Hindrocket of Powerline, a lawyer who defends against class action cases (among other things), dislikes Judge Dlott -- Clinton appointee and, even more vile, wife to Stan Chesley, a plaintiffs' attorney who "made untold millions through class action lawsuits." Nevermind that I'm sympathetic to Hindrocket in the global sense -- I did some class action defense work early in my career, after all -- but come on. The envy is fairly dripping from this post. Work your crap out in private, man.
By the way, Hindrocket somehow failed to mention a substantively identical ruling by Judge John Adams of Akron. Judge Adams, too, is in favor of "a Constitutional right to commit [voter] fraud." (Hindrocket's turn of phrase.)
Oh, crap, Adams was nominated by George W. Bush. Ignore everything I just said. Judge Dlott is married to a class action plaintiffs' attorney ..... wooooooooooo .....
(And you wonder why respect for the law is at an all time low. Thanks, Hindrocket, for doin' your part!)
Stan Chesley actually is something of an ass, though.
Posted by: Dave M | November 01, 2004 at 06:59 PM
You know, I have never understood the disdain for lawyers. (But then, as a law school faculty brat, I wouldn't.) I always thought that just as in medicine there are unscrupulous plastic surgeons who make their living convincing ten year old girls to have nose jobs as well as surgeons who save people who would otherwise die, there are lawyers who give the profession a bad name as well as people who spend their lives making sure that people who get screwed over in some way actually get a voice, even if it means doing one boring case after another for next to nothing.
Silly me.
And may I say that whoever had the bright idea of trying to prevent people in Ohio from voting based on the fact that a registered letter sent to them was returned should be barred from politics, on grounds both of disdain for democracy and of stupidity. I mean: I wouldn't accept a registered letter from the Republican Party. (I get too much campaign literature as it is, and I live in completely non-swing Maryland, for crying out loud.) If I were then hauled before the election board and asked to prove my right to vote, just because I didn't want to accept their letter, I'd be furious. And the people I know who are on the ground in states where this has been tried report a real backlash against this stuff.
Posted by: hilzoy | November 01, 2004 at 07:01 PM
Uhh - I don't get a lot of registered letters, must be wasting my life - does the Post Office tell you that it's from the GOP? Does one's postman actually try to hand it to you?
Posted by: rilkefan | November 01, 2004 at 07:05 PM
The envy is fairly dripping from this post.
Was it the picture of the huge house that tipped you off?
Posted by: Phillip J. Birmingham | November 01, 2004 at 07:06 PM
Rilkefan,
It's been my experience that registered or certified mail when left with a slip from the USPS usually indicates who sent it.
As for "Hindrocket", I find it incredibly silly that grown men come up with nicknames for each other like that. Makes me wonder if they built a treehouse, too and are members of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club.
Posted by: Randy Paul | November 01, 2004 at 07:15 PM
I think you have to sign for them, and if you're not home, go to the Post Office. I would not have accepted it because I try to make life expensive for them as long as I can do so by legitimate means that I have not sought out an opportunity to use. (This is me being an ethicist again.) So whenever they send me fundraising letters, which happens surprisingly often (I have a large collection of 8X11 glossy pictures of George W. and Laura), I send them polite little notes asking to be taken off their mailing list in the prepaid envelope, and were they to send me a registered letter, I would decline it so that they had to pay the return postage.
Posted by: hilzoy | November 01, 2004 at 07:17 PM
When I woke this morning, according to my limited understanding of the Ohio statute, I thought Dlott was wrong on the merits, and had provided grounds for a challenge of the Ohio electors.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | November 01, 2004 at 07:18 PM
I send them polite little notes asking to be taken off their mailing list in the prepaid envelope..
This is also a good thing to do with those annoying subscription cards every magazine is full of. Don't fill them out, just drop them in the mail left blank (or left bank if you are in Paris). Or, as I think Calvin Trillin once suggested, write a little note commending the subscription department for their excellent work, but don't sign it.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 01, 2004 at 08:21 PM
What Bob said -- I was worried that the Ohio secretary of state's order banning challengers from the polling places could be intended as providing an opening for a challenge if the crazy-whackjob party loses Ohio.
Posted by: Jeremy Osner | November 01, 2004 at 10:10 PM
crazy-whackjob party
cute, but coloring outside the lines (at least here, I think).
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 01, 2004 at 10:46 PM
In Ohio the problem was in part that the republican party chose to put more challengers in predominantely black neighborhoods.
OOps.
We have laws concerning discrimination in place in this country.
Go Charter Committee of Cincinnati, the oldest - still viable - municipal party in the country, for having folks who will still fight unfairness when they see it.
Posted by: carsick | November 02, 2004 at 12:03 AM
Apparently the Circuit Court has overruled. Challengers are allowed. And frankly the intimidation charge strikes me as whiney. No guns, no threat of violence, no FBI list. Most people have received a far more intimidating gaze from their 3rd grade school teacher.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 02, 2004 at 11:09 AM
Sebastian, that comment strikes me as an example of privilege ignoring other people's historical reality.
Posted by: Doh | November 02, 2004 at 11:43 AM
Most people have received a far more intimidating gaze from their 3rd grade school teacher.
Which attitude (assuming you to be a typical Republican) is why the Republicans will wait a long time before they stop being seen as the party hostile to black voters. Because ultimately, at election time, Republicans (even you, and you're aware of the problem) appear to be ready to suppress the black vote rather than try to appeal to black voters.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 02, 2004 at 12:52 PM
Actually, I now wish to rephrase what I said at 12:52 PM. I do not think Sebastian wishes to suppress black voters, and I apologize for saying so.
I do think - indeed, Sebastian has just proved this point with his comment at 11:09 AM - that even decent Republicans like Sebastian are far too willing to ignore other, less decent Republicans who are intent on suppressing black voters: who are willing to reframe what these Republicans are doing in terms they find acceptable.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 02, 2004 at 12:55 PM
...that even decent Republicans like Sebastian are far too willing to ignore other, less decent Republicans who are intent on suppressing black voters: who are willing to reframe what these Republicans are doing in terms they find acceptable.
Accusations like the one above are totally unsupported by the known facts. The challenge mechanism in Ohio specifically calls out the precise grounds upon which a voter can be challenged and there are provisional ballots available so no votes will be lost. Throwing around unfounded accusations or innuendos serves no purpose and does harm to everyone. Unless and until such facts surface that show real intimidation occured, prudent people will refrain from throwing stones.
Posted by: Gedanken | November 03, 2004 at 03:28 AM
Gedanken: Throwing around unfounded accusations or innuendos serves no purpose and does harm to everyone.
Quite well-founded from the 2000 election, as we now know: we'll see what happened with the 2004 election.
But the fact is: Historically (and we're talking about the recent past) Republicans have used the power of challenge to deny African-Americans the vote.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 03, 2004 at 08:12 AM
You keep saying that, Jesurgislac, and you keep refusing to back it up. Can you blame people if the smell of bovine excrement is too strong to ignore?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 03, 2004 at 09:46 AM
Can you blame people if the smell of bovine excrement is too strong to ignore?
Well, he could, though I think cows would be getting off lightly, Slarti.
Posted by: James Casey | November 03, 2004 at 09:48 AM
But the fact is: Historically (and we're talking about the recent past) Republicans have used the power of challenge to deny African-Americans the vote.
I've heard of some accusations to this effect but I have not seen anything to indicate that it in fact happened. I've yet to hear anything other than anticipatory accusations in this election in Ohio.
There are certainly well documented cases of active voter suppression and fraud in the past but most of the cases I am aware of were actually perpetrated by local Democratic political machines (Texas during LBJ, Philadephia, Chicago). These are pretty old, however.
I haven't heard if or when the investigation into ACORN in FL will be completed or those guys in CO and OR.
Posted by: Gedanken | November 03, 2004 at 02:50 PM