Kucinich Asks for Supreme Court Review of Texas Case
By Robert Barnes
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich yesterday asked the Supreme Court to prohibit the Texas Democratic Party from keeping him off the March 4th primary ballot because he refused to sign a loyalty oath.
Kucinich, supported by singer Willie Nelson, objected to a requirement from the Texas Democratic Party that says a candidate must agree to "fully support the Democratic nominee for president, whoever that shall be." Kucinich said that was an infringement on his First Amendment rights, and crossed out the oath while filing as a candidate. The party then refused to list him on the ballot.
Kucinich has not had much luck in the lower courts. A federal judge in Austin last week said the party has the right to require the oath, and yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to intervene.
Texas says it needs to start printing absentee ballots on Saturday.
According to the court's rules, emergency applications from the Fifth Circuit are assigned to Justice Antonin Scalia, who can either act on his own or refer the matter to the full court.
Posted at 7:04 PM ET on Jan 17, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Anyone want to lay odds on Scalia allowing Kucinich on the Democratic ballot as a spoiler?
Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 07:12 PM
Kucinich, much like Dr. Ron "No" Paul, is a unique individual. Willie is the kind of being that is recocgnized around the World, by just his first Name!
THAT, is POWERFUL! As Texas Royalty, Willie's opinion matters. As I have to argue that Mitt Romney and Huck are the best Statesmen, and that Dr. No would be an excellent addition to a Cabinet, I say:
Throw Dennis Kucinich in there as well!
Will Dennis and Dr. No always get their way? Probably not. But often what they say, needs to be heard, and seriously considered-possibly Modified! FACT-They BOTH speak for many Americans who never seem to get heard!
I believe Mitt Romney, and even the Huckster, WILL LISTEN!
Posted by: rat-the | January 17, 2008 07:33 PM
I would think that Justice Scalia might have some problems with the requirement that a candidate must swear his fealty to a party in order to be able to run for President. On the other hand, just the other day, the Supreme Court reluctantly but nevertheless unanimously upheld the right of the "party bosses" in New York to control who runs for judgeships at the trial court level. This loyalty oath to the Texas Democratic Party seems to be along the same lines, so I'm not expecting much. My opinion is that we should get rid of the two-party system and allow candidates to run without having to swear fealty to the party. It sounds like Communism to me, not Democracy.
Posted by: ajacobs | January 17, 2008 10:46 PM
I strongly Support the Honorable Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich....
If you can register as a I decline to state, then how constitutional is it to say you have to be a loyalist to any party...
At least he is honest, and doesnot say one thing and do another...
That would like saying that everytime you do any public official work you have to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag....
What personal rights do we have...???
Where does it say in the United States constitution, that you or any member of Congress, needs to sign a loyalty oath???
I am sure that the Congressman Dennis Kucinch from Ohio, already took an oath, to uphold the United States Constitution, and I am sure he abides by that to best of his knowledge.....
I support Dennis Kucinich 200%
For all of you who want to vote intelligentlly, and on the issues may I suggest, that you go to vote peace.info
www.votesmart.org
www.votepeace.info
www.Kucinichwinsoc.org
www.stopbigmedia.com
www.media-alliance.net
www.freepress.org
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only true, patriots, and constitutionalists...]
In case any one forgot, THe United States constitution is the Supreme law of the land....
Remember to vote for a presidential candidate that is beholden to the united States constitution, and the people who they serve, not large corporations....
A government of the people , by the people, and for the people.....
Rember to vote California primary February 5th 2008
and or go to vote smart.org
-byron from california...
Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate for president.
Posted by: listen_to_our_plea | January 17, 2008 11:34 PM
One of the real problems of America is its absolute utter refusal to use the Constitution as a LIVIHG document. Indeed there are many things that are the Supreme Law of the land, including Geneva, that have been totally ignored during the Bush Administration. This requires imnpeachment hearings to get the US to COMPLY.
I am most concerned that Ron Paul, taking his orders from monied people, is actually Constitutional imperative by not pursuing impeachment proceedings - as most of his Congressional collegues are wont to do. Impeachment is the legal remedy for an illegal was, the Patriot Act, the end of respect for the Geneva convenstions which is a phenomena destorying our US military (as JAGs and Sr. military advisers predicted it would) and the US debt is monostrous, the dollar is crahing, the list goes on and on. The cost of not pursuing impeachment is phenomenally high.
The Supreme law of the land is BOTH Geneva and the Constitution and the only candidate that puts muscle into them is Dennis Kucinich.
Today I got an email saying that a "secret" billionaire is now bank rolling Dr. Paul and I find this incredibly frightening. I also see forces gathering to get revenge on all those who "thwart" his campaign or "smear" Dr. Paul. I watch with dismay all the internet propaganda techniques used online in this campaign. HE is not the ONLY one for "liberty" - nor is he "our last chance".
The Ron and the Paul Bearers show has only just begun and they aren't going to help Kucinich, nor uphold the Constitution. My advice: watch what they do, not what they say.
And since I'm on here - it truly disgusts me to see the unions sell Dennis out.
www.wexlerwantshearings.com
IMPEACHMENT NOW
Posted by: ladybroadoak | January 18, 2008 01:01 AM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.