Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a conservative would have to work pretty hard to become a future nonstarter in MS politics, but I think McDaniel is doing a darn good job of it.
Well, um, yes. That's the basis of Cochran's motion.
Well, um, no. It has nothing to do with it being the basis. It has everything to do with when they knew. Keeping their mouths shut until at least day 21 was the smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
So the judge agreed with Cochran's motion, and dismissed McDaniel's motion.
There is no law pertaining to how long one has. Just a previous precedent having to do with what is considered timely in order for the general to take place as planned. It was a "safe" decision.
Well, um, no. It has nothing to do with it being the basis. It has everything to do with when they knew. Keeping their mouths shut until at least day 21 was the smart move.
More like McDaniel and his lawyers were pretty dumb not to know. One would think that would be one of the first things they would check out--what's the procedure to file a challenge to an election, since that's what we are thinking about doing? Sounds like something any competent lawyer would want to know ahead of time, doesn't it? It's incredible that no one bothered to check.
Unfortunately for the McDaniel campaign, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
More like McDaniel and his lawyers were pretty dumb not to know. One would think that would be one of the first things they would check out--what's the procedure to file a challenge to an election, since that's what we are thinking about doing? Sounds like something any competent lawyer would want to know ahead of time, doesn't it? It's incredible that no one bothered to check.
Unfortunately for the McDaniel campaign, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Do we know that they didn't bother to check? Or was McDaniel just contending that he's so special the law doesn't apply to him?
Well, um, no. It has nothing to do with it being the basis. It has everything to do with when they knew. Keeping their mouths shut until at least day 21 was the smart move.
It isn't Cochran's attorney's job to make sure that McDaniel's attorney knows and complies with the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
There is no law pertaining to how long one has. Just a previous precedent having to do with what is considered timely in order for the general to take place as planned. It was a "safe" decision.
I heard that it was the law, but assuming you are right, and it is precedent only, the judge would still have to have a darn good reason for ignoring it. It isn't just the safe decision - it's the judicially correct decision.
Contrary to what some think, the majority of judges are loath to overturn precedent. They usually prefer to kick that upstairs.
It isn't Cochran's attorney's job to make sure that McDaniel's attorney knows and complies with the law.
What a stupid comment. Who says it was? Rhetorical, you have no idea what you are commenting on, often enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
I heard that it was the law, but assuming you are right, and it is precedent only, the judge would still have to have a darn good reason for ignoring it. It isn't just the safe decision - it's the judicially correct decision.
Contrary to what some think, the majority of judges are loath to overturn precedent. They usually prefer to kick that upstairs.
Bolded for which is it? Judicially correct or he wanted to kick it upstairs and not deal with it?
What a stupid comment. Who says it was? Rhetorical, you have no idea what you are commenting on, often enough.
Bolded for which is it? Judicially correct or he wanted to kick it upstairs and not deal with it?
He did deal with it. He upheld precedent. As most judges would.
If the McDaniel team wants to overturn precedent, they'll have to go higher. Now maybe at this next step, they'll get a judge who is willing to overturn precedent. Or maybe they won't. As I said, most judges will uphold precedent most of the time. Including the US Supreme Court.
I think Lovehiscountry is having a hard time dealing with the fact that the McDaniel camp is so inept that they didn't even check out the requirements for challenging an election. And that's pretty inept.
You're right, most judges are loathe to throw out precedent, which means McDaniel has made it even more unlikely he will get a decision he likes no matter how far up the chain he goes. I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign threw in the towel at this point, but then, common sense has not been the hallmark of the McDaniel camp thus far, so who knows.
Keep in mind that when a judge defers to precedent, it's NOT just a matter of a judge "not wanting to deal with it". The concept of "precedent" is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Legal system - and is a legacy from the old English Common Law system - so when a judge defers to precedent he IS making a decision - and decision is "I see no compelling reason to go against legal-defined precedent in this particular matter".
"In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts..."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
