DNC lawsuit headed to the Supreme Court

Anya Ristow

bad influence
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
477
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
Refresher...

What we call the primary elections are not actually elections. It's just how the RNC and DNC, private, non-governmental organizations, choose their candidates. They are within their rights to choose their candidates over cigars in back rooms. That is, in fact, the defense the DNC is using in a lawsuit surrounding the 2016 election cycle. They say they have no obligation to be impartial or to even hold an election. Problem is, their charter and their public claims, and the public's understanding, say otherwise.

They are being sued for fraud, and not for rigging an election. Because they don't run elections. The plaintiff's claim is that they and their candidates take donations based on the presumption, backed by their charter and public statements, that they run an impartial selection process, but that they failed to do so in 2016. The defense is that the people donating money knew or should have known the process wasn't impartial.

 

Zaida Gearbox

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
480
And I hope the Supreme Court delivers a sound kick in the teeth to the DNC. Hubman follows things more closely than I do and he says the Dems are trying to change the rules to Bernie's detriment again.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Anya Ristow

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,887
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
And I hope the Supreme Court delivers a sound kick in the teeth to the DNC. Hubman follows things more closely than I do and he says the Dems are trying to change the rules to Bernie's detriment again.
Yeah, Bernie did a lot to make sure 2016 would not happen with superdelegates and now the dnc wants to roll back those things. For shame DNC.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,866
SLU Posts
18459
Refresher...

What we call the primary elections are not actually elections. It's just how the RNC and DNC, private, non-governmental organizations, choose their candidates. They are within their rights to choose their candidates over cigars in back rooms. That is, in fact, the defense the DNC is using in a lawsuit surrounding the 2016 election cycle. They say they have no obligation to be impartial or to even hold an election. Problem is, their charter and their public claims, and the public's understanding, say otherwise.

They are being sued for fraud, and not for rigging an election. Because they don't run elections. The plaintiff's claim is that they and their candidates take donations based on the presumption, backed by their charter and public statements, that they run an impartial selection process, but that they failed to do so in 2016. The defense is that the people donating money knew or should have known the process wasn't impartial.

Is that the issue in the case? I've only skimmed the papers, but it looks as if so far they're arguing about whether the matter is justiciable at all as a class action in a federal court.

As I read the Final Order of Dismissal issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (which the plaintiffs are appealing against), the court says that, even assuming all the plaintiffs' allegations are true (which the court is obliged to assume they are for the purposes of deciding whether it's competent to hear the case), as a matter of law, it can't grant the plaintiffs the relief they demand.

I may well have got this completely wrong, since US and British law seem to be completely different in this regard, so if it were being heard under British law the plaintiffs' line of attack would be completely different, but at this stage it looks as if the DNC's position is not that they have no obligation to be impartial but that the plaintiffs' case, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, isn't one the District Court can hear as the plaintiffs have presented it, and that the US District Court agreed with them.

It's only if the Supreme Court say the District Court should hear the case that the question of how the DNC actually did behave becomes an issue, surely?
 
Last edited: