WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday rejected a request by Texas Republicans to block an appeals court ruling that says former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's name must appear on the November ballot.

 

Democrats are suing to keep DeLay on the ballot, with the former lawmaker's legal troubles becoming a symbol for claims of Republican corruption.

 

DeLay, who is under indictment in state court in Texas, won a March primary before resigning June 9 from Congress.

 

Texas Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser requested the delay of the appeals court ruling until Republicans can formally ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

 

The case was routed to Scalia, who handles appeals from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The New Orleans-based appeals court last week sided with Democrats' claims that, if DeLay is eligible to run but drops out of the race, the Republican Party cannot substitute another candidate.

 

Benkiser could file the request with another justice.

 

"Wow! That was quick," said Cris Feldman, attorney for Texas Democrats who had not yet heard about the stay.

 

"That was a lightning-quick response. We're very pleased by the court's decision to deny the stay and it's now time to move toward the general election and put this matter behind us," said Feldman.

 

Election laws allow political parties to replace ineligible candidates as their nominee with someone who would be eligible to serve if elected, the application to the Supreme Court stated.

 

DeLay is awaiting trial in Texas state court on money laundering alleging that illegal corporate cash helped pay for legislative campaigns in 2002.

 

Republicans want to pick another nominee to face Democrat Nick Lampson in November.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party.

 

Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole.

 

Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas.

 

Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party.

 

Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole.

 

Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas.

 

Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected.

 

Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole. Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling. Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party.

 

Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole.

 

Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas.

 

Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected.

 

Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole. Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling. Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas.

 

100% correct. Who cares in this situation if it is illegal for republicans to run another candidate, they have broken so many laws why not let them break another?!

 

Leave it to the democrats to try and morally corrupt this nation and trying to surpress the vote.

 

And not only should the republicans get to run a new candidate in DeLay's old district, DeLay should be appointed Grand Chancellor of whatever district he decides to seek refuge in. Because we all know he didn't willingly resign or pull out of the election, IT WAS THE COMMUNIST LOVING, DEATH LOVING, ZIONISTS THAT MADE HIM DO IT.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party.

 

Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole.

 

Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas.

 

Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected.

 

Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole. Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling. Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas.

 

100% correct. Who cares in this situation if it is illegal for republicans to run another candidate, they have broken so many laws why not let them break another?!

 

Leave it to the democrats to try and morally corrupt this nation and trying to surpress the vote.

 

And not only should the republicans get to run a new candidate in DeLay's old district, DeLay should be appointed Grand Chancellor of whatever district he decides to seek refuge in. Because we all know he didn't willingly resign or pull out of the election, IT WAS THE COMMUNIST LOVING, DEATH LOVING, ZIONISTS THAT MADE HIM DO IT.

 

Thanks for the insightful stupidity. Apparently while you were out watching john stewart you completely disregarded the importance of getting an education. Leaving your biases aside for a second, lets try to think objectively. F_M I direct this question at you since we're the only ones having intelligent debate so far.

 

You have no objections to allowing a candidate to take a seat uncontested for whatever reason? B/c I have a problem wiht it, regardless what party it is. Not only this, but DeLay's indictment should count as grounds to allow them to pick another candidate. Would you be opposed to DeLay himself running? What if even with the indictment he still wins this seat? You dont have a problem with someone under these types of proceedings being in the Congress

Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole.

 

Would you be opposed to DeLay himself running? What if even with the indictment he still wins this seat? You dont have a problem with someone under these types of proceedings being in the Congress

 

Um, no. In answer to both the questions, the dems want Delay to run and Id be fine with it too. The reason they are making a big deal out of this is because he ran like a coward so he didnt have to defend his corruption in an election. In fact I think Delay has considered coming back but Im pretty sure the Texas Republicans dont want him to come back because he could cause even worse damage(democratic process?).

 

And in answer to your second question, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court is the source of qualifications. If neither you nor I liked an indicted person being elected, then we amend the Constitution. You of all people should not be ok with an expansive interpretation of the Constitution for political purposes.

 

In addition, why should being indicted of a crime be the disqualifier? In fact Id say it is a violation of due process-accord can tell you all about this. Indictements are not convictions. First imagine if the state could disqualify any person it didnt like by merely indicting them without much proof, ie a ham sandwich. Second, if the person is found not guilty, then what? Third, there are indicted members of Congress and Im sure people have been indicted while in office and found not guilty.

 

Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling.

 

Tell me this legacy-you sure that the 64% of individuals who voted for Tom Delay to represent the Republican party in the general election want the new person that a small commitee of Republicans in Texas are going to select? How is that democracy?

 

And how do you chastise the dems for what they are doing when Delay moved to another state to purposefully disqualify himself? I repeat, purposefully. Delay and the Republicans wanted to subvert the law and stopping that is somehow using a loophole?

 

Youre effectively defending the subversion of the law via an ends justifies the means.

 

In addition, Lampson won't go unchallenged. Bob Smither of the Libertarian party in addition to the current write in campaign will oppose him. This law only prevents political parties from subbing people in and out whenever they feel like it after the primaries.

 

Answer me this question-lets say a candidate, any candidate, won a primary and ran in the general election. Then as the campaign got going, say maybe even with a few weeks left, he either screwed up bigtime or something was exposed about him. It's pretty obvious he is going to lose. So then he moves to another state and the party gets to run someone else to sub in. Why is that ok?

 

Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas.

 

It does when you accuse the court of appointing a candidate for the benefit of the democrats. The people of Texas 22nd district can blame Tom Delay and nobody else for putting them in this situation.

 

Plus Delay didnt even fully use the loophole. He keeps his wife and a house in Texas while he hides out in Virginia? I mean come on.

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted

 

Well the Republicans of Texas 22 did vote for him after he was indicted so they dont seem to care. And if he won, the voters of Tex 22 either. Short of actual disqualification, they are the final arbiters of his fate. I had a problem with Delay in office before he was indicted but they wanted him there. If he did win, I dont think the democrats or any other Republican deserves his seat-that would be the guy the district wanted.

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted

 

 

Thanks for the insightful stupidity.

 

Because of how the public sees and understands indictments republicans should be able to pick and choose candidates as they want on a whim, despite what law and court dictates and that is a reflection on democrats?

 

 

Forget the fact the voters of the district over look the indictments they wanted the guy and he left them in the dust.

 

You sir is the type of person who has bears as friends.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

Since when are republicans innocent?

 

 

Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

hmm...im not going to get into the big political and law issuses which i dont fully understand even though F_M had a nice explantion...but why does the last part of this qoute seem sooooooo familiar? didnt someone win something of importance back in 00 when the supreme court basically handed it to him

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted

 

 

Thanks for the insightful stupidity.

 

Because of how the public sees and understands indictments republicans should be able to pick and choose candidates as they want on a whim, despite what law and court dictates and that is a reflection on democrats?

 

 

Forget the fact the voters of the district over look the indictments they wanted the guy and he left them in the dust.

 

You sir is the type of person who has bears as friends.

 

 

Its funny when an uneducated simpleton like you tries to sound intelligent. Its also obvious you're new to this board, based on ur perception of me. As F_M said, if DeLay were to come back and run, then there is no problem with it. However, this bs politicking that goes on in this country is outrageous and stupid.

If you read what I wrote without your anti-republican bias you'd notice three things:

1. My statement was to open grounds for intelligent discussion, so far f-M has been the only one to return that volley

2. Not to criticize the dems, but to make a statement concerning the rights of voters

3. To attempt to open a discussion on the power of courts, which no one has bitten on yet

 

So anyway come back when you actually know anything about politics other than what you watch on john stewart

 

And b/c of how the public views indictments, it should be open to debate whether any party can replace a candidate after the primary and if such candidate can be considered to be 'disqualified' Oh and just b/c the court said it doesnt count as disqualification doesnt mean the debate is over. If that were the case we'd still be following the ruling in Dred Scott and it would have never been challenged.

2. Not to criticize the dems, but to make a statement concerning the rights of voters

 

 

Yeah you got off with a bang with that.

 

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

 

 

How insightful! How concerned about the voters you seemed!

2. Not to criticize the dems, but to make a statement concerning the rights of voters

 

 

Yeah you got off with a bang with that.

 

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

 

 

How insightful! How concerned about the voters you seemed!

 

But as you can see from this and other posts in seperate topics, I always follow up those types of comments.

2. Not to criticize the dems, but to make a statement concerning the rights of voters

 

 

Yeah you got off with a bang with that.

 

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

 

 

How insightful! How concerned about the voters you seemed!

is that you, phishphan?

 

your style of debate is giving me major wood.