Kucinich is OUT of NV Dem Debate! Who does Harry Reid's Son Work For?

[KoKo]

Could this be ELECTION FRAUD? Or is it just "Politics as Usual"...nothing to see there...move along?
:shrug:

-------


Harry Reid's son goes with Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign ...
Harry Reid's son goes with Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign Hillary Clinton.
www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11026 - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

Hillary Hires Harry Reid's Son For Campaign | Sweetness & Light
While Reid Stays Out of ‘08 Fray, Sen. Clinton Signs His Son ... 14 Responses to “Hillary Hires Harry Reid’s Son For Campaign” ...
sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clinton-hires-harry-reids-son-for-campaign - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Campaign Emails: Harry Reid's Son Walking Door to Door For Hillary
Harry Reid's Son Walking Door to Door For Hillary ... all Nevadans are ready for change, and it's our job to show them Hillary Clinton is ready to lead. ...
campaignemails.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reids-son-walking-door-to-door.html - 178k - Cached -
Similar pages

Reid's son joins Clinton as a campaign adviser | Deseret News ...
Reid's son joins Clinton as a campaign adviser. Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Feb 20, 2007. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070220/ai_n18625683 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

The Chief Source: Harry Reid's Son Endorses Hillary
Meet Rory Reid. He's Harry Reid's son and a Clark County Commissioner in Nevada. ... Chairman Rory Reid has been named the Clinton Campaign's Nevada Chair ...
www.thechiefsource.com/2007/02/harry-reids-son-endorses-hillary.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

"Sen. Reid a no comment on caucus lawsuit (UPDATED)" by Politics ...
Harry Reid declined to comment on a lawsuit brought to eliminate the at-large ... Reid's son, Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid, is Clinton's state ...
www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/12/sen-reid-no-comment-caucus-lawsuit/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Las Vegas Gleaner: Harry Reid: The quarter-million-dollar pundit
That neutrality was underscored of course early in the proceedings when Reid's son, Rory, was named the Nevada chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. ...
www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2007/08/harry-reid-the-.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

[The Magistrate]

1. No, Ma'am, Not By The Most Extreme Racking The Definition Of The Term Could Be Subjected To

[KoKo]

2. It's a bit extreme but we are in an ELECTION SEASON...the Reid Connection

warrents a second look. How is it that GE can CONVENE Nevada SUPREMES in an EMERGENCY PETITION?

Huh? :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

3. What 'Reid Connection', Ma'am?

Courts generally respond to emergency petitions for relief when there is a clear dead-line looming, and real grounds for appeal of a decision. Both those elements were present.

[KoKo]

4. If you are truly a "Magistrate" wouldn't you know a Judge Ruled that Kucinich could be in the

hokey GE Debate and GE immediately did an "Emergency Petition" to the Nevada Supremes to over-rule the Nevada Judge's Decision?

The Nevada "Supremes" seem to work faster than my NC Supremes to respond to over-rule a State Judge's Decision.

Supremes of the States and the US...are known for taking a long time...to make decisions...except in the case of an EMERGENCY by the "Powers that BE." Think back to "Bush vs. Gore" and 2000.

On Edit: You are aware that MSNBC INVITED Kucinich to the Debate then re-wrote the rules to disinvite him...and that's the crux of the matter... How speedily the courts work when there's something pushed through FAST...by the "special interests." It's truly amazing how fast they can convene.

[The Magistrate]

6. The State Supreme Court, Ma'am, Ruled Correctly

That the district judge exceeded his jurisdiction. He was attempting to enforce an F.C.C. regulation, which he has no authority to do, and claimed his jurisdiction owed to the existence of a contract between N.B.C. and Rep. Kucinich, when in fact no such thing did exist, under basic principles of contract law.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Sorry, you got this wrong.

I practiced appellate law for about 17 years, and before that I was a law clerk for a state Supreme Court justice, so I think I know whereof I speak. Emergency petitions are pretty common, and higher courts will rule on them immediately because they have to. Of course they convened immediately; the lower court granted a temporary restraining order, and the appeal had to take place right away or there would be no remedy at all. And the "little people" can get immediate remedies, too. I saw it happen on a regular basis. It's just that in this case the lower court was wrong on the law in granting the TRO in the first place.

[KoKo]

9. In what cases are such "Emergency Requests" honored though? Life and Death

...matters of Law Enforcement? Or, whether a Candidate for US ELECTION should be able to appear on what is Billed and Promoted as a DEMOCRATIC DEBATE?

I can see loopholes...that a very conniving legal theorists could maybe make this case for the Bush FCC that GE has a right to INVITE whomever they want to into their OWN PAID FOR DEBATE...but I would quibble with them billing it as the DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN NEVADA. Some Legal Hounds migh postulate that the law needs to be clarified...on GE's Rights as a Sponsor and Owner of the Debate and who they can re-write rules to disallow after they've told the person they were invited...and it would take skillful trial layers and years to parse the individual rights and the language of the legal suits.

BUT...the fact is GE IS VERY AFRAID OF KUCINICH...to keep him out...to invite and disinvite...and one could certainly see something "Partisan" and Election Tampering in this.

Plus there's Harry Reid's Son and that we no longer live in a land of LAWS...but a LAND OF INFLUENCE PREVAILS...Just Check out what's going on in Wall St. these days and go back to Enron and BCCI...to refresh the "influence peddling" where "legal parsing" is a way to keep the smallest and most defenseless of us "in check," by the powerful Legal Parsers...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Sometimes the law doesn't support the results we would prefer.

The court was correct on the law. I don't know why NBC didn't want Kucinich in the debate, but the fact that they were buttholes about the whole thing doesn't change the reality that Kucinich didn't have an enforceable contract that required them to let him appear. To have a contract you have to have an offer, an acceptance of the offer, and an exchange of consideration (that is, a promise to pay or some other legal detriment). NBC was not required to let him debate even though they invited him in the first place because there was no consideration and therefore no contract. This is first-year law school stuff and I'm surprised the trial judge bought it. Your beef is with NBC, not the court. The fact is that we have to rely on consistent application of the law; we can't ignore the rules just because we want a particular result.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I don't agree with the result, but the court's decision was legally solid.

The culprit here was the network, not the Nevada Supreme Court; I see no reason to suspect political skullduggery of any kind. MSNBC shouldn't have disinvited Kucinich, but they had no contractual obligation to include him and he had no private right of action in that court under federal law. That's why the court granted the mandamus petition. I don't see how it could have come out any other way, legally -- his lawyers presented pretty weak arguments.

Not everything is evidence of an evil conspiracy. But MSNBC still deserves a good ass-kicking for kicking him out of the debate.

[The Magistrate]

7. Exactly, Ma'am

The network should have stuck by their earlier invitation, but were under no legal obligation to do so.

[KoKo]

10. Letter of the Law...vs...Spirit of the Law...and "Emergency Tactics" when loss of life

is not imminent...because a Corporate Interest has the correct phone numbers.

Yes...it might be the way it is...but you could find other "legal experts" who could find interesting avenues of exploration ...if one was looking to defend Kucinich's rights.

Letter or Spirt. Corporation Law...vs Rights of Individual...vs. NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY...which the original Judge understood.

Law is always open to interpretation.

[The Magistrate]

11. Not Really, Ma'am

The gentleman does not have a legal leg to stand on in a state court.

The original judge was show-boating, not following the law as he is charged to do by his office.

[KoKo]

13. The original judge was "Show Boating?

Okay...if you say so... He must really be a crap judge...wonder why he hasn't been impeached by the Nevada Citizens. If he "Showboated" on this one...how many folks has he "Showboated on" that are now serving sentences that Nevada Supreme Court needs to do some "Emergency Action" on.? HUH...

Nevermind...whatever you say Mr. Magistrate is the LAW...Even if there are others who can always contest..views of the law from other sides...digging finer points that I'm certainly not equipped to handle.

I'm done with you...whatever.. Whatever you say...and other DU'ers say is the absolute Law...But, Harry Reid's SON...is certainly interesting thrown into the mix... and it's NEVADA! Showboating Judge......

[onenote]

16. "law is always open to interpretation" ... not so

There are three legal points addressed in the Nevada supreme court's decision. The first is the lower court's jurisdiction to consider a claim brought under section 315 of the federal Communications Act. It is well-settled beyond any doubt that the FCC has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this provision of the Communications Act and that the states and their courts are preempted, as a matter of constitutional law, from addressing them. That is not a point that is open to interpretation. Even DK recognized it when he brought his claim regarding the NH debate to the FCC. He lost there, knew that he would lose their again, so he tried something different, but it was something guaranteed to lose. Maybe he figured he'd at least score some new points losing a different way.

As for the second element, the contract claim, the facts on this were never very clearly reported beyond the statement that an invitation had been issued and accepted. Well, that isn't enough to create a contract or every time someone decided to have a party they could be sued if they called up the person and told them not to come. You need an exchange of consideration to create an enforceable contract -- something that is taught in the first year of law school. Apparently even DK's attorneys realized they had a loser on this point, and tried to raise something new in the nevada supreme court. But that's another well-settled point -- you can't get appellate review of something you didn't raise in the lower court.

Finally, there is the lower court's threatened injuction against the debate going forward. Again, its well-settled that prior restraints that block speech (as opposed to remedies issued after the speech in question goes forward) are unconstitutional.

If someone would like to have a serious discussion of these legal arguments, I'm more than happy to participate, but so far all I've seen is yelling about conspiracies, and name calling, no serious legal analysis that would suggest that the Nevada Supreme Court's legal reasoning was off by even a comma.

[onenote]

14. exactly right. couldn't have said it better myself

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Does Harry Reid's son serve on the Nevada Supreme Court?

Here's a hint: http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/about/justices/