Court precedent...

it was surprising to many that the case is being heard on appeal.

That should make us nervous with the current situation of the court system.

In the end, if the lawsuit is won by him...would that take precedent over the voters?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. NO! 111 tainted pledged delegates from MI & FL catch HRC up to Obama w just a few dozen Super-

delegate declarations for HRC before the first ballot, IMO.

See the counts and links from theGreenpapers at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4970065 .

Most other sites just post "zeros" for MI and FL. theGreenpapers uses the same delegate calculations for FL and MI as for legitimate elections, but puts big qhestion marks ("soft counts") next to them.

Obama is only about 140 pledged delegates ahead at this moment, before Mississippi. It's much closer than most people think once the unthinkable MI and FL pseudo-elections are put in play with no re-dos.

[anigbrowl]

53. But you're missing something

Michigan's undecided delegates can't be added to Obama's total at present, since they are 'undecided'. but given that they represeent voters who already had a chance to vote for Hillary and chose not to do so, it's highly unlikely that they're going to back her at the convention.

Really, Clinton's net gain from both states is only about 60 delegates. Not an automatic victory for Obama by any means, but hardly an automatic game-changer for Clinton either. If both delegations were seated thanks to a court decision in defiance of the DNC rules (unlikely but possible), and she still didn't have enough votes to win, I think it most unlikely that superdelegates would flock to her.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

55. Huh? theGreenpapers calculation does NOT award HRC the "uncommitted" pledged

delegates. Please click on this link to avoid spreading misinformation:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml .

Michigan would have 128 pledged delegates were it seated in Denver. HRC "won" a tainted 55% of the January vote, or a Soviet-style 328,000-vote margin over Obama's zero. With no re-do, that tainted 55% would entitle her to 73 tainted delgates should a Clinton-dominated Credentials Committee vote to seat an unreconstructed Michigan delegation.

[dansolo]

60. But they don't award any to Obama

There is no way that Hillary will get any delegates from MI, without Obama, at the very least, getting the uncommitted delegates. That will only net Hillary about 20 delegates.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

67. Way! It's POSSIBLE the Credentials Committee would award uncommitted to Obama. It's

also possible they could go 64-64 with the 128 pledged delegates. But don't rule out seating 73 tainted HRC delegates and also allowing "Uncommitted" to vote as they are ordered by Gov. Granholm, Sen. Levin, and other powerful HRC supporters.

[cameozalaznick]

58. And even if they are...

Florida has the same crazy propotional system as all the others, so Obama would get some of those delegates in Fl. Don't what they'd do with the uncomitteds in MI.

[madfloridian]

7. My fear is if decision affects FL, it will also affect MI...

that is likely. Hillary needs both states to win at this point.

Oh, well.

[Laelth]

65. I don't think an 11th Circuit ruling can affect Michigan.

Michigan is not inside the territorial boundaries of the 11th Circuit. The Circuit Court can not exercise jurisdiction there. They can, however, affect Florida.

-Laelth

[Alter Ego]

8. Thanks again, Florida.

[meow mix]

10. if this happens theres no more point in being in the party.

just sayin

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Oh The SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLLLLLLINGGGGG!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Politicalboi]

71. Are you sure you Hillbots

Aren't Republican. You guys sure act like Republicans. Win at any cost.

[neverforget]

81. I find the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy deciding

our nominee to be rather alarming.

[bluestateguy]

11. This is the most sue-crazy society on earth

Doesn't anybody ever resolve their differences through negotiation, compromise and dialogue anymore?

[Zhade]

87. Not when Clinton's illegitimate coronation is on the line!

NT!

[madfloridian]

16. Here is why I think it might also affect MI voters.

From the article linked above.

"In his brief, DiMaio argues that DNC rules permitting only New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina to hold primaries before the first Tuesday in February treat him differently than registered voters of those states. This disparate treatment, he maintains, constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution because it is unreasonable and serves no compelling state interest."

In my non-legal mind, MI could make the same argument.

Governor Dean has said it is wrong to change the rules when the primary has already started.

The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

"Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the ten states who have yet to have their say.

"As we head towards November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that's ready to fight and ready to beat John McCain. After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America's families in the White House. Now we must hear from the voters in twelve states and territories who have yet to make their voices heard."

The court could decide that the rules COULD be changed now.

[xxqqqzme]

19. considering there is legal precedence for the

political parties being able to make their own rules - who is bankrolling this guy? It takes money to appeal, conduct research, write briefs

[madfloridian]

20. Very good question.

I have no idea how to find out.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. The nomination process of a political party isn't a Federal election.

There is no Equal Protection clause that applies.

[madfloridian]

29. Then why did the court hear the case on appeal?

?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. There may be other arguments than the one cited. n/t

[madfloridian]

17. He will also file an injunction to stop a revote. This will add to the confusion.

"By Associated Press
A Florida man who sued national Democrats over the loss of Florida's delegates to the national convention this summer says he'll fight to block any kind of do-over primary in Florida.

Victor DiMaio says his blood is boiling over the Democratic National Committee's decision to strip Florida of all its delegates because the state moved up its primary date against party rules.

He filed a federal lawsuit against the DNC last year. Now that suit will advance to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 17th.

DiMaio calls it a travesty if the votes of Democrats in the January 29th presidential primary don't count."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1893

Just to add to the confusion.

[madfloridian]

22. Finally...Daily Kos covers the treachery of Florida Dems...won't support fellow Dems

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/11/91515/2727/800/474133

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others are refusing to support Democrats running for office against their Republican friends.

Someone here posted it before, why not other blogs?

[redqueen]

25. That's a damned good question...and that deserves its own thread IMO.

:wtf:

[K Gardner]

51. Gads, I know people are getting sick of me posting this, but I can't help

but think this appearance of Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC today, announcing that Clinton refuses a mail in vote redo is connected somehow to all this.

Could it be?? I thought the mailin thing was pretty much a done deal, but all of a sudden its not. Madfloridian, any news or word on this latest?

[madfloridian]

57. Well, they have to submit it to the DNC who will submit it to the candidates.

Neither of whom wants a revote. Hillary wants them seated as is, Obama is not about to say ok to that.

I see why Dean offered the revote...he says he wants the losing side to feel they were fairly treated. He says there is precedent for a revote.

[Laelth]

66. A re-vote seems fair, at first blush.

But it's not, really.

Florida and Michigan pushed their primaries forward in defiance of party rules to make their states more important, i.e. to increase the relative weight of their citizens' votes in comparison to other states. Allowing these states to re-vote dramatically increases the relative importance of their votes because, as we all know, in this case their votes really matter ... a lot.

I don't think that Florida and Michigan should be rewarded for breaking the rules. I think they should not be allowed to re-vote and their delegates should not be seated. Period. You break the rules; you pay the price.

That, in my opinion, is fair. Fairness, however, may not be the principal goal here.

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

68. I don't want a revote.

I wish Dean had not offered it, but he was thinking that it was not the people of the states who did it...he said it was their "political leaders" who messed things up.

But...I guess those political leaders are going to fight among themselves forever.

[Laelth]

69. From what I know of you, madfloridian ...

I am certain that you would seek the most fair outcome. :patriot:

At this point, the good Dr. Dean is right. What matters most is finding a solution that will appease the leading candidates (and, presumably, do the least damage to the Party). I think Hillary plans on flexing her muscle to influence the credentials committee at the Convention ... if it goes that far.

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

70. He is trying to be fair, and getting bashed because of it.

I can see why he did it. I am really just not rational about my state anymore.

[dbonds]

75. In a revote, Obama picks up a few Delegates in MI, Hillary a few in FL

and it is a net wash. The difference between the totals doesn't change and it is 30 million wasted. It wouldn't really make the states more important though because it would net zero.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Effin hell!! Judicial coup d'etat 2008.

[madfloridian]

28. I just am FORCED to say this again. Tell me I was wrong.

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get near Boston.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1638

[Pathwalker]

33. Isn't it a moot point by now, anyway MadFloridian?

According to this thread in LBN - they won't be allowed any rooms in Denver:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3217528

Look like they won't be seated no matter what, anyway. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

36. Letting the courts decide is never a moot issue. DNC always ran primaries...until now

They never had rooms to begin with.

Why didn't they sue Terry McAuliffe?

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get near Boston.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1638

Why is everyone suing the hell out of Dean and the DNC and why did they give Terry a free pass? For all these years the DNC has run the primaries until Hillary runs. Then they don't get to decide.

[Pathwalker]

38. I have no idea why they didn't sue him. Give them time,

maybe they just haven't noticed it yet. :shrug: Frankly, I can't STAND the thought of the courts deciding this, but I honestly don't see how the DNC can come up with a Solomonesque answer for this "fustercluck". I have yet to see a solution that is truly fair, since even a do-over at this point would change the rules already in place, etc.

[madfloridian]

41. Dean said there is precedent for the revote...said he is trying to be fair

to both sides. I don't want a revote, but I can see his point.

The Clintons will take this election.

[madfloridian]

34. Good question madfloridian. Why DIDN"T they sue McAuliffe?

Hmmmm.....waiting for just the right time??

[spoony]

30. "Never assume the election will be won by voters"

Especially when you refuse to make them part of the process.

[madfloridian]

32. Clinton will be the nominee. Relax. Kick back. She has the power

Just don't worry your little spoony head about it.

Florida and Victor will decide. Just relax.

[spoony]

39. I don't give a shit which one is the nominee

I voted for Kucinich in the primary. I simply don't fancy partisan hacks who hide behind the pretext of procedural rules to disenfranchise millions of voters because they may not favour their candidate.

I like my partisan hacks up front and honest. People who don't post thread after thread of editorials and call them facts. People who don't cite themselves ad nauseum. People who aren't passive aggressive. People who make a point and move on.

[madfloridian]

40. I will continue to post whenever I find anything new about what Florida is doing.

Your implications about my bias are duly noted.

I never disliked the Clintons. I never cared who won this time around.

NOW I DETEST them. I can not watch her on TV. I have never felt such anger.

[psychmommy]

35. how very republican of mr d

it sounds like more outside influence on our elections through our own. we are going to implode with all of this bull crap. i love you mad but, the rest of fl can secede for all i care. our leaders truly need to step up and support dr dean. if the party would support him, frivolous lawsuits like this wouldn't get the play that they are getting. i say let's all go to fl and kick mr d's behind or at least bombard fl dems and newspapers w/letters about how sick the rest of the nation is of their crap.

[madfloridian]

37. DiMaio's lawyer is chairman of the Hillsborough County Democrats...that's Tampa area

And it is pretty large.

That IS the party behind it.

[progressoid]

43. Oh, fer fuck's sake.

:banghead:

[cascadiance]

45. Warning SCOTUS!! We WILL DEMAND IMPEACHMENT of YOU if you interfere AGAIN!

.. in our electoral process! In my book, if you repeat your mistake of 2000 and get involved again in areas where you shouldn't, in my book and in many Americans' books, those are IMPEACHABLE offenses, and we will demand of those we elect to congress that this happens or that we will vote them out!

[truedelphi]

47. Wish that we would! But Congress is scared of doing any impeachment actions

During an election year.

[MilesColtrane]

46. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is headed by Reagan appointee J. L. Edmondson.

Of the remaining active judges on that circuit there are 4 Poppy Bush appointees, 1 Ford appointee, 1 Bush II appointee and 1 Carter appointee, 4 Clinton appointees.

Since the Clinton appointee's rulings could decide the political fate of the spouse of the person who put them on the bench, would they have to recuse themselves?

I get the feeling that Republican judges would gleefully hand the case up to Fat Tony to decide.

I don't like this. I don't like this at all.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Scalia didn't recuse himself when his son was involved with Chimp's campaign.

[Zhade]

88. By law, yes, they would have to recuse themselves.

Of course, the republicans would just support Clinton, their fellow conservative.

[crimsonblue]

48. I know it doesn't mean much anymore...

but SC precedent states that the parties can decide the rules for their nomination processes (Wisconsin v DNC).

[ElboRuum]

59. Interesting...

Don't know if you know or not, but have there been any other rulings since that would negate that precedent or at least call it into question?

[madfloridian]

64. No, the courts ruled against Nelson v Dean last fall on that precedent.

.

[madfloridian]

63. DiMaio's lawyer said they are hoping for another precedent.

It is in one of my many posts about it. They know there is precedent...they do not care.

[K Gardner]

49. OMFG.. I cant stand it I cant stand it. How many people can even think Supreme Court and FL and not

scream???!!

[Vinca]

50. The injunction is to stop a "do over."

It may end up meaning the original vote will be considered invalid and left out of the mix by the DNC. It doesn't mean the original votes will count. That's already been through the courts, hasn't it?

[madfloridian]

61. The lawsuit is separate from the injunction which has not yet been filed.

.

[Vinca]

77. I thought Bill Nelson sued shortly after the DNC issued their decision

about not seating delegates if the primary was moved up and it went as far as it could go in the courts, the gist of the ruling being the parties can make their rules as they see fit.

[madfloridian]

79. You are right. But the one Monday is on appeal...which worries me.

And the injunction if filed would seek to stop the revote.

Yes, Nelson lost his suit and did not appeal..

[Deep13]

54. It can't be "won by voters" if a few million of them are excluded. nt

[madfloridian]

62. Then let the courts decide instead of having party rules? Insanity!

There is no way to excuse trying to get the Supreme Court involved in how the party handles things. It is just plain stupid.

Thd DNC has always handled primaries, and until this year there were few challenges. Now that Hillary says the DNC rules are not her rules...all hell is breaking loose.

[Deep13]

78. I care about democracy, not party rules. nt

[ElboRuum]

56. It's not about the voters or making assumptions.

It's about the rules and playing by them.

Nowhere in this country is our inability to accept a defeat gracefully without at least trying to stack the deck once or twice more apparent than in what passes for our elections.

It is a problem in this country, this blatant lack of humility and honor, this pathological inability to accept consequences that lead to defeat, this unseemly need to win at all costs, that poisons every institution and infects every soul.

Rules.
We'll bend 'em.
We'll break 'em.
We'll contest 'em.
We'll ignore 'em.
The one thing, it seems, we won't do is follow 'em.

[rucky]

72. Oh, goody.

Let's just skip the whole democracy thing and have the Supremes decide.

[Politicalboi]

74. The Clinton's are disgusting

Well if they do this and the Monster gets it we will have McMonster as President. If they think we will forget how they stole the nomination from Obama by November they are mistaken. I sure hope John Edwards can see fit to give his delegates to the true winner of this contest and save us from bitch from hell.

[indimuse]

76. Obama's pattern...SUE! to win!

Hillary never SUED to be Senator...Never was accused of such dirty politics UNTIL Barack H Obama entered this race...Yeah "race" there's a subject! Remember..she won second term overwhelmingly...Obama and his ilk are a disgrace!

[madfloridian]

80. Your post makes me feel sick.

It shows a mindset that will destroy this party.

[suston96]

82. Any political party in this republic that does not include ALL its members...

...with full participation in its nominating processes especially for federal offices, should indeed be destroyed.

Especially when the Democratic Party Charter specifically mandates such full participation.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ."

Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

Is there something about this part people don't get? "The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate-

Read it yourselves:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[Zhade]

89. OBAMA. ISN'T. SUING.

This is a CLINTON supporter, dumbass.

[madfloridian]

83. Things are just getting worse here.

.

[madfloridian]

84. Kick so we won't forget what happens Monday.

It could affect all of us, or none of us.

[Megahurtz]

86. WTF????????????????

The descision being made by a stacked Court? OMG this is revolting.

[Zhade]

90. FL 2000 Redux - only this time, the cheating conservatives are the Clinton samp.

NT!