I previously blogged about the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Gardner here, here and here. A hearing had been scheduled for this past Monday (August 7th), but at the last minute was canceled because:
This is the third in a series of posts about a lawsuit the ACLU-NH has brought against Secretary of State Bill Gardner that is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Continue reading →
The phrase “matador defense” refers to basketball players who do not put much effort into playing defense. Defense is played with your feet in basketball. Matador defense occurs when the defensive player makes a great show of waving his arms, but doesn’t move his feet and the offensive player dribbles right past.
These tweets have me concerned that Governor Sununu and his Attorney General are planning on putting on only a “matador defense” against the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Bill Gardner, which as I discussed in detail here is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity: So apparently, without even seeing the decision, Sununu has already ruled out an appeal. This is significant because the odds highly favor the case being heard by a Democrat-appointed judge who will not rule based on the law -which as I discussed here requires that the lawsuit be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing– but based on his or her political inclinations -that is, in favor of the ACLU-NH. Continue reading →
The New Hampshire Democrat Party has brought a lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, which effectively would prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. (Yes it was nominally brought by the New Hampshire chapter of the ACLU, but the ACLU-NH is as a practical matter a surrogate for the Democrats.)
As I will discuss in more detail below, the law in New Hampshire is that in order to bring a lawsuit the persons or entities brining it (the plaintiffs or petitioners) must have “standing.” That is, they must be able to show that they will suffer a definite, personal injury from the unlawful conduct alleged in the lawsuit as opposed to suffering in some indefinite way in common with people generally.
The petitioners in this lawsuit are State Senator Bette Lasky, State Representative Neal Kurk and the ACLU-NH. None of them have standing. Indeed, none of them even allege they have standing. The lawsuit, therefore, is total bullcrap and should be dismissed. Continue reading →
As I promised in this post, I will show below why the education funding law being challenged by Dover is “constitutional.” First, some context and an explanation why I put constitutional in quotes. Continue reading →
At the beginning of the week, the New Hampshire Attorney General, Joe Foster, humiliated GOP Statehouse leadership by announcing that he would not defend an education funding law passed by the Legislature: Continue reading →
In 1944, the United States Supreme Court issued Korematsu vs. United States, one of the most infamous decisions of the court. The case involved an Executive Order by President Franklin Roosevelt ordering that over 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent be rounded up and placed in detention camps. Continue reading →
Yesterday, the New Hampshire Attorney General humiliated GOP legislative leadership by announcing that he would not defend an education funding law passed by the Legislature because he feels it is unconstitutional: Continue reading →
When I hear that a new legal right has been “discovered,” I think of Roe v. Wade (right to an abortion) or the Claremont decisions (right to an adequate education), and become dubious. Continue reading →