but picking up KY is a stretch, now isn’t it, PKY?
1 Like
So is holding AR and AK.
2 Likes
Fuck these hacks. How do we get them out of office?
3 Likes
So am I supposed to think of Kris Kobach as a latter day Wyatt Earp who was Marshall in both towns in his career?
1 Like
Simple. Vote for whoever is running against the guy you don’t like and then hope a majority of local voters are on your side. failing that there’s always the 2nd amendment option.
“I think it is likely the Justices will quickly issue an order removing Taylor’s name from the ballot.”
… which will then be ignore by Kobach as he attempts to run out the clock.
“I think it is likely the Justices will quickly issue an order removing Taylor’s name from the ballot.”
Good.
It’s the conservative way!
I don’t really know that taking Taylor’s name off the ballot helps Democrats. If he’s on, he can campaign to tell people not to vote for him. Democrats can contribute to the race. He can become the face of common sense, setting himself up for the next run at something.
This way, the only way Democrats can contribute to the race is to give money to a guy who might wind up going Republican anyway.
Might as well. Makes as much sense as anything else. Anyway, you don’t have to think of Kris Kobach as Wyatt Earp as long as he does.
1 Like
Bless his heart. Kobach is not the most intelligent man but he tries so hard. Bless his heart.
2 Likes
It’s not as big of a stretch as you may think. Think positively…every little bit helps.
“It seems pretty loosey goosey. What are we to do with that?” Justice Dan Biles said to Kobach’s lawyer Ed Greim. “It seems like the legislature put some requirements in the statute, and you guys are deciding whether you want comply or not on an ad hoc basis almost.”
Nice to see that the court recognizes this.
6 Likes
That was much shorter than usual. Did you hurt your typing finger?
1 Like
Doesn’t it sound like Greim is arguing on behalf of Taylor rather than Kobach? “He has discretion to say whether someone has declared that they are incapable or not.” Wouldn’t you want to say that your client’s duties included insuring that people complied with the full letter of the law? Kobach’s argument boils down to Taylor having filed the forms, but not completely. By any reasonable standard Taylor fulfilled his requirements, but for a little piece of jargon of debatable importance. If Kobach has the discretion to decide whether petitioners are in substantial compliance, and Kobach isn’t a partisan tool, nobody would be here today.
5 Likes
“Spendism in the pursuit of opportunity is no vice.”
Of course it may not happen, but what I read here leads me to believe the court will order the candidate’s name off the ballot.
If the letter - which has never been released, has it? - actually says “pursuant to” (which it seems it did, per Taylor’s lawyer) or “in accordance with” or some other term that indicates compliance with the specific relevant statute, that would cover a pretty wide swath of legal territory.
It’s fairly standard practice to explain a response or action to be in compliance with a law without actually spelling out every particular requirement of the noted statute.
That Kobach’s office has accepted and removed names from ballots in response to other letters with similar language or even less adherence to the letter of the law (improper notarization) would seem the icing on the cake for the court to justify ordering the candidate’s name stricken from the ballot.
We shall see, of course; but this sounds promising.
4 Likes
You’d think that they’d discuss the statute too – like, does it require that someone just say they’re incapable, or actually be incapable? It sounds like Taylor wouldn’t be telling the truth if he said he was incapable, but that the law doesn’t care. In which case it’s stupid that Kobach would follow the letter of the law regarding the missing declaration.
1 Like
Mirabile dictu!!
1 Like
Kris Kobach: 2014’s Katherine Harris.
4 Likes