[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I criticized both parties for delving into the candidate's records of 30 years ago.

So you admit that Kerry and the DNC are unethical in attacking Bush's National Guard record?

Seeking remedy through the judicial branch is the only recourse if government officials act in error, it's inconceivable that anyone would criticize someone appealing to the courts when that perceived error occurs.

You can call it disenfranchisement, but it isn't. The voter can still vote, and they can vote for anyone they want. Nader may just not be printed on the ballot. This situation does not meet the meaning of disenfranchisement, for one of those must be denied, which they aren't.

Why is the DNC bringing law suits other than to try and limit the voters choice? No other credible reason IMO.

what? yes, the vote for President is not a vote for the person actually, as we use the Electoral College made up of Electors, and the voter is actually voting for the slate who orally committed for a candidate. The electors aren't on the ballot tho, the candidate is, so no one needs to "write in say 20 someodd names", just like before all they need to do is designate a candidate (like Bush, Kerry, Nader, is laRouce running this year?)) to cast their vote.

"Undue burden on a voter" to designate who their vote is for? I think not..

This is not how it works according to my understanding of the subject from 12 years ago when Perot 1st ran. The state will only recognize the votes for candidates with their names on the ballot. To write in a candidate you would need to write in his electoral college voters. How will the state know who these people are if they have rejected his ballot application as not being valid? Only candidates with valid ballot applications do the state recognize their electoral college candidates.

That is what the judiciary is here for, to determine if Nader is following the rule of law. The court will place him on the ballot if he did, and they will not place him on the ballot if he didn't. To sue and seek the court's decision is a right that anyone should seek if they feel justice is needed.

I can't answer your question about the DNC any more than anyone can say that the RNC wouldn't sue to make certain the rule of law was observed about Robertson. That would be the RNC's right, and they should exercise their rights if they see the need. That wouldn't be unethical.

How incredibly naive of you. The courts aren't about who is right or not, it's about who presents the better case. Very often it the side with the most money to spend on lawyers who wins. Throw in the fact that many of the judges are politically motivated and it's a total crap shoot.

If the RNC would sue Robertson it would be totally unethical IMO. Let me ask you this, would it be ethical for the Swiftvets to sue to keep Kerry off the ballot?

"only nader's name"???? what a nonsense sentence.

the lawsuits by nader are to force the election administrator to put him on the ballot in spite of apparent non compliance (administrator determined) with the election rules.
The DNC lawsuits are when they see the administrator not following the rule of law and placing nader on the ballot.

Either party has the right to go to court. I say follow the law. How can anyone claim that the DNC is unethical merely by seeking the court's decision? The court is there to determine the rule of law.

If Nader is suing it's to give voters more, not less, options. But your entire argument is that if it's "legal" then it's ethical. I guess you think that it's ethical to walk up to a gay man on the street and call him a "faggot"? I certainly don't think it's eithical, but it's certainly legal.