Lawyers For The DNC Argue That Primary Rigging Is Protected By The First Amendment

[exGOPer]

To be clear, Defendants deny all allegations that they favored or were biased toward or against any candidate in the course of the 2016 presidential primary, but even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations at face value as is appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage, the continued maintenance of this action threatens serious injury to the DNC’s—and to all political parties’—well-established First Amendment rights.

Try again. This time you might try actually reading it.

You might try reading beyond the propaganda outlet promoted out of context quote

"remedy that injury without impermissibly infringing Defendants’ First Amendment
rights to free speech and association by injecting itself into factional disputes within
a political party. Indeed, under binding precedent of this Court, that fact renders this
case nonjusticiable. See Wymbs v. Republican State Exec. Comm. of Fla., 719 F.2d
1072, 1084 (11th Cir. 1983)"

The prior paragraph makes it clear they are talking about disputes within the party, not the primary process at all.

Checkmate.

 

[Wallet]

So they're saying they favored the candidate most likely to win? Whoa, somebody stop the presses, the RNC always favored Trump to be their man.

Lol, not from the start. And you might want to ask a few Sanders supporters about who'd a won.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I find this case very interesting from a legal perspective. I'm not familiar with the exact claims, but from what I have seen, I think the DNC should prevail. The courts should no more intervene in the conduct of political parties as it would in your local golf club directors election. IOW only in case of some obvious violation of law. This is more like a suit accusing the directors of a company of malfeasance or probably misfeasance. The problem is, the people running a political party do not owe donors anything. You didn't buy stock in the DNC. You donated to it. Once you do, they can do whatever they want with your money.

It seems unfair that a party could sucker you into making contributions by lying to you that they would run a fair contest. It is unfair, but it is worse to have the federal courts regulating the conduct of political parties. Both sides of the aisle should see that as undesirable and appreciate that it does in fact invoke First Amendment rights.

 

[Arnie]

So they're saying they favored the candidate most likely to win? Whoa, somebody stop the presses, the RNC always favored Trump to be their man.

Uh, No...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3d198ea26c5_story.html?utm_term=.d96b4292a4c3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-feuds-over-support-for-donald-trump-1476146036

 

[jem]

however, the the parties are going to be allowed to run things in a biased or unfair manner we should not look to them for any vetting or guidance or governance on any issues.

For instance Candidates should them be vetted by governmental bodies to make sure they are eligible to run for the office they are seeking.

Do they live in the district, if that is a requirement.
Are they the correct age?
Ensuring they are natural born citizens if that is a requirement.
For instance Donald Trump's mom was born in Scotland. Perhaps he is not a Natural Born Citizen. I would suspect he is... but I would like to see a definition be made and tested.

I find this case very interesting from a legal perspective. I'm not familiar with the exact claims, but from what I have seen, I think the DNC should prevail. The courts should no more intervene in the conduct of political parties as it would in your local golf club directors election. IOW only in case of some obvious violation of law. This is more like a suit accusing the directors of a company of malfeasance or probably misfeasance. The problem is, the people running a political party do not owe donors anything. You didn't buy stock in the DNC. You donated to it. Once you do, they can do whatever they want with your money.

It seems unfair that a party could sucker you into making contributions by lying to you that they would run a fair contest. It is unfair, but it is worse to have the federal courts regulating the conduct of political parties. Both sides of the aisle should see that as undesirable and appreciate that it does in fact invoke First Amendment rights.

 

[Wallet]

I find this case very interesting from a legal perspective. I'm not familiar with the exact claims, but from what I have seen, I think the DNC should prevail. The courts should no more intervene in the conduct of political parties as it would in your local golf club directors election. IOW only in case of some obvious violation of law. This is more like a suit accusing the directors of a company of malfeasance or probably misfeasance. The problem is, the people running a political party do not owe donors anything. You didn't buy stock in the DNC. You donated to it. Once you do, they can do whatever they want with your money.

It seems unfair that a party could sucker you into making contributions by lying to you that they would run a fair contest. It is unfair, but it is worse to have the federal courts regulating the conduct of political parties. Both sides of the aisle should see that as undesirable and appreciate that it does in fact invoke First Amendment rights.

Does the fact that they take Federal money change anything?

 

[Cuddles]

Lol, not from the start. And you might want to ask a few Sanders supporters about who'd a won.

That was sarcasm (RNC not favoring Trump). Bernie Bros are just a bunch of cry babies that can be ignored

 

[Wallet]

Bernie Bros are just a bunch of cry babies that can be ignored

Is that something like deplorable.