One of the reasons Judge Bridges denied the Republican request to expedite the discovery process was the incredible burden it was placing on some of the 39 counties, particularly the smaller ones. According to the Seattle Times:
One even accused Republicans of attempted extortion, saying the party offered to cut back its information request in exchange for the county agreeing not to fight some issues in court.
Republicans have apparently already made deals with ten counties:
Republicans offered to narrow their subpoenas, not seek attorneys’ fees and drop the counties as parties in the suit
Well, Republicans playing hardball is nothing new.
The only thing that would ever be new is Republicans playing ‘fair’
Come on, have you folks never been near a real lawsuit. This is the normal course of events when lawyers are involved. Give us what we really want, and we let you off easy- sort of sounds like the government, doesn’t it? So cut the faux outrage…
I ask once again – why is it burdensome to ask for the public records of the election? Shouldn’t this info be readily available? What data did Island County base their certification of their election on?
Deal making to influence political favors….what will they think of next?
Is it really burdensome to request a voter file that they should have on hand? Why is it that the auditors do not want anyone looking at their files? Is it because they are elected and fear backlash when the public figures our just how sloppy they are?
Open government is a hallmark of democracy.
Question for you left wing nuts, If your bank account had an extra $3500 in it today, do you think they would let you keep it?
See guys… here’s the difference between me and the folks at let’s say (u)SP… you guys are all jumping to the “what’s the burden in opening their records”… when we have absolutely no idea what the GOP attorney’s have been asking for!
You also have no idea what it takes to run an elections office, or what their obligations are at this very moment to prepare for upcoming levy elections, or how loss of revenues from I-695 and I-747 have impacted their budgets to make it nearly impossible to flexibly respond to such sudden events. Afterall, perhaps the auditor’s in some of these rural counties are too busy vacuuming, cleaning toilets, and plowing snow to do their real job AND respond to the GOP requests… at the same time.
AV – get your insults right. We’re left wing “radicals” or “communists”. You’re a “right wing nut job” or more colloquially a “wingnut”
You also have no idea what it takes to run an elections office, or what their obligations are at this very moment to prepare for upcoming levy elections, or how loss of revenues from I-695 and I-747 have impacted their budgets to make it nearly impossible to flexibly respond to such sudden events. time.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes Goldy, it must be simular to a school giving the SAT tests while in the middle of a failed levy as well as affected by 695 and 747…you know what, they still manage to have lunch at the school, and if you want to show up to discuss your childs performance in school, they can usually make arrangments to get you the answers you seek. Like I said before, if my kids had as many excuses as you growing up, they would seldom have been able to sit down.
Goldy,
Other than the fact that you want all of this swept under the rug so that CG stays in office, what do you want?? On one hand, I read comments like, “why go after just King County? Are you (the GOP) afraid of what is in the pro-Rossi counties?” Then you come out and say that they shouldn’t ask for anything that could be a burden on the rural counties.
Interrogatories and requests for production of documents are standard procedure in a court case. Based on the King County interrogatories on the SoS website, I would imagine that every county’s requests were mainly either questions like, “explain (under oath) how you arrived at your numbers” or requests for things like copies of documents relating to known discrepancies. There is nothing improper about this. These are all things the counties should have already done as part of the process.
That said, I did a research project a while back that involved getting simple computer data from cities, counties and states around the country. Many had convoluted data systems (bought as a political favor?) and endusers with severely limited knowledge of how to run the programs. Some had no clue that you could actually save data to a file instead of only sending to a green-bar printer.
Many had convoluted data systems (bought as a political favor?) and endusers with severely limited knowledge of how to run the programs.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reference: City of Tacoma computer system.
I also think that the big fear of non-King counties isn’t that deliberate vote manipulation will turn up. I think they’re most afraid that all of the little (innocent) process shortcuts they’ve taken will be exposed. Things like… “OK, OK… I locked the forms in my desk instead of the safe like I was supposed to. But the guy who had the keys to the safe had gone home and…”
America is the Land of Great Shortcuts — in both the public and private sector. Nowadays, with things like Sarbanes-Oxley or the proposed governmental audits, the public is saying “enough with the shortcuts” and they want accountability.
Mr. Rossi Goes To Washington (D.C.):
Quotes from the Seattle Times
“I told them how we’d found out that some dead people from Seattle had voted,” said Rossi, laughing. “And they [two Republicans from Chicago] replied, ‘So what’s the point?’ “
How many dead people from Seattle have been found to have voted in contrast to dead people not from Seattle? How many of these dead people voted for Rossi?
At the Republican Governors Association gala, Rossi was introduced as the “two-time” governor of Washington — “since I won the vote and the first recount,” he said, smiling.
It seems that poor Mr. Rossi cannot get this delusion that he won anything other than initial tallies out of his head. He surely will expect to serve 3 terms should he win the right to a re-election, 4 should he win the first tally of the re-election, 5 should he win a recount in a re-election, etc…
Mr. Rossi shows himself to be a wannabee who is clearly not ready for prime time and out of his league.
So cut the faux outrage…
I could say the same for Republicans who call Dems obstructionists and far worse when the Democrats and the county auditors are simply exercising their legal rights to resist what they feel are onerous demands.
Let’s make a deal. Dems and the county auditors will cut the “faux” outrage as soon as the Republicans stop publicly accusing the election workers and Dems of bloody every time they find a new “smoking gun”. Or we’ll stop when the Republicans stop using the media to argue that the perfectly normal court manuevers of the Dems/SOS lawyers are somehow “subversions of the will of the people.”
Short version: Republicans are only reaping what they sow.
Island County? Such an evil Democrat stronghold. Must have helped steal the election for Gregoire. That is why they are resisting the GOP’s discovery requests so much. But seriously …
The Auditor for Island County is a Republican, Suzanne Sinclair. She was the GOP nominee for Congress last year. Got her ass kicked big time. Lost to Rick Larsen by more than 30 percentage points. Lost big time in Island County too. Got a smaller percentage in Island County (39.22%) than any other Republican, except for Will Baker (38.63%). Rossi, on the other hand, carried Island County by more than eight percentage points.
Will Baker actually got a larger percentage of the vote than Suzanne Sinclair did in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, and only a fraction of a point less than she did in San Juan County. How can a decent lady holding public office do less well than a nutcase flower vendor who has been arrested 19 times? She wrote a decent voter pamphlet statement, while Will Baker made it clear that he is a kook.
Maybe it is a good thing Chris Vance recruited Will Baker to run for State Auditor. If Suzanne Sinclair had run for that position, Brian Sonntag might have won by an even bigger margin.
Suzanne Sinclair barely won the primary. Larry Klepinger, who didn’t even campaign, was ahead of Sinclair election night. The late absentees turned the tide in favor of Sinclair. However, Sinclair basically conceded the primary immediately. Her campaign website (still up) has a concession type thank you statement posted on it, dated the day after the primary:
http://www.sinclairforcongress.com/index.html
The state GOP evidently never realized that Sinclair won the primary either. Their candidate page on their website never had Sinclair listed after the primary election. They never listed Klepinger at any time, because they didn’t like him (just like they didn’t like Will Baker, and never listed him either). Sinclair was listed as a candidate before the primary, but was removed when people thought she lost, and no candidate was subsequently listed for the 2nd district.
I wonder whether Sinclair ever realized that she had actually won the GOP nomination for Congress? Perhaps she might have gotten a clue when Sam Reed’s office instructed her office to print her name in the congressional race for the 2nd district in the general election? Or perhaps when she had to cast her own ballot?
Comment by AngryVoter-1/21/05@8:35am
…Open government is a hallmark of democracy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course, but I’m just curious to know if AngryVoter cast his lot with Bush, that champion of transparency, in the recent presidential election.
jcricket –
This is also a case of the Dems reaping what they sow — and showing that they’re hypocrites. For years the Left has cheered when the bright spotlight of investigation was shown on big corporations or GOP government offices. What I see now are Dem officials tugging at their collars under the hot lights.
Again Jcricket you fail to address the issue and use cicular logic… No suprise from the party of the jackass.
I still don’t understand what the timeline is. The Republicans are entitled to get these questions answered sometime. The court set a deadline for the Democrats’ issues, but not for the discovery.
Isn’t this guy the judge the Republicans wanted specifically? It seems like – just as in the case of Reed – they are finding it hard to find sympathetic ears, even among expected allies.
I suppose by slowing the process, the judge will be taking the issue off the front pages, which might be good for him, but I’m not sure it’s good for the state.
I’d like the Republicans to get all their evidence together and have a ruling from the court as the earliest opportunity – preferably not on some jurisdictional defect, but on the merits of the irregularities they can find, taking their best shot. So, I’m inclined to disagree with the judge, but then again, I don’t know what the timeline will be. If this is going to take, say, three months, that seems reasonable. I think much beyond five or six months is too long, because of the importance of the issue to the state.
I think the judge should aid the Republicans as much as possible, for nonpartisan and partisan reasons.
As a nonpartisan, I would like the process to be rapid and transparent, and quick closure based on what actually occurred in the election.
As a partisan, I think the Republicans are sunk anyway. Their best shot at finding irregularities and illegal votes that favor Gregoire is King County. I think they have failed to make a case by a longshot, based on my understanding of the law. So, let them harrass the counties that went for Rossi. I’d be happy if the Republican party burned bridges with the Republican county auditors. And they’re not going to find anything better anyway, if they have such a weak showing in King County. And, if by some bizarre streak of luck, they find an irregularity that is sufficient to void the election, the election should be voided.
One even accused Republicans of attempted extortion, saying the party offered to cut back its information request in exchange for the county agreeing not to fight some issues in court.
The outrage compenent is that the GOP appears to be conducting the discovery not to seek information but just to intimidate the counties. Either the information would help Rossi in the contest or not. The GOP is also seeking in the deal for them to agree not to oppose the re-vote.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. The GOP case is DOA. Look for them to withdraw everything and quietly slink off into the night in the next week or two.
A sure sign of them dropping the election contest like a hot potato can be found over at the other blog. Look at today’s postings! None of the top three threads have even the remotest relationship to yesterday’s court decision.
Gregoire, however, will indeed face a re-vote election campaign — but it will not occur until 2008!
Over at soundpolitics, they are discussing the trivial incident of SCCC tearing up some military recruitment pamphlets, which gets them more excited than even the election. The amount of vitriol over the totally insignificant issue of some dumb kids harrassing a man in uniform demonstrates more clearly than anything that conservativism is a psychological disposition, emphasizing authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, and providing rationalizations for maintaining social dominance and hieracy. For those who aren’t familiar with the studies on this, this link has a fascinating and accurate portrayal of the average conservative personality: http://faculty-gsb.stanford.ed.....nition.pdf
It isn’t a political philosophy, but a psychological disorder.
Island County accused Republicans of “extorting stipulations out of counties” and complained to the judge that it was unfair to ask for more evidence from “counties that didn’t knuckle under.”
More inflammatory rhetoric to attempt skew public opinion.
Anyone who has had even a passing acquaintance with the legal system is laughing loudly at that remark.
Stipulations are as common place as whining liberals.
Hells bells, in law school they actually require courses called ‘Fundamentals of Law’ and ‘Pre-Trial Advocacy’ which teach how to apply these stipulations EXACTLY as they have been here.
Nice try.
Next?
Christine G,
Those “Dumb Kids” are the base of the jackass party.
Angry Voter: you’re all wet. If the radical and very vocal hard core student population was “the base” of the Democratic Party, GOP politics would have long ago dominated not only Washington State politics, but Seattle politics as well. There is a majority population of thinking rational voters in this region who have not been snookered by the dogmatic ideology exemplified by the pay-for-it-later-or-not-at-all party.
Interesting commentary on the loud left by Connelly today:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....oel21.html
Finding common cause between environmentalists and sports fishing folks, imagine that!
Christine G: Conservatism “isn’t a political philosophy, but a psychological disorder.” LOL! Thanks, I’m enjoying that.
Hi Angry Voter –
You should try reading the link.
The “dumb kids” are not the base of the party. I know this because I am the base of the party. I donate money to the Democrats, and volunteer when I can.
The fact that you project these dumb kids (and the base of the party sees them the same way I do, let me assure you) as the “base” of the opposition indicates that you are threatened by challenges to social hierachies. You have an emotional response to what you most dislike and what is most incompatible with your own psychological disposition, and exaggerate and misperceive the nature of your opponent.
It simply isn’t rational for an adult to really care about some dumb kids ripping up some pamphlets. I don’t really care about a lot of the trivial, stupid things that Republicans do, and I don’t consider the whining of the college Republicans very significant – because they are kids too, and shouldn’t be taken too terribly seriously when they hold on to extreme political views as part of the maturation process.
LMAO…Joel Connelly…now there’s an unbiased source!!
I will give hime credit for this truth laden gem though:
“The political left in Seattle is used to talking only to — and agreeing with — itself. Slogans linger from the 1960s. The sight of heads nodding and shaking in unison at a Jim McDermott town meeting is enough to bring on the need for Dramamine.”
RE: It isn’t a political philosophy, but a psychological disorder. -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 1:29 pm
“This week’s Blue State Award goes to the Foothill College outside of San Jose in the People’s Republic of California. There, Kuwaiti foreign-exchange student Ahmad Al-Qloushi, whose uncles were tortured under the Saddamite regime, was forced to choose from among a list of anti-American topics for his term paper, including the following:
“[Scholars] contend that the Constitution of the United States was not ‘ordained and established’ by ‘the people’ as we have often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the U.S. Constitution (original document),
and show how its formulation excluded the majority of people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interests.” In choosing this topic for his paper, Al-Qloushi instead praised the Framers and the precedent of freedom they set. His professor responded by verbally assailing him with charges of irrationality and naivete and claimed that he was in need of “psychotherapy,” finally
failing him for his views.
And just for that runny nosed, skinny armed, “Teacher Teacher” waving tattler (You know who you are, Genus Anurogryllus):
http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp
RE: It isn’t a political philosophy, but a psychological disorder. -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 1:29 pm
“Chicago Magazine recently gave a report on the ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents in each state. The highest ratio was in these states(from highest to lowest): Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. With the exception of Colorado, these were all blue states in the November election. Imagine that. And this is all the more enjoyable because the ten states with the lowest ratio of psychologists are all red states — (from lowest to highest) Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana.
In our free-market economy, the number of psychologists is proportionate to the demand. And a big factor in that demand is blue folks suffering from PEST — that clinical malady known as “Post-election Selection Trauma.” It also occurred to us, here in Tennessee, that seven of the states with the lowest ratios of psychologists are south of the Mason-Dixon Line. The moral of the story, then, is don’t become a blue Yankee!“
And, once again just for that runny-nosed-skinny-armed,-“Teacher Teacher”-waving tattler (You know who you are, Genus Anurogryllus):
http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp
Hi HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnAss –
Yeah, did you know that Ahmad Al-Qloushi was a member of the college Republicans, and that they have aggressively used his unsubstantiated allegations to promote their cause?
Have you read his essay? Here it is: http://www.studentsforacademic.....121004.htm
“America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution.”
“If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States’ accomplishments to date.”
Now, Michelle Malkin tries to excuse the paper, claiming that he was only in the country five months. If he can’t write English, why is he in college?
What grade would you give this paper? I’d give it an F, but not for any political reasons.
The college has refused comment. I think it is unlikely he was failed for his views. I think that if the professor said he needed counseling, it was probably because of his anger over his grade, rather than his views.
You are defending a 17 year old campus activist who can’t express a coherent thought and attacking the entire university system based on his word alone.
YOU, sir, are TRULY and ASS…and you seem proud of it as well. You nic is halfway right.
More for Proud To Be an Asswipe:
If you google Ahmad Al-Qloushi, dozens of right wing webpages pop up, filled with outrage over the horrible intolerance of his professor. All of this is crap – just fake outrage designed to make people like you hate people like me. His paper is indefensible. His professor may have said something out of line – no one really knows the truth, because there are no witnesses. But if this is the worst outrage on our college campuses – and it is a very widely promoted outrage – doesn’t it indicate that perhaps the right wing fuming about suppression of academic freedom is a load of hooey? What can’t they find a competent student who has been oppressed by the liberal establishment? PROBABLY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.
Yeah, did you know that Ahmad Al-Qloushi was a member of the college Republicans, and that they have aggressively used his unsubstantiated allegations to promote their cause? -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 2:36 pm
HORROR UPON HORRORS, CHRISSY! THE BOY CHOSE A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY NOT IN KEEPING WITH THOSE LEFTY CAMPUSES… THAT’S YOUR REAL NAG. And if your holy professor flunked him for his grammar he better have flunked most of the other remedial students attempting college after having graduated functionally illiterate… from where?… OH YES PUBLIC GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOLS.
” In America, however, one in five high school graduates cannot read his or her diploma.”
And, once again just for that runny-nosed-skinny-armed,-“Teacher Teacher”-waving tattler (You know who you are, Genus Anurogryllus):
http://www.enterstageright.com.....merica.htm
Dear Asswipe –
Please read the paper. If you think that we should be graduating students with his level of writing ability and inability to present a coherent argument, then you have no standards. It doesn’t matter why he doesn’t have the skills.
You don’t seem to have basic skills of argument, either, and I won’t give you a pass on it, no matter how long you have been in the country.
Find a worthy martyr and I might be interested. I’m sure there are some intolerant left wing professors. I don’t know why the right can’t find them.
Dear Asswipe -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 2:50 pm
You just can NOT help yourself can you? I wonder who that reveals more about, your or me.
Hi again Asswipe:
You chose a nickname with an obscenity directed at others…nature will take its course.
Care to engage the argument?
What can’t they find a competent student who has been oppressed by the liberal establishment? PROBABLY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN. -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 2:43 pm
Oh really?
http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
Watch the whole video.
Care to engage the argument? -Comment by Christine G— 1/21/05 @ 2:59 pm
Care to be the ONE that actually answers the question… no one else has yet taken the challenge… How Can YOU Be PROUD to be an ASS?
To Christine G —
I fully support your contentions about that essay, since I opened the link and read it. In addition to the almost incomprehensible syntax and grammar, what is really inexcusable to me were his factual in accuracies and his anachronisms vis-a-vis his ostensible topic.
The worst is that he appears to credit George Washington and Thomas Jefferson with writing the Constitution, when of course it was James Madison who was the primary author. (Jefferson was of course the author of the Declaration of Independence while Washington gave some eloquent speeches of the day and was president of the Constitutional Convention but was not an author of any documents). He also talks about multitudes of amendments, when of course just the opposite is true. Discounting the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights), there have been only 17 others, of which 2 (prohibition and its repeal) were moot, leaving just 15 amendments in 215 years since its ratification!
Further, his effort to state that European powers were in great fear of the US Constitution also belies any knowledge of European history. Remember, King Louis XVI of France was at least as responsible for the US winning the Revolutionary War as was the Continental Army. And yet who was the first major European monarch to be overthrown by its own populace? Louis XVI, of course. And that actually occurred the same year the US Constitution took effect, with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789.
The man clearly needs to take a course in English composition AND a course in American Revolutionary history and US government, as well as a course in world history. I too would grade the paper an “F,” without any regard for any political philosophy espoused.
In fact, I’d be hard pressed to actually discover any political philosophy from that paper at all. If I was reading it in a vacuum without knowing anything about him, I wouldn’t have a clue what his political philosophy actually was.
Hi Proud Ass –
I’ll watch the video when I have more time.
The question is: having read this kid’s paper, do you think that he deserved a passing grade? You can’t possibly consider it better than C- college work, regardless of his immigration history.
Considering that the comment of the professor – that the kid needed psychological help – has no witnesses, and considering the kid’s impaired language skills, how can you grant him any credibility?
I’d really like an answer to those questions.
I find it troubling that dozens of webpages take the kid’s word as absolute truth, and are using this case to promote academic freedom, when the paper so clearly lacks merit and the nature of the dispute murky.
This kid is no different than the kids at SCCC harrassing the recruiters – overzealous, not to smart, wanting to change the world, and self-righteous.
I’m wondering why anyone over 25 would take either the Republican kid or the Democratic kids seriously. I speculate for reasons I’ve outlined, the conservatives take the rantings of kids very seriously. It’s a reflection of a skewed outlook on the world. They are still playing out authority dramas that they should have got out of their system back in their late teens or early twenties. These kids, on both sides, are playing out that drama, but it isn’t a political drama – it is the drama of kids growing up. You can only take it seriously if you haven’t grown up yourself.
Well, this has nothing to do with the original topic, but it is entertaining.
I read the link to the entire question and essay — it is a total of ten paragraphs, not just two. Regarding Ahmad Al-Qloushi, I would give Professor Woolcock a “D” or an “F” for asking the essay question in such a biased, and even worse, truly insensitive manner.
Al-Qloushi actually wrote a decent, well-organized essay, but it didn’t really deal with the question that was asked. Had the question been asked properly, his answer would have still merited at least a “C”, or perhaps a “D”, but not an “F”.
On the other hand, if someone had actually addressed the subject matter of the biased, insensitive essay question, and came up with a reasoned, analytic conclusion that was contrary to Professor Woolcock’s views, then that student would have still probably gotten a low grade.
To Richard Pope —
I think that the Professor’s question was quite provocative and was hardly “biased and truly insensitive.” It would offer any student of American history a great opportunity to be quite analytical about the attitudes and philosophies of the Founding Fathers.
The Constutition is remarkable as a document because it covered virtually all bases. Remember, the failed Articles of Confederation demanded that the American Colonies have a stronger Federal government, but people didn’t trust central governments. So Madison put in the concept of checks and balances, with 4 distinct branches of government — the President, the Senate, the House and the Judiciary.
What is true about the professor’s question is that Madison and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not actually trust the “common man.” As a result, intermediaries were inserted for all elected officers except the House of Representatives, which had very large numbers. The President was to be chosen by the electoral college and the Senate selected by State legislatures. The Judiciary nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
What was incorrect about the professor’s statement was the concept that Madison and the delegates wrote those clauses for their own benefit and profit. They were certainly the elite of the Colonial society but they were trying to create a government not for their own benefit but for nobody’s benefit — one in which no one individual or small group could actually gain control.
I strongly believe that if someone wrote that essay that would, and should, get an “A” on the paper.
Well he does deserve an D-.
Statement: “was a progressive document… compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe”
As he concedes the Magna Carta was of the same level. The French were enjoying a spate of freedom. The German Republics already had law Merchant and given right to free men. Most of the Italian States had vested rights in land or title holders.
This view shows profund ignorance of the time of which he speaks. The Virginia bill of rights, copied to the federal consititution was modeled on the Bills of rights from those German States. The most unique feature of the Constitution was the balance of power idea which eluded this fool.
Statement 2. “but one [democracy] that guarantees the freedom of its citizens.”
This is also not true and displays a great ignorance of the Constitution. The Constitution was a pact between states to form a federal government. States such as Virginia had granted individuals rights, but in the view of the States they could also revoke these rights. For instance the states regulated the religious practices tehy chose to allow. Not till the 14th amendment were right granted to individuals.
I notice that Goldy is much like Tom Leykis…when challenged, hangs up or in the blogs case doesent answer………….gnite
Goldy – better start popping some speed so you can stay up all night and respond to all of Chuck’s posts.
BTW – Al Qloushi isn’t just a member of the College Republicans. He just “happens” to be the president of the local chapter. So anyone who is the least bit suspicious about the CBS Bush guard documents should apply at least as much suspicion to the unconfirmed story of an single student.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld.....501385.htm
LOL…winding topic here…
To the original posting, isn’t anyone here more than slightly irritated that these corporate lawyers are pouring over the state voter data bases? In what regard do the BIAW staff have the right to view anyone’s private information?
It shouldn’t surprise any of us the Reps are trying to wheel and deal their way into an undo…likely the only way they’ll get is it through perceived public outrage. Silly and a total waste of taxdollars.
And what if the policiies of these small counties comes out? The fact that the poll workers likely know everyone who voted and would afford them a little special something here or there? Isn’t that the draw of living in a rural community? Isn’t that the old pioneer, do it for yourself spirit so greatly admired by the Reps?
And gee…what if all those *rule bendings* favored Rossi? Should there still be a revote/reelection/redo/mulligan?
And who’s paying for all these court machinations? Another example of shared cost footed by the taxpayers whether they want it or not?
“Of course, but I’m just curious to know if AngryVoter cast his lot with Bush, that champion of transparency, in the recent presidential election.”
Comment by RDC— 1/21/05 @ 10:45 am
Great comment RDC. Thanks.
And who’s paying for all these court machinations? Another example of shared cost footed by the taxpayers whether they want it or not?
I find it ironic to read all the whining about the discovery process, all the inconvenience and expense. Every time a civil lawsuit is filed in this country, some defendant (usually a business) has to go through this inconvenience and expense on their own nickel.
You sound like a supporter of tort reform. Too bad the Democrats will never give it to you.
I would support tort reform, but not at the sole expense of the citizenry.
The drive by lawyers need to be policed better…I liked the Kerry/Edwards idea of 3 strikes you’re out on lawyers.
The corporate community needs to take responsibility for it’s products. If they issue shoddy offerings, they should be held accountable.
The medical community needs to clean it’s house up. There are an inordinate number of physicians practicing that shouldn’t be. The cost containment of medical services is virtually nonexistant.
The insurance companies need to be accountable for their practices as well. Premium hikes are done in collusion and irresponsible, unaccountable in practice.
Clean up those houses as well as the live off the system con artists that take advantage of the courts and I’ll be happy.
It’s all about personal responsibility. Each of these entities carry a portion of taking personal responsibility for their part of the problems with our courts.
“Clean up those houses as well as the live off the system con artists that take advantage of the courts and I’ll be happy.”
Tort reform is about a lot more than weeding out bad lawyers. Lawsuits filed by entirely ethical lawyers acting within the law are a large part of the problem. Take all the County auditors whining about the cost and inconvenience of responding to discovery and multiply it by the number of small businesses that have had to respond in like manner to get a feel for the real issue.
The three strikes rule would cover all lawyers…and if they are really ethical, they wouldn’t file frivilous lawsuits to begin with.
And lawyers don’t act unilaterally…they work for their clients. If their clients would take responsibility for their actions, they would neither file a suit nor contest a legitimate complaint.
So you’re saying there’s not a problem? Pull your head out buddy. Ever heard the term “defensive medicine”? Well the current litigation climate has created “defensive just about everything” in commerce, construction, engineering and numerous other areas.
Read up on the proliferation of shotgun lawsuits associated with condominium construction. Then tell me you can back up your ignorant comments above with examples from that area, which by the way is just the tip of the iceberg of construction defect litigation. We all pay for it, and the extra we pay goes to attorneys and insurance companies.
And I never said the problem was frivolous lawsuits. These are perfectly acceptable lawsuits under the current tort system. That’s whay the tort system needs to be reformed.
Ah the ever so pleasant *pull your head out* approach…love the conversation level you bring.
I said I would be in favor of tort reform (#48). I would not be in favor of one sided reform that places the burden on the citizens however.
There are innumerable elements in play that have brung us to today’s litigious climate. Take all the elements into play when approaching reform is all I ask.
Sorry guy but you attempted to re frame my comments. I’ll count to 10 next time.
Good work. I like your site. Hedge Fetch Kill – that is all that Boy is capable of: http://www.scripting.com/ , right Soldier will Bet Chair without any questions Opponents will Pair unconditionally , White is feature of Central Opponents Stake can Compute Round