Comments on: Hutto To Be Sworn In

By: DA Manos

DA Manos — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:26:13 +0000

Well, this buffoon is getting national attention now.

http://jonesonpolitics.com/2008/12/18/the-strange-and-bizarre-story-of-wallace-scarboroughs-fight-against-democracy/

Where is our GOV when we need him to protect our state?

By: Gen. Longstreet

Gen. Longstreet — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:47:34 +0000

Roger, my compliments, but with respect, the validity of elections is a compendium of law AND fact. For example, facts may show that one who voted did not live in the voting district; an application of the law to that fact then forms that basis of the decision on whether the vote was legally cast. This makes sense to me. At Gettysburg, the fact is that there was no way in hell our boys could break that Union line on Cemetary Ridge. Empirically could not be done. The “law” of military strategy dictates, then, that another approach was warranted; to wit: my suggestion that we swing my corps southerly around that Rocky Hill for a flanking attack. Bobby Lee ignore that “law” and we paid the price. It amazes me that, 145 year later, people in the South still revere Lee as a God, when he single-handledly lost the war for us. Oh sure, he was Honorable and a Gentleman, and I admittedly was a rough piece of work. But will History not set things straight. My apologies on the digression, sir.

By: Gen. Longstreet

Gen. Longstreet — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:40:15 +0000

And what about that popinjay Scarborough? What’s the pretty boy gonna due? Hell, a man who perfumes himself like Pickett ain’t gonna take this laying down (although rumor has it he’s taken more than that in the past whilst prone).

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:28:47 +0000

roger,

You are not missing rationale, you are missing the fox guarding the hen house. Our “oh so ethical, elections laws” send cases like this to the general assembly. It was by design so they could take care of each other. This is a clear explanation of what’s so strong (and wrong) about the power of an incumbent.

I suspect the republican dominated house judiciary will give Wally what he wants and that is a new election.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:05:58 +0000

It does cause some concern that any matter of law — and elections are a matter of law — would be interpreted by the body to which the appellants want to be elected. Perhaps there is some rationale that I am missing, but that would seem to be an inherent conflict. The courts should decide this, period. If someone can argue why that is not true, I would be interested to hear it.

By: Crooner

Crooner — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:46:34 +0000

Why do we bother to hold elections?

By: baker

baker — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:40:48 +0000

Interesting stuff….thanks, Will, for explaining the “three options” — I wasn’t sure on how that works.

By: just Wondern

just Wondern — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:33:48 +0000

Hey Wally, the voters have spoken. Get a grip man. The fact that some have moved out of the area and others may have passed on is of no importance. You are a prime arguement for term limits as you refuse to go away any other way.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:17:34 +0000

Wow, I guess he want’s it pretty bad, I wonder why?

By: Danny B

Danny B — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:39:02 +0000

How is it possible that our backwards, ethically challenged legislature is in charge of this? Seriously! Those guys are going to hear an appeal and analyze whether an “error of law” occurred? These are the same people who can’t understand the state budget they vote on every year, and who would sell their own mothers for a little bit of power. There is a reason that in this country we usually put qualified judges in charge of hearing appeals.