Super delegate Issue needs to go to the Supreme Court

[HopeforChange]

I think there needs to be a movement to get this Super delegate issue to the United States Supreme Court ASAP. It was never intended to be used to select the president of the United States and they should Rule on it and under the circumstances reduce the number of delegates required by each party to reflect the Super delegates and then void all Super delegate votes in this election.

Thats an equitable solution to an unforeseen problem.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Huh?

What legal issue is there?

The constitution doesn't say a damned word about political parties or primaries.

Parties can choose their nominee any way they want.

[HopeforChange]

5. By the People for the People

If we are going to tell people their votes count then they should count. period.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. That doesn't address anything I said

and "By the people for the people" is from the Gettysburg Address, not the constitution.

There is no legal issue - parties could play chicken shit bingo to choose their nominee and that would be perfectly legal.

[Girlieman]

30. You're kidding right?

Last time the SCOTUS got involved in a presidential election was 2000 -- Bush v. Gore. How did that work out for you?

[Avalux]

2. This is not a Supreme Court issue. It's a Democratic Party issue.

The rules were decided upon by the DNC members and if they need to be changed, it's up to them to change them (with pressure from us).

[UALRBSofL]

10. I think the florida delegates needs to go to the Supreme Court

Fight for our voice in Florida.

[Avalux]

13. The SC has absolutely no jursidiction in this matter.

Wanting the SC to decide won't make it so. Do you honestly want the SC mucking around in the Democratic Party's business?

[Crooked Moon]

24. exactly right.

the constitution does not address the internal rules of political parties.

[lurky]

3. The SC has no jurisdiction.

It's between us and our party.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. I disagree.

The superdelegates were originally put in place explicitly so they COULD change the outcome of the primaries if they felt it necessary. I'm not saying it's fair, but it is the rules, and now is no time to try change the rules -- changing the rules to get the outcome you want is a crappy republican tactic, and not something that I will take part in.

That said, if the superdelegates DO change the outcome of the primary this year, there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of REALLY pissed off Democrats out there.

[LakeSamish706]

6. Someone posted on DU yesterday that the courts would touch this....

The DNC are the ones that made the rules and courts would not hear a case like this... Sorry, don't have a link...

[HopeforChange]

18. So when Al Gore was contesting the Election did this not go to a Court?

[stahbrett]

25. That wasn't a primary election - that was a constitionally-mandated general election (n/t)

[shraby]

32. The Gore/Bush disagreement on votes had no

business ending up at the Supreme court. By handing down a decision in this matter, they themselves broke the law. That should have been handled by the Florida courts, period. That's why in their decision they said it was to stand alone and not to be used as a precedent. They knew they were doing wrong also.

[Tarc]

7. "It was never intended to be used to select the president..."

No, it was intended to help select a nominee for the Democratic Party.

Regardless, this has to be the dumbest Obamanation idea yet regarding the supers.

[TexasObserver]

8. Wrong. It's a party issue. The Supreme Court wouldn't and shouldn't touch it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Uh, no.

1. I doubt the superdelegates will be an issue. They'll almost assuredly vote for whomever the people nominate.

2. Courts have shown time and time again that parties can set their own rules. If they wanted to have a handful of plutocrats sitting in the smoking room of a country club decide who will be the nominee, they could do that.

This isn't about selected the President of the United States, it's about selecting the party nominee.

[JVS]

12. No. Just be ready to protest the convention if they vote against the people

[Indy Lurker]

14. Are Primaries covered in the constitution?

Super delegates are a creation of the Democratic party, and are only used in a the primaries, and not the general election.

As far as I know, the Democratic party can use a lottery system to pick their candidate if they want.

[stahbrett]

26. They could use a coin flip, eenie-meenie-miney-moe, or pulling straws

You're exactly right - it's a party matter only.

[Meshuga]

15. Why should it go to the supreme court?

What is illegal about it? The party is allowed to choose the criteria they want in order to pick a nominee. They can even get rid of the primaries in the future if they wanted to and let the candidates be picked at the convention.

We knew about the super delegates and their super powers all along. Let's not complain now that the agreed process might not work in our favor.

[Metric System]

16. The Obama supporters lectured us about THE RULES in regards to seating Florida and Michigan, but

now that THE RULES may be inconvenient to Obama they think the court should get involved.

[tammywammy]

29. Where did Obama say the courts should be involved?

So far, I've only seen this one Obama supporter on here suggest that. :shrug: Anonymous supporters on the internet do not equal Obama or his campaign.

[suston96]

17. Quit worrying about the super-delegates..

Super-delegates will bend with the prevailing or imminent winner of the collective primaries and caucuses.

FL and MI are more important. They really conflict seriously with voting rights. Once the nominating process includes members of the party then voting rights become applicable.

I think I have seen USSC cases where the Court has decided to stay out of the political primary messes.

Google USSC primary elections.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. You seem to think that nominating candidates is a democratic process. It is not

The United States Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that political parties are private organizations. As such, they have the right free assembly and the right to free speech. Because of that, they are free to establish whatever procedures they see fit to nominate their own candidates. This is how California's attempt at a blanket primary was prevented by the USSC in California Democratic Party v. Jones in 2000; which in turn set the stage for the courts to overthrow Washington State's 68 year old blanket primary* in 2003.

So there is very little that the law could do in eliminating superdelegates short of nationalizing the national political parties, which would be a cure far, far worse than the disease.


* See A History of the Blanket Primary in Washington if you are interested in the history of Washington's blanket primary.

Edited to fix link.

[Seabiscuit]

20. Its not a legal issue. Its a political party issue. In this case, it rests with the DNC. nt

[RL3AO]

21. SCOTUS has ruled many times that the parties make the rules.

[adapa]

23. This is my understanding- the courts might be involved if the rules are changed half way tho

[HeraldSquare212]

31. As recently as last month, in a case that challenged the way New York parties picked nominees for

judicial seats. SCOTUS said there were no constitutional issues, a party can choose how to pick nominees even if they choose a stupid way (in NY, judicial nominees are chosen in conventions).

[HughMoran]

22. They have no say in this and it DOES NOT decide who is the President

You don't know what you are talking about - doh!

[tammywammy]

27. It's not an issue for SCOTUS

The political parties are free to make their own rules for primaries.

[Mz Pip]

28. I'd rather see this kept out

of the courts. Smacks too much of Bush v. Gore and that event still pisses people off.

THe Superdelegates are not stupid. They are politicians who want to win above all else. They will back the winner IMHO.

Mz Pip
:dem: