Ballot Access News reports:
As noted in yesterday’s blog post, 13 states recently submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Court to hear Arizona’s appeal in Brewer v Nader. The issues are whether out-of-staters can collect signatures in Arizona, and whether Arizona’s June 4 independent presidential petition deadline is unconstitutional.
If you live in one of the 13 states in which the Attorney General signed on to this amicus, you may wish to complaint to your state’s Attorney General. The 13 Attorneys General consist of these five Democrats: Mike McGrath of Montana (although he is is only in office for another week); Joseph Biden III of Delaware; Nancy Rogers of Ohio (although she is about to go out of office); Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma (who plans to run for Governor in 2010); and Bruce Salzburg of Wyoming.
The eight Republican Attorneys General are: Troy King of Alabama; Talis Colberg of Alaska; John Suthers of Colorado; Bill McCollum of Florida; Lawrence Wasden of Idaho; Mike Cox of Michigan; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; and Larry Long of South Dakota.
You might mention that if every state had a June 4 petition deadline, in the past, the Republican Party could not have run any candidates in 1854. In 1854, the Republican Party was founded on July 6, and in the fall congressional elections, it won a plurality in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Also, Theodore Roosevelt didn’t declare his candidacy as the Progressive Party nominee in 1912 until August; and Robert La Follette didn’t declare his independent progressive candidacy until July 4, 1924. So, if all states had had a deadline like Arizona, all these important political developments would have been strangled.
The original article at BAN, which IPR cross posted, attracted a reaction in BAN comments and at Libertarian Republican:
Two publications need to be singled out for bias, and even possible collusion with the Democrats: Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News, and Trent Hill’s Independent Political Report.
Richard Winger’s COFOE, Trent Hill’s IPR, front groups for Soros, ACORN, and the Democrat Party?
This morning both publications are reporting on the story.
Here’s an excerpt from Winger’s report from Ballot Access News:
On December 17, Montana’s Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s appeal in Brewer v Nader, the case in which the 9th circuit struck down Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent candidates, and also struck down Arizona’s ban on out-of-state circulators. Here is a copy of the brief. […]
Nowheres in the entire piece does Winger …mention the MT AG’s name or the fact that he’s a Democrat. Independent Political Report, edited by Trent Hill … does exactly the same in his piece. No mention that this is a Democrat-backed effort.
Both on-line publications have had a history of extreme leftwing bias. They pretend to be advocates for free and fair elections, and increased ballot access for third parties. But their efforts and reporting is almost entirely Pro-Leftwing.
Take a look at some recent headlines from IPR:
- Libertarian Party: California case over gay marriage rights represents ills of direct democracy
- D.C. Statehood Greens collecting ‘Shoes for Bush’
- Gay rights supporters should protest Obama’s choice of antigay minister Rick Warren to deliver inaugural prayer…
- Greens: Let US Iraq war resisters stay for Christmas
- Enacting a single-payer health care program will boost the ailing US economy
Pro-Initiatives/Ballot Access groups/press need to stop pretending they’re for all
Green Party, and Socialist/Nader Party headlines at IPR outnumber Libertarian, and Constitution Party headlines almost two-to-one. And when LP stories are highlighted almost universally the leftwing side of the Party is emphasized, as in Anti-War, or Anti-Bush.
The titles of several of the blog articles above are misquoted to make it appear that they are IPR editorials, rather than press releases from political parties which were posted here. Readers can determine for themselves whether the claims about our mix of articles and alleged bias are accurate.
Current count on articles per category:
Constitution Party 376
Green Party 513
Independents 588
Libertarian Party 1,098
Non-left/right parties 196
Right-wing minor parties 120
Socialist/left parties 198
Third parties, general 175
Uncategorized 70
Wikipedia reports that justice Breyer was appointed by Clinton. Breyer took office in 1994. So, I don’t think he is a Republican, even in name. He does vote often with the “liberal” wing of the court, such as it is. Wikipedia sez, “Breyer most frequently sides with Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg….”
US Politics offers 25 cases in year 2006.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/supremecourt/l/bl_supreme_court_2007_3.htm
Eight of these cases were decided 9 to 0. So, one can hardly fault Breyer for voting with Ginsburg in those cases, since, e.g., Thomas and Roberts did, too.
I see four cases at 8-1. Breyer and Ginsburg dissented in none of those.
I see three cases without decisions.
One case went 7-0 with neither Breyer nor Roberts participating.
Two cases went 7-2. In both, Breyer was in dissent in at least part. In one his dissent was joined by Ginsburg. In the other, his dissent in part was solitary, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting together.
There was one 6-2 case in which Breyer took no part.
There were 6 cases decided on 5-4 basis. Only three of these united Ginsburg and Breyer.
So, of the 22 cases in 2006 which had formed decisions, Ginsburg and Breyer were in agreement for 16. Sixteen divided by 22 is about 73%. Not 99%.
I think Eric Dondero Rittberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about. (This is not exactly news.)
Ginsburg and Breyer were both appointed by Clinton. So, it is logical that they have the same opinion nearly three quarters of the time. But not 99%. And Breyer was not appointed in 1991.
David Souter was appointed in 1990, by the elder Bush, as Richard Winger suggests.
Souter does now vote most often with Stevens, and next most often with Breyer and Ginsburg, according to Wikipedia. Souter used to align with the conservatives, though. There’s no way to be sure how he’ll vote on a particular issue, though he seems to be a “traditionalist” who seeks to promote the Supreme Court’s institutional power.
I didn’t think that was you. Mark told me you were in college in the 1960s; the guy in the photo may have been born in the 1960s, or probably later, unless that’s an old photo. He also had a photo of someone purported to be Trent Hill. It wasn’t, and was removed at Trent’s request.
Eric seems to be confusing Justice Breyer with Justice Souter. Also his blog says that’s a picture of me (that Eric posted to his own site), but it isn’t me. It’s some guy holding a little dog, I think. I have no idea who is pictured there.
Comment from Eric at NFV
My response:
Eric, you commented here just recently. Was someone impersonating you?
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/constitution-party-why-is-the-media-silent-on-the-obama-birth-certificate-question/#comment-27672
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/update-on-write-in-votes/#comment-27670
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/wayne-root-interviewed-by-eric-dondero/#comment-27667
What do you mean you are not allowed to comment at IPR?
Everyone who registers is allowed to comment here. Write [email protected] if you have any problems with your comment registration, tips for IPR, etc. You wrote us this morning, so I know you know how.
If anyone wishes to respond to Eric at NFV
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/personal-note-of-saints-and-sinners/#comment-6309
Thanks, Fred! I incorporated that into the post.
Also, since Dondero says left-wing articles outnumber LP and CP articles two-to-one, here’s the current count of articles per category:
Constitution Party 376
Green Party 513
Independents 588
Libertarian Party 1,098
Non-left/right parties 196
Right-wing minor parties 120
Socialist/left parties 198
Third parties, general 175
Uncategorized 70
Furthermore, the picture of me on Eric’s site–isnt me at all. I’v no idea who that man is.
Oh–and Eric accusing IPR, and me personally, of having a “left-wing bias”. Anyone who has spoken to me for minutes knows this isnt true.
Since you brought up Eric Dondero’s post, let it be said that the US District Court Judge who ruled against “Yes on Term Limits” (and Dondero himself, since he was a co-plaintiff) is Tim Leonard, an appointee of President Bush Sr and a former Republican state legislator in Oklahoma. Leonard criticized Eric mercilessly in his opinion. The 10th circuit opionion, giving Eric his wonderful victory, was written by a Clinton appointee and co-signed by a Carter appointee and a Bush Jr. appointee.
So out of the 4 judges involved with Eric’s case, both Democrats supported him, one Republican supported him, but one Republican slammed him and ruled the wrong way. But Eric doesn’t have anything to say about that.