PDA

View Full Version : Court tosses Gary Johnson’s lawsuit demanding Libertarians be in presidential debates




Suzanimal
08-05-2016, 10:40 AM
Neither the Libertarian nor Green parties are guaranteed a space in this year’s presidential debates, a federal court ruled Friday, dealing a blow to their candidates, who were counting on being able to get onto the stage in order to boost their long-shot bids.

District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the commission on presidential debates is a private entity, not a “public forum,” and neither Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson nor Green Party nominee Jill Stein can force their way into a debate.

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Green had argued that the Commission on Presidential Debates was essentially a government actor, performing an important role in American democracy, and so it should be subjected to public oversight — including by the courts.

But Judge Collyer said courts have been quite clear in finding that debates are a private action, and those sponsoring them are generally protected in making their own decisions.

“This court could not require defendants to include plaintiffs in the debates because such an order would violate the First Amendment prohibition on forced speech and forced association,” Judge Collyer found.

The commission, which has sponsored the debates since the League of Women Voters withdrew from that role in 1988, sets the rules in agreement with officials from both the GOP and the Democratic Party — something third-party candidates say amounts to illegal collusion,

....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/5/gary-johnsons-lawsuit-tossed-by-court/

phill4paul
08-05-2016, 10:44 AM
Too many candidates would make it confusing. They should really only allow one to debate themselves so our choices would be easier.

CaptUSA
08-05-2016, 10:52 AM
District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the commission on presidential debates is a private entity, not a “public forum,”

Gotta love how the State uses the free market as its own defense mechanism.

euphemia
08-05-2016, 10:58 AM
The best thing to do is to stop supporting major party politics at all and demand your state legislature stop funding the primary elections. They make the season longer, they suck up all the media time, and they try to quash involvement from other parties. Write, call, and visit your legislators until they change how things are being done.

Ender
08-05-2016, 11:01 AM
Gotta love how the State uses the free market as its own defense mechanism.

And the 1st Amendment- will be interesting to see how much that is supported in the next little while. ;)

dannno
08-05-2016, 11:04 AM
Gotta love how the State uses the free market as its own defense mechanism.

Wedding cake bakers = public forum

Public political debate = private entity

LibertyEagle
08-05-2016, 11:10 AM
I can't stand Johnson, but this ruling is bullshit. It would be easy for the FCC to make it a license requirement for at least the 3 major networks to each hold a presidential debate each time around.

CaptUSA
08-05-2016, 11:12 AM
Wedding cake bakers = public forum

Public political debate = private entity


Yep. EVERYTHING is public. You know... until it comes to something that could interfere with their political system. Then, they're all like "1st Amendment!!" this and "Private Property!!" that.

dean.engelhardt
08-05-2016, 11:37 AM
The best thing to do is to stop supporting major party politics at all and demand your state legislature stop funding the primary elections. They make the season longer, they suck up all the media time, and they try to quash involvement from other parties. Write, call, and visit your legislators until they change how things are being done.

This is a really, really good idea. I know the primaries cost tons of tax payer dollars.

Wooden Indian
08-05-2016, 11:48 AM
I'm sure most expected this and Johnson very likely knew it would in his gut. I'm still voting for him because he's the only 3rd party option in my state.

bunklocoempire
08-05-2016, 06:51 PM
Wedding cake bakers = public forum

Public political debate = private entity

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dannno again.

Takes me back to '08 and the form letters from my "public representatives" regarding the Federal Reserve and TARP.

Federal Reserve = private entity

Gary could gain all sorts of street cred and educate with some consistent view of public/private.

Judges also give liberty street cred -like gravity and an apple witness to gravity... lol

69360
08-05-2016, 07:41 PM
It was never going to succeed anyway. They had to at least try.

GunnyFreedom
08-05-2016, 08:02 PM
Wedding cake bakers = public forum

Public political debate = private entity

outta rep :( Orwellian even.

Brian4Liberty
08-06-2016, 02:45 PM
I'd really like to see how a court would rule if a major network held a debate and excluded the Democrat.

r3volution 3.0
08-06-2016, 03:51 PM
Yep. EVERYTHING is public. You know... until it comes to something that could interfere with their political system. Then, they're all like "1st Amendment!!" this and "Private Property!!" that.

Yea, it's actually the right decision, but very obviously made for the wrong reasons.

...hopefully it won't matter and Gary hits the polling threshold.

eleganz
08-11-2016, 06:01 PM
Anti-trust?