Winning! Michigan Court of Appeals Removes RFK Jr. From Ballot
Judge Yates said it wasn’t a game, but the Appeals Court decided to play ball anyway.
More winning for Team Trump and RFK Jr. on Friday. The Michigan Court of Appeals has granted RFK Jr.’s request to remove his name from the state’s November ballot.
The opinion: “While the request was made close to the deadline for the defendant to give notice of candidates to local election officials, it was not made so late that laches should apply,”
This ruling contrasts with an earlier decision in which Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates said, “Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State (SOS) is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office.”
For your information, the North Carolina Court of Appeals also removed him from the North Carolina ballot today. He was removed from Georgia on Friday.
NEW: Michigan Court of Appeals panel grants RFK Jr.'s request to remove his name from the Michigan ballot pic.twitter.com/WHFDweHIS4
— Jonathan Oosting (@jonathanoosting) September 6, 2024
🚨BREAKING: Michigan Appeals Court just ordered that RFK Jr's name be taken off the ballot in the state.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson refused to take his name off, which came after attempting to remove Cornel West.
She has once against lost in court. pic.twitter.com/SDbfg5R3QM
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 6, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The word is out…Kamala and her ilk have been thrown to the wolves.
It sure is a strange way to signal defeat in the face of a yuge victory.
The appeals court should have also told the lower court to save their histrionic platitudes for their children and grandchildren.
Strange. Milhouse opined that denying RFK’s removal was legal, within the statutory law, because the SOS had discretion to decide (i.e., a political decision). Apparently, as I stated, WHO the judge is matters more.
Odd wasn’t it. How could the appeals court get this so wrong when Justice Millhouse had w few delivered his opinion on this matter?!? 🤷♂️😂
Very cool retort
He is firmly convinced of his opinion even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I take my hat off to Justice Millhouse’s commitment to being wrong 😂
The Fake Jurist is conspicuously absent from this thread.
What you are saying and what Milhouse apparently said are not in any way contradictory.
Well, we’ll see what the state supreme court decides, won’t we?
In the meantime it’s odd that I can’t seem to find a link to the appeals court’s decision anywhere.
And if it comes down to accusing judges of bias, why would you accuse the lower court rather than this appeals court panel that seems to be composed of Republican judges? What makes one more likely than the other?
The silly platitude the lower court wrote is a giant tell.
Ah, yes, they it will depend on the judge, which is what I said to begin with. It’s a simple anaylsis – a statute is passed with legsilative intent. It should clearly state 1) he can be removed or 2) he cannot be removed. What is the intent of the statute – to keep people on that clearly don’t want to run? To force people to clutter a ballot? To prevent costly ballo reprinting? Then, the SOS claims “discretion.” This is either assumed in the statute or created by judical interpretation. So if the SOS claims that he hands are tied, and she can’t remove him, then it is not a politcal decision – she is simply carrying out her executive function in accordance with the law. But if she claims a discretion tht isn’t there, then she isn’t bound by the law, she’s following her whim. And when she makes a decision to benefit her political allies, and a different one to punish her enemies, then it isn’t law anymore – its politics. So to robustly say she has every right int he world to “legally” do this as if it is conclusive isn’t true – it will ultimately depend on the reviewing judge(s). AS I SAID. And the judge should defer to legislative intent, ya know, the clear understanding of the law when passed that is applicable to all, and not make yet another political decision to find wiggle room. I don’t care WHAT the rule ultimately is – RFK is either permitted to pull out or he isn’t. But if it bends and sways with the SOS party affiliation, it is a denial of equal protection and application of law, a political whim, and should be rightly slammed for the power grab it is. Not defended by being propped up as permissible, while its defenders smugly fail to acknowledge the other sides of the legal dispute.
To be clear, people are p!$$ed at the games. Courts have been playing them for too long, and its getting obvious.
It doesn’t matter what you think the statute should clearly say. The fact (at least as I gather from news reports, without having read it myself) is that it clearly says congressional candidates can’t be removed, but doesn’t say anything about presidential candidates.
As I understand it the Secretary of State’s position is that the same rule applies to presidential candidates. But the lower court judge didn’t say that. What he said was that there’s no law requiring the SoS to remove him. So it looks like he accepted Kennedy’s argument that the statute doesn’t explicitly forbid his removal, but pointed out that the burden on the plaintiff is to prove not only that the SoS can remove him but also that she must. If he can’t prove that, then the court can’t order her to do it. Thus it’s up to her discretion, and she’s completely free to make that decision on political grounds, to help her party.
Now the appeals court seems to have found that she does have a duty to remove him, but I can’t find any link to the decision, or any explanation of its reasoning. Where in the statute did they find such a duty? I don’t know, and it appears that neither does anyone else, here or at any news site.
So we’ll just have to see what the supreme court says. In the meantime if someone can find a link to the appeals court decision I’d like to read it so at least I can form an opinion on whether they had reasonable grounds or were just being Republican partisans.
“Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State (SOS) is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office.”
She says this while making a move in the game.
PREDICTION — Kennedy will still be on millions of Michigan ballots.
“Gee, the ballots were already printed and we didn’t want to waste taxpeyer money.”
That out of control Sec of State in Michigan needs to be impeached.
Impeached by whom?
Also, on what grounds? Which law requires her to remove a name from the ballot just because the candidate wants her to?
But even if there were grounds, who do you think could impeach her for them? Both houses of the legislature have D majorities, which agree with her, so why would they impeach her?
We probably also shouldn’t honor the whims of various judges
Michigan is still lost.
sos, ag and gov are all wicked bwitch democrats as is the house and senate full of the dictating dems.
Republican party is in shambles, the senate race brought in rino mike rogers versus Goodyear size blimp elissa slUtkin, formerly lying in the service of the See-I-Effin A and ran in a race where the district lines were redrawn in her favor. Such luck.
She spouts out about being an ANALyst for the corrupt cia, but when the facts proved the russia, russia, russia hoax to be false as heck, she still voted to impeach President Donald J Trump.
So whatever you do, try not to throw a ham sandwich down a narrow hall and be standing in front of her or you will be run over with ensuing great bodily damage.
I am not ready to throw the towel in yet on Michigan. If the Muslims and Palestinians living in “Dearborn on the Gaza Strip,” don’t vote Harri loses the State.
The only relevant question is whether Benson has a duty to remove people’s names just because they want them removed. Can anyone point to the place in the law where it says she has such a duty?
“Legislature made clear its intention in § 686a to restrict the ability of candidates seeking state offices to withdraw, but it did not likewise restrict the ability of candidates for the office of President of the United States in § 686. And without that restriction, defendant had no basis to deny plaintiff’s request to withdraw his name from the ballot.”
Following the request to withdraw is a ministerial task, there is absolutely no valid reason to deny what the Legslature did not deny. It is also possible up to the deadline, hence mandamus is possible, appropriate, and was granted by the Court of Appeals, where the lower Court wrongfully tried to play politics.
But what is the basis for that conclusion that she has such a duty? Where in the statute is it to be found, or did this panel just make it up?
Opinion: ( https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a537c/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20240906_c372349_28_372349.opn.pdf )
Canon of interpretation suggests that words matter, so the legislature expressly prohibiting it for state office candidates, and not for federal candidates must mean there is a difference intended.