Breaking - Court Rules Delegates NOT Bound to Trump (democratic, Republican, president)
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.
Because we're not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic..
And majority, has NEVER ruled. its why our government was setup the way it is.
Again, you are conflating the primary process with the general election. Primaries are about determining the PARTY nominee and not about electing the president.
You can vote for anyone you want to in the general election regardless of party affiliation, but a private organization has every right in the world to CHOOSE its nominee regardless of how people voted in primaries. Unless you are an elected delegate to the NRC, your opinion and your primary vote don't mean anything with regard to choosing the GOP nominee other than giving the party an idea of which candidate is more popular among voters.
Deal with it. The primary is NOT about you, it is about the PARTY NOMINEE.
Vote for Donald in the general if you like him so much. He doesn't HAVE to be the GOP nominee to get your vote in the general. Nothing that happens at the RNC can effect the general, other than the GOP chooses the nominee it intends to back with the Party structure and finances.
No they wouldnt.. Thats like claiming each gay has to argue for the legalization of gay marriage.
Stop being ridiculous..
Stop talking about something you THINK you know about, when you don't and then YOU can stop being ridiculous.
It is glaringly obvious that you didn't read the opinion or you would understand that the basis of the decision relates to the RNC rules and those rules have NOTHING to do with the Democrat party.
I am telling you that the case was brought by a republican delegate and the opinion is based solely on the facts in that case.
If the democrats want to seek confirmation as to whether it applies to the Democrats, they would have to bring their own action.
Why? Because the basis of the opinion was regarding the RULES OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.
An opinion that was based on the reading of the RNC rules cannot included Democrats because their RULES OF THE DNC may be completely different.
As usual, I am NOT wrong, but you are, as usual, NOT right.
You are completely wrong if you think Democrats can ignore a court ruling, simply because its a party affiliation ruling.
Thats like claiming laws dont apply to whites because a black guy was ruled against. You arent even close to correct, you are in fact ridiculously wrong.
Stop talking about something you THINK you know about, when you don't and then YOU can stop being ridiculous.
It is glaringly obvious that you didn't read the opinion or you would understand that the basis of the decision relates to the RNC rules and those rules have NOTHING to do with the Democrat party.
Take your own advice!
Rulings apply to EVERYONE, even those not in the lawsuit. You clearly dont understand a dam thing about the law..
When the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott v Sandford ruling, it affected ALL "slaves", not just those involved with the case.
Stop embarrassing yourself..
Court rulings set precedence for EVERYONE who falls under its jurisdiction.
That's simply not true at all and there is no way to even know who voted for who. That's just pure propaganda and wishful thinking. Many states had primaries where you could only vote your party, Trump would not have won if over 60% voted against him.
Then what does it mean when they say he got 30 something percent of the vote?
Wouldn't that mean 60 something didn't vote for him?
I read the actual opinion. The court held that the state law requiring delegates to be bound on the first vote creates unconstitutional harm to the plaintiff and Declaratory Judgment is Appropriate.
Meaning that if Plaintiff does not vote for Donald on the first ballot, he cannot be prosecuted. So the state requirement of binding delegates is considered unconstitutional.
Read Rule 37 and 38 regarding Unit votes. Looks to me like (for Virginia at least) delegates are not bound on the first vote because the state cannot require that delegates be bound without violating their constitutional 1st Amendment rights.
There is no penalty for voting your conscience in the RNC rules (specifically) as they currently stand, so this opinion basically gives the delegates the right to vote for the candidate they feel would be the best representative of the party.
It is the state that determines whether delegates are bound or not and this court just held that binding a delegate is unconstitutional.
I think this is the way to go and sets a great precedent for all the other states.
A check-and-balance is put on the political class by way of popular vote. However, there is a check-and-balance put in place for "unpredictable" elected representatives by way of the delegates. That is why we have juries and the Electoral College in place - to bridle the passions of mankind.
The people can be wrong in who they have elected. They can later find out information that they didn't know beforehand, and find they have been every bit as wrong as the person they elected.
Somebody never heard of the "Unit Rule." And, BTW, the delegates aren't bound to vote for Cruz, or Rubio, or any other Republican they voted for in the primary.
It's really amusing seeing the left get excited over this. Liberal clowns are so amusing.
Since I am a conservative, I agree with you completely.
The Unit rule was not reviewed by the court. That is why I have not discussed it.
Ever notice how different conversations are when both sides actually have the information and background on what they are talking about as opposed to just talking AT each other for the sake of hearing themselves yammer on?
Rulings apply to EVERYONE, even those not in the lawsuit. You clearly dont understand a dam thing about the law..
When the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott v Sandford ruling, it affected ALL "slaves", not just those involved with the case.
Stop embarrassing yourself..
Court rulings set precedence for EVERYONE who falls under its jurisdiction.
Take your own advice.
Seriously, Law genius, explain how the GOP rules apply to the Democrat Convention? How did Dred Scott apply to non-slaves?
Are you on the short list for Donald's SCOTUS picks?
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.