Free the Delegates Takes Legal Action to Unbind Delegates

[ABX]

Should Republican National Committee delegates be forced to vote for Donald Trump at the GOP convention in July? That’s a question one Virginia delegate would like the courts to settle ahead of the nominating process.

Attorney Beau Correll filed a federal lawsuit on Friday asking the court to affirm First Amendment rights for GOP delegates and make it clear that state law does not compel delegates to vote in favor of the candidate who won the state primary at the national convention....

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/free-the-delegates-takes-legal-action-to-unbind-delegates#sthash.ywO3hlAU.dpuf

[Mechanicos]

Cruz delegate. Why do so many leave that off? Oh and hes a delegate not a normal voter. Means he has the authority of another delegated to him for the others benefit not his.

[WAC]

....."delegate would like the courts to settle ahead of the nominating process"......

Couple things....looks like a new war front now with the delegates making demands. ....changing the "rules" so to speak.
Better be careful about doing such things IMO,  if you start changing the process this close to the finish line, and that bringing 'courts' into the fray, then this will set a pace where all rules are open for change as well as the Primary election results ending up in the courts just as the General Election comes into view......Hillary and the Demorats are loving this show....makes them look "stable" by comparrison.
 

[WAC]

Cruz delegate. Why do so many leave that off? Oh and hes a delegate not a normal voter. Means he has the authority of another delegated to him for the others benefit not his.

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't part of the plan to hijack the conference.......that it is a Cruz Delegate initiating this does carry some weight since Cruz isn't releasing his delegates. But not to get your pants in a knot....I think Trump has enough "feelers" out there to know something of what's coming and why we'll see him continue to show his frustrations over these "plays" against him.

There is so much at stake in this election.......and so many attempts to stand in Trumps way. ...but it is the game and until he's officially declared the Nominee Trumps going to have to continue the fight until it's a "done deal".......

[Right_in_Virginia]

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't part of the plan to hijack the conference.......that it is a Cruz Delegate initiating this does carry some weight since Cruz isn't releasing his delegates. But not to get your pants in a knot....I think Trump has enough "feelers" out there to know something of what's coming and why we'll see him continue to show his frustrations over these "plays" against him.

There is so much at stake in this election.......and so many attempts to stand in Trumps way. ...but it is the game and until he's officially declared the Nominee Trumps going to have to continue the fight until it's a "done deal".......

@WAC

What I don't "get" is what Cruz thinks he'll get out of this.  He's not going to win and he's not going to add to his diminished band of supporters.

It's really all starting to feel terribly petty and personal with Cruz.  I'm simply not liking that he's putting country second to his ego in the middle of an election we have to win.  I'm beginning to wonder if he's lost his mind.

Having said that, I'll log off for the night ... and return with my asbestos suit tomorrow   

[skeeter]

@WAC

Having said that, I'll log off for the night ... and return with my asbestos suit tomorrow   

What a surprise.

[RoosGirl]

Cruz delegate. Why do so many leave that off? Oh and hes a delegate not a normal voter. Means he has the authority of another delegated to him for the others benefit not his.

If he's a "Cruz delegate" why would he be worried about having to vote for Trump?  If he voted for Trump that would mean he's a Trump delegate.

[WAC]

@WAC
What I don't "get" is what Cruz thinks he'll get out of this.  He's not going to win and he's not going to add to his diminished band of supporters....It's really all starting to feel terribly petty and personal with Cruz....  I'm simply not liking that he's putting country second to his ego in the middle of an election we have to win.  I'm beginning to wonder if he's lost his mind.
Having said that, I'll log off for the night ... and return with my asbestos suit tomorrow   

Well Cruz has said all along that "Donald" isn't going to be the Nominee, regardless if Cruz himself was out before convention, and we know there's been irons in the fire for a long while to keep Trump from being appointed. Mostly because even Trump didn't appear to take this election seriously when he began his run. It was just another game 'challenge' Trump could aspire to that he far more enjoys  more than any win. Remember he's referenced that several times along the way. ..it's not the win but the path to that he loves.

We also know that nobody was as surprised as Trump he got so far so fast.....we know also the media was certainly instrumental in selling Trump for ratings which assuredly prevented other candidates from being known as they otherwise would have. Add to that Trumps showmanship, style, and control of his audience it was sure to entertain the masses and did just that...because that's what they want...entertainment they can be engaged with and excited about.  A celebrity apprentice for President is what they got.

Cruz and others were not prepared for the fickle public to jump on board that wagon, especially since Trump many times borrowed then tweaked Cruz's positions as his own. ..admittedly ....and 'studied' his positions   long before he announced. So what we saw in Trump was in many ways Cruz's platform ' Hollywood Glamorized' in order to suit up Trump with what he really didn't have in himself......any who knew Cruz well could see that. ...I surely did and that effortlessly so.

Thus not only has Cruz had the most skin in this game long before he announced even, but to watch Trump plagiaris his years of work has had to be a tough pill to swallow throughout this race. It has has been said, rightfully so....the enemy of truth is not a lie, it's the almost true.....and Trump has not only pulled that off but he wears it well to an eager audience....he IS a counterfeit and why he could never speak in any detail on the issues and flip flopped all over...he's been transforming himself to appear as he knows the public wants to see.  He can do that because of his experience at doing just that throughout his life.
And I will say one thing actors always understand that when you play a character you can become mentally that character and believe you are that individual.  Trump will BE whatever it takes to win....just as we have seen and he believes himself to be that character for whatever duration to become President.

That said......How does any serious candidate stand against someone who has nothing at all to loose, no one to fear because he plays by his own rules of conduct, dares to offend and insult without remorse, and has pulled off one of worlds most amazing counterfeit schemes?  You can't.....unless you utilize the tools available in the election process that are in place. Cruz has been doing so and did not drop out of the race because he was loosing but I believe to focus his efforts on what could be done at convention...the end of the line where the "Deal" is struck..... That's what Trump is fighting now IMO. ...NOT Cruz himself ....but the very process that could take him out...and it's not over til Trump has been 'officially' appointed.

Cruz has much invested, along with others as himself, in Washington set to go into action for this country he's worked on for years for this time we are in...and this not to hand over to to someone who hasn't a clue about how the halls of Washington work, nor cares to to co-operate to get these things actually done quickly, ....rather Trump does get in even his own way let alone the way this nation needs to go if he gets to Washington.....he'll be tripping all over his own feet, for sure, and that over others as well...he doesn't know that game nor the landmines.......this is why there's such a push to prevent him in power. There's no time for Trumps "show" in Washington.....

I will vote Trump only if there's no other way to keep Hillary away from Washington......because even though Trump's as green as can be and stubborn beyond measure.....there are those who we've seen can handle him.....but it's a long and painstaking path to get the man to see anything other than his own ideas, which often are fractured and beyond reasonable to carry out. 
 

[EC]

Well put, WAC.

[WAC]

If he's a "Cruz delegate" why would he be worried about having to vote for Trump?  If he voted for Trump that would mean he's a Trump delegate.

It's to free the delegates to vote for someone other than Trump...not necessarily Cruz. If the delegate ballots cast do not name a clear winner thru that process...this then goes beyond the convention....the idea may be to go through all the other venues then...which could be "costly to Trump" if he does not get the financial support needed.....I really question if Trump will fight beyond the convention as he wants a clear shot against Hillary, not to wrangle with more rumple strips, as he sees this process.

[WAC]

Well put, WAC.

Thanks, .... Structured deception is heavy at play in this election which could not be successful were the overall public not 'Ripe' for it.. and the media's willingness to manipulate it accordingly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's a weak lawsuit.  There is no First Amendment right to cast a ballot at a party's nominating convention.   I don't know what the hell the WSJ was saying in citing a decision that there is no "constitutionally-mandated" role for the states in determining how delegate are selected, or the rules governing them.  Nobody is claiming that the Constitution itself "mandates" anything.  The question is whether the Constitution permits states to do that.

And even then, unless the RNC changes their rule, a court victory would be pointless because the RNC's actions don't amount to state action required to support a First Amendment claim.

They got their headlines for filing it, but that would be it.

[r9etb]

It's to free the delegates to vote for someone other than Trump...not necessarily Cruz.

I may be mistaken, or matters may have changed; but I think the move is not so much to release all delegates to vote for a different person on the first ballot, but rather to allow people to abstain on the first ballot rather than to cast a vote for a candidate (Trump) in violation of their conscience.

That would seem to be a much easier sell to a Rules Committee.  Once that's in place (actually, they're starting that now) the next step would be to lobby the delegates themselves to sell the idea to them.

[ABX]

I may be mistaken, or matters may have changed; but I think the move is not so much to release all delegates to vote for a different person on the first ballot, but rather to allow people to abstain on the first ballot rather than to cast a vote for a candidate (Trump) in violation of their conscience.

That would seem to be a much easier sell to a Rules Committee.  Once that's in place (actually, they're starting that now) the next step would be to lobby the delegates themselves to sell te idea to them.

Abstaining is within the rules now. What I've heard is one of the goals is to have enough delegates on the floor to get a quorum, but not enough to push any candidate over the top on the first vote. This is pretty simple. Enough step out to go to the bathroom, abstain, happen to be off the floor, or elsewhere. That allows to push it to the second vote within the rules. Free the Delegates is a move to allow delegates to express their first amendment rights and select another candidate.

A third option being explored isn't through the rules committee but through the contest committee- petitioning to have a candidate disqualified due to legal or ethical malfeasance.

[r9etb]

It's a weak lawsuit.  There is no First Amendment right to cast a ballot at a party's nominating convention. 

Perhaps.  I think the general idea of the lawsuit from Virginia is to get the courts to acknowledge that state laws cannot mandate a certain vote.  That should not be that difficult to do -- there are a couple of close precedents from the 70s and 80s that would seem to guide the court to that decision.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Perhaps.  I think the general idea of the lawsuit from Virginia is to get the courts to acknowledge that state laws cannot mandate a certain vote.  That should not be that difficult to do -- there are a couple of close precedents from the 70s and 80s that would seem to guide the court to that decision.

Such as?  I mean, it's basically just enforcing a particular type of private contract.  I don't see the basis for a claim when the delegate took the slot based on the understanding that they could be required to vote for someone they didn't like.  After all, the concept of a writ of Mandamus is to compel an office holder to perform a certain duty -- even if it violates their own opinions or beliefs.  That's why that clerk in the gay marriage cases could get tossed in the slammer for refusing to do her duty.

The Court is simply enforcing a contract -- you took this position with the understanding that you would be required to vote in accordance with the results of the election, so now, you've gotta vote that way.

I have zero sympathy or respect for these people.  If you didn't want to follow those rules, then don't run for delegate.

[Mechanicos]

Such as?  I mean, it's basically just enforcing a particular type of private contract.  I don't see the basis for a claim when the delegate took the slot based on the understanding that they could be required to vote for someone they didn't like.

Its going to depend on who the Judge is and their bias. Since its so close to the convention an activist Democrat judge can destroy the GOP with granting the motion. That's a real possibility.  The Ones doing this are not thinking it thru. They will piss off the already angry at least 15 million Americans who see them as treasonous collaborators with the democrats - not good people.

[Emjay]

My prayers are with this group and with the delegates who care about the country.  Putting this clown out there to be exposed and defeated by the second worst person in the country is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Emjay]

....."delegate would like the courts to settle ahead of the nominating process"......

Couple things....looks like a new war front now with the delegates making demands. ....changing the "rules" so to speak.
Better be careful about doing such things IMO,  if you start changing the process this close to the finish line, and that bringing 'courts' into the fray, then this will set a pace where all rules are open for change as well as the Primary election results ending up in the courts just as the General Election comes into view......Hillary and the Demorats are loving this show....makes them look "stable" by comparrison.
 

Don't be a wuss.  Sometimes things have to be changed ... the thing that makes Hillary look a little sane is the Big Buffoon. 

This is a unique situation and has to be fought and responded to.  After we get rid of the TRumpster, it will be a good time for a long, hard look at the nomination process which is currently ridiculous.  It might lead to much needed reforms and better times.

[240B]

If any rule can be overruled by a judge, then all rules, every individual one, is brought into question.

The convention will then become nothing more than a series of lawsuits and appeals. It would be absurd in the extreme to attempt to litigate an ongoing election after the fact based on a result. Therefore, any changes could only be enforced in the next convention, not in the current one.

It is an interesting idea as a thinking exercise, but it is not practical and seems to be based more on an emotional reaction than it is a realistic plan which could actually happen. IMO

[Emjay]

A move to select a different nominee is not unprecedented.

And it has never been more needed.

The nomination process doesn't always select the best candidate.  Rick Perry would have been a much better candidate than Mitt Romney and probably would have won.

But Mitt Romney was a giant of a man compared to the low-life we might inflict on the American people.

[Emjay]

@WAC

What I don't "get" is what Cruz thinks he'll get out of this.  He's not going to win and he's not going to add to his diminished band of supporters.

It's really all starting to feel terribly petty and personal with Cruz.  I'm simply not liking that he's putting country second to his ego in the middle of an election we have to win.  I'm beginning to wonder if he's lost his mind.

Having said that, I'll log off for the night ... and return with my asbestos suit tomorrow   

Blaming Cruz?  A total symptom of Trump disease.  Cruz has done nothing negative toward Trump.  It would be
against all his principles to support Trump... a total betrayal of his character.  I hope he doesn't do it.

Blaming Cruz because 70% of people despise Trump is a pretty weak argument.

[Free Vulcan]

Abstaining is within the rules now. What I've heard is one of the goals is to have enough delegates on the floor to get a quorum, but not enough to push any candidate over the top on the first vote. This is pretty simple. Enough step out to go to the bathroom, abstain, happen to be off the floor, or elsewhere. That allows to push it to the second vote within the rules. Free the Delegates is a move to allow delegates to express their first amendment rights and select another candidate.

A third option being explored isn't through the rules committee but through the contest committee- petitioning to have a candidate disqualified due to legal or ethical malfeasance.

I would venture that organizing enough abstaining delegates is the most likely route if anything were to happen. I don't support the First Amendment claim and I doubt the courts will either. This is a nongovernmental organization.

[r9etb]

Abstaining is within the rules now. What I've heard is one of the goals is to have enough delegates on the floor to get a quorum, but not enough to push any candidate over the top on the first vote.

I'm not sure that it is, though -- various rules from state parties/state laws seem to constrain the delegates to actually casting their votes for whatever delegate.

[r9etb]

Such as?

One precedent is here: https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_of_U.S._v._Wisconsin_ex_rel._La_Follette.  The key provision (which refers also to a separate precedent) is here:

The issue is whether the State may compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the rules of the Party. And this issue was resolved, we believe, in Cousins v. Wigoda ... The Cousins Court relied upon the principle that '[t]he National Democratic Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association' ... This First Amendment freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State ... A political party's choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a State's delegation to the party's national convention is protected by the Constitution. And as is true of all expressions of First Amendment freedoms, the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational.

As it pertains to state laws in Virginia and elsewhere, the lawsuit seems to me to be a natural extension of this ruling. Party rules may compel delegates in various ways without Constitutional difficulty; but the point of the lawsuit is apparently to show that States may not compel a certain action within a political party. 

Having the law question out of the way, the question then boils down to a fight between the primacy of national vs. state party rules.  It seems to me that a national convention is precisely the place to decide such things.