Serious question

[jillian]

you are the stupid one
and YES you can challenge anywhere you see fit


and they SHOULD have done it sooner

actually, the judge seemed to imply that the law under which the challenge was made, which allows people to vote after a move EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION, makes such a challenge specious.

 

[del]

From my reading, the judge didn't really say that either. He told them they'd better come into court and justify the challenges so he can determine if a permanent injunction is appropriate. Apparently, he didn't think there would be irreparable harm if a temporary injunction wasn't granted.

larkinn's position is that they can't challenge anywhere they want. i see nothing in the statute or the judge's ruling that says that.

eaton resigned, BTW; i don't think he's got much of a future in montana GOP politics.
that judge took his hide off, as well he should have. funny how no one's mentioned that the judge is republican. go figure.

 

[Larkinn]

no, he didn't
http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf

because it isn't
13-13-301. Challenges.

Your right that he didn't, but you have no idea whether it is or is not. They are challenging that under the 14th amendment. The judge didn't decide on that, rather he referred them to state court, it looks like.

 

[DiveCon]

no, he didn't
http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf

because it isn't
13-13-301. Challenges.

proof once again, Larkin doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about
since the judge denied the claim of the democrats

 

[Larkinn]

actually, the judge seemed to imply that the law under which the challenge was made, which allows people to vote after a move EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION, makes such a challenge specious.

He did. Which would have been my point if I could have found the damn opinion. Do you know how long Lexis takes to get stuff like this up usually? Damn slow bastards.

 

[Larkinn]

proof once again, Larkin doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about
since the judge denied the claim of the democrats

Haha, is your claim that the judge sided with the Republicans?

 

[DiveCon]

Haha, is your claim that the judge sided with the Republicans?

he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes

 

[Larkinn]

he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes

He denied the temporary restraining order, because it was unecessary. Despite that, he included lots of dicta basically calling what the Republicans were doing, illegal, idiotic, and blatantly Partisan.

 

[del]

He did. Which would have been my point if I could have found the damn opinion. Do you know how long Lexis takes to get stuff like this up usually? Damn slow bastards.

it's a poor workman that blames his tools.
you may want to write that down.

 

[Larkinn]

he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes

While "siding with the Republicans" he also accused them of perjury.

In light of the statute cited above, it appears that some of
the sworn affidavits Eaton filed (the exemplars Plaintiffs
submitted as exhibits) falsely assert that electors are not
qualified to vote under state law.

 

[del]

he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes

not even close, dude.

from reading the order, i think he wanted to reach down from the bench and dope slap the GOP director.....HARD.

 

[jillian]

he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes

he denied a TRO... but he did say all the things that Larkinn says.

So no, he didn't come close to siding with the GOP.