This is how I interpret it too. They have some sort of book that says the declaration has to be in the letter, but the actual law says no such thing.
2 Likes
I get that, Allie, and thatâs why I tried to carve out an exception for the Supremes. In fact, one of the Courtâs problems is that itâs so predictable as to be laughable.
And I get that Conservatives and Progressives have different philosophies. But, where does that get you with interpreting the statute at issue here? Is a strict interpretation conservative or progressive? I think the danger is in the assumption that the judges appointed by a Democratic governor will vote one way, and the judges appointed by a Repub the other. Thatâs the part I have a problem with, and to the extent itâs true thatâs really a shame.
From the film âThunderheartâ
Val Kilmer: âAlways get tape, Kootch!..Thanks!!â
What a pious pissant.
Looks like heâs practicing broad mental reservation.
I know it is bad to make assumptions, but Iâm definitely assuming that this guy is a lying sack of offal. ââŚdid not recallâ is the key phrase in my assessment of his lie.
2 Likes
Now where have I heard that excuse before?
3 Likes
Well, it helps to look at the statute:
K.S.A. 25-306b
(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such personâs name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.
A conservative judge is likely to say that the words âincapable of fulfilling the duties of office if electedâ appear in the law so they must appear in the written request. A liberal judge is likely to rule that while the words appear in the law there is no requirement that they appear in the written request.
It would also be helpful to see what Taylor wrote, but we havenât so far.
3 Likes
no reason for this lacky to lie, now is there. . . .
Ha Ha hahahahahahah ROTFLMAO
2 Likes
Interpretation of the statute is exactly the point. If a statute says (and this is an oldie but goodie from a law professor) no motor vehicles in the park, does that mean no ambulances? What exactly does that mean? Scalia will tell you that it means NO MOTOR VEHICLES in the park because thatâs exactly what it says. Liberal constructionists will tell you that the drafters of that law could have never meant that Joe Donuts has to die of a heart attack because the ambulance isnât allowed to enter the park. In this situation it will come down to whether the explicit statement that he could not fulfill his duties has to be in the letter or not. This could go either way. Having read the statute, I donât think the actual statement has to be in there, but it could just as easily go the other way.
This is the most bizzare affidavit (I am a lawyer). Affidavits are supposed to state facts - this affidavit includes more of what Bradley Bryant was thinking in his own head versus what actually happened. âI could read his mind and determined that despite what he was asking me, he really, really didnât want to withdraw and therefore did not want the letter to satisfy the requirements of the statute. And, even though we had long discussed this issue in our office, over and over again, that this language was required, and I knew that, when asked whether the letter included everything, I did not tell him because I knew in his heart he did not really want the answer.â And, I am not partisan he says.
6 Likes
Thanks, Frankly. Exactly.
Sorry but what kind of person working in a professional office merely shrugs and grunts without offering any sort of verbal clarifications? And what specific kind of gesture did he do to indicate uncertainty? The statements quoted in the article really stretch the boundaries of credulity.
5 Likes
Further proof that Republicans do not want a level playing field. They will do anything to confuse likely democratic voters or otherwise disenfranchise them.
5 Likes
HmmmmâŚwhy do I think kobachâs deputy is lying?
Oh, I know why! Because thatâs what they do! LIE! Or, cheat!
2 Likes
The statute does not expressly require the declaration to be part of the letter.
Also, the way the statute is worded, you can declare but you still have to request (which suggests the request can be turned down).
It would be relevant to know whether the office has previously enforced this requirement of a âdeclaration.â
According to this guy, they havenât had an instance of this pop up. Last withdraw was sometime in 1997.
The ârequestâ by letter causes it. The legal assumption is that if he met all the statutory requirements, it has to be withdrawn. Kobach canât apply that willy nilly and accept and reject on merry whim. If a letter is sent as a request, it has to be granted within the confines of the law. The question is whether the declaration had to be in there or if the âdeclarationâ is actually inferred by submission of the letter.
1 Like
Dishonesty among Republicans is par for the course.
2 Likes
I donât see a liberal judge deciding how you say he/she would be deciding. Perhaps a more liberal judge would allow for a more expansive interpretation. But to say that Taylor need not give any reason for withdrawing in the letter, would seem to be against both the words and the intention of the statute.
Whether or not the word âincapableâ is used in the withdrawal letter, the obvious intent of the statute is to demand a greater justification for withdrawing then a simple change of heart. The statute demands a âcan notâ reason, not simply a âwant notâ one.
For a liberal judge to allow Taylor off the ballot simply on request is substantively different from what the statute seeks. I do not believe that any good judge, liberal or conservative, would allow this, unless they conclude that the âcan notâ requirement of the law is unconstitutional.
I do not believe that Taylor is going to win the court case.
Dollars to doughnuts Bryant was told heâd lose his job if he didnât toe Kobachâs line on this.
Everything and everyone in Kobachâs orbit is immediately suspect because Kobach is such a lying little shitweasel.
2 Likes