Conservapedia talk:Recall attempt on Kent Conrad

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

My favourite line...[edit]

"Justice Crothers (???) all due respect, this letter from George Washington, to his nephew, is heartfelt, and there's nothing, uh, contrary to it"
Who gives a fuck what Washington said to his nephew. Obviously to Andy who uses dinner conversations as encyclopedia footnotes its an important piece of evidence. i9 03:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda partial to one of the Justices asking Andy "is that a threat?"--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah just read that bit and had a laugh. Cheers for the transcript! i9 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you indeed for all the hard work! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fave Schlaflyism the Sports Analogizer so far: "Well, it's possible the people would not have accepted it if that were the understanding, and the tie should go, you know, as in baseball the tie goes to the runner. Here, a tie/ambiguity should go in favor of the power of the people." What fucking "tie" is he talking about??? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revise my earlier opinion. My new favorite line is where Andy says that the language of the North Dakota Constitution is so artful that if it is found unconstitutional under the US Constitution, it does not need to be changed. In other words, its ambiguity is so perfectly constructed that, Heisenberg-like, it simultaneously supports mutually contradictory interpretations: that a US congressman can/can not be recalled. While from the other side of his mouth he states that the plain language of the text is clear and has no such ambiguity.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--Leotardo (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My favorite exchange[edit]

JUSTICE???: BUT MASON'S COMMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE CRUCIAL VIRGINIA DEBATES ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Well, Your Honor, I believe the Virginia debates were late in the game, too, though, and, if we're gonna...
JUSTICE???: THERE WEREN'T NINE STATES.
There weren't nine states yet, OK, but if we want to stack that against George Washington's letter, I will say Washington's letter takes priority. And I would also just..

Bah ha haha - that's so funny. The Justice is like, "There were debates by the people" and Schlafly is all,"but...it's George Washington and it's heartfelt!" This is priceless, although the ND judges are being kinder to him than Jersey's. --Leotardo (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor whine[edit]

It would be a lot of work, but can we change the justice's quotes to itals, or another color? Allcaps is really irritating to read. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The indenting is good, now shall we work on translating out of allcaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Very nice job and a tip of the hat to ListenerX for reformatting all the Justices comments! Thank you! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's goal: the Supreme Court[edit]

But to get there he has a big hurdle: most of the ratification debates where the issue was addressed it was pretty explicit. But the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the issue, even though it's highly unlikely they would allow recall. To a degree that most, if not all, state attorneys general won't certify it as Constitutional--and thus not valid. That's why Schalfly keeps ending up in front of supreme courts: he wants them to say they can have the petition. But not just that - he thinks they should be able to go all the way to recall before the Constitutional issue is even addressed. Here's what Andy wants (if you didn't want to read it all):

JUSTICE: SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD LET THE PETITIONER GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF GATHERING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SIGNATURES AND THEN MAKE THE DECLARATION WHETHER ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE TO DO WHAT'S TRYING TO BE DONE?
Your Honor, I would go one step further, and have the special election, and then, only if the senator loses the special election, is the question of the constitutionality before the court. The senator may win the special election, at which point this all becomes an advisory opinion.

And here's what he really wants, and why he is going around arguing these state to state (to increase his chances he'll win somewhere):

JUSTICE???: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT ULTIMATELY THIS QUESTION WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE US SUPREME COURT, AS THE FINAL WORD?
Yes, Chief Justice, and it has to be after the issue has ripened. After there has been a recall election. And I don't think the sovereign power of the people of North Dakota should be taken away on such a flimsy basis.

If he gets in front of SCOTUS his ego would be insufferable. Legally, it's kind of a crap issue, but that letter from Washington to his nephew he thinks is a game-changer against all the other history that says 'no recall of federal officials'. Since he's a tea partier and well-connected in the wingnut world, I'm sure he has the ability to get recall efforts in any state. He's hoping for that shot to stand in front of the Supreme Court. And maybe then Mother will be proud. --Leotardo (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or even more embarrassed, given how poorly he presents in Court... the guy is barely literate... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He's gonna need more than stammering "..but...but...the letter to Washington's nephew..." if he expects to get anywhere, and that really seems to be the crux of his argument. It really stuck out that he'd make such an aggressive political argument:
So the people of that district are deprived representation while their Congressman is sitting in jail. Now if I could give you another examples, with all the , uh, aggressive campaigning we have now, suppose a candidate for Senate makes representations to the people, in order to be elected, and he's elected based on his representations. Suppose, to take the example of Bart Stupak, he represents that he's pro-life, and he's elected on that basis. And then, two weeks after he's sworn in, he says 'no, I'm sorry, I lied, I changed my mind.' Are the people stuck with him for six years, they can't do anything about that?
At first I thought that unwise, until you realize that North Dakota's supreme court is all Republican. The Chief Justice, Gerald VandeWalle, was appointed by a deeply religious, pro-life Democratic politician, Art Link. Justice Sandstrom is a Republican party politician; Justices Kapsner and Maring were appointed by Governor Ed Schafer, who was Secretary of Agriculture under G.W. Bush; and Justice Crothers was appointed by another Republican governor, John Hoeven. Since Andy's argument is pretty crappy, he's playing the cynical bet that the justices will put politics above substance. And maybe they will; they do, after all, have to get elected after their initial appointments. --Leotardo (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
While I'm maybe giving him more credit that he's due, it's kind of a clever approach. It's like a geometic distribution, he just has to go from state, to state, to state - and eventually find one to give in. Then they go ahead with the election, and he's a hero of the tea party - and if it's ruled unconstitutional, it throws more petrol on the tea party bonfire. Dalek (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications[edit]

Excuse my ignorance of US law, but I was under the impression that if you passed the NJ bar exam, you could only practice as a lawyer in NJ - if you moved to CA, you'd have to sit their bar exam to practice? Is that right? How can Andy appear before the NDSC then? or is this a non-question, cos I've got it wrong? --PsyGremlin講話 10:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm not sure, but it's possible that because he has a North Dakota-qualified co-counsel (Jeffrey Sheets) he is allowed to appear. Some states permit lawyers who have practiced a certain number of years (usually five) in another state to waive the bar exam requirement. --Leotardo (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bismarck Tribune[edit]

Big Head Andy--just look at the pic! His head is waay too big for his bony little body--is trumpeting his appearance in the Bismarck Tribune. This is how they frame the arguments:

Jaeger rejected the petition based on advice from Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem who later explained in an opinion that recall of a U.S. senator was unconstitutional in both the state and federal constitutions.
RecallND and their attorney Andrew Schlafly disagree with that, but Schlafly said it’s too premature for that question to be considered as it is not the job of the secretary of state to reject recall petitions based on their legality but rather whether they follow the proper form.

This is what Andy is arguing: If RecallND was instead BaptistND, and they presented a petition to the ND SOS and ND Attorney General to establish the Baptist Church as the Official State Church of North Dakota, they only have the responsibility to determine if the right forms were filled out, signatures gathered, etc for the petition to be put on the ballot. So even though establishing a state church is blatantly unconstitutional, Andy is arguing that the Secretary of State has no role in determining its validity, and that would only be decided if the state church initiative passed and it was sent to the courts.

His argument rests on this idea, except with recall. Law is meant to bring about efficient and just outcomes. The idea that a court would say, "Yeah, sure, waste all the money and man hours to put on the ballot something that we all know can't happen." No state would find that an acceptable way to conduct ballot initiatives. --Leotardo (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never realised that Andy is so scrawny. Needs to work on his ma-cheese-mo a bit there. The Asian ladies like a bit of meet on their round-eye foreign devils. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Too bad he couldn't get a better fitting suit. I suppose when you have shoulders like curtain rods there's only so much a tailor can do... --Leotardo (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From the side, Schlafly sorta looks like Richard Belzer, who plays Detective John Munch from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. AP (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaders again[edit]

Anyone else find it funny how he made a big deal about how North Dakota were leaders when it came to recalls just the same as how he made a big deal about how New Jersey were leaders? Anyone else get the feeling any state would be leaders if he were arguing for the recall on behalf of the tea party movement? I'm not saying this is unique to Andy of course, it's something many people do and I expect is common for lawyers when arguing cases but still I found it fairly funny. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)