Amazon.com Widgets

« The God Delusion | Main | Frank Caliendo with Dave Letterman »

Kucinich Should Be Allowed to Debate, Judge Rules

Kucinich to Debate or else, Judge Rules - :
“A Nevada judge has ordered MSNBC to include Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, in Tuesday night’s debate in Nevada, the Associated Press reports.

The debate was expected to feature Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

According to the Associated Press: “Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he’ll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.””




Quicktime Video 3.9 MB | Duration: '02'26
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

Oh snap!

Sorry, that's all I could think of.

Thank-you Judge Thompson!

Does NBC's PR department really think all the publicity over their outright cnesorship will really be beneficial? Too bad the left wing isn't as nutty as the right. I'd love to see a bunch of Kucinich supporters chasing Chris Matthews down the street yelling, "You suck!!!"

God bless our liberal media... :p

Well that's good, because with out Kucinich there wouldn't even be a debate...it would just be three candidates arguing over the semantics of what makes each of them slightly different from one another.

i really doubt he'll be at the debate. even if he is with whats going now theyll never ask his questions. maybe just some bs ones about UFO's

I wish Kucinich was the person running the debate. Let be truthful he got no chance of going anywhere but would love to see him make the other candidates actually answer some real questions.

PS I got $10 that every time kucinich speaks MSNBC switches the camera to his wife.

Let's have a pool on the percentage of time Kucinich gets to speak, if he lands on the debate. I'll be generous and say 4%.

NBC just needs to do what CNN did, not call on him.

In one of the earlier debates, the candidates were asked a stupid question about prayer. Kucinich responded that he was praying to be called on.

Nevada State Constitution

"Sec: 9. Liberty of speech and the press. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated."

Looks to me that even under the Nevada constitution, the Judge has no authority in this matter. FWIW, I think NBC is making a mistake by not honoring their original requirements.

Can't that UFO go take Kucinch away, so he can go bore another planet?

FWIW, I think NBC is making a mistake by not honoring their original requirements.

I think the judge is ruling more on a company sliding out of their requirements (contract, if you will) to be in the debate. The attorneys will have to prove that it wasn't a contract, or even an oral agreement made with the candidates, and prove it was only a suggestion for participation.

Why bring up the constitution? This isn't a dispute over freedom of speech, it's a dispute over an agreement between parties.

Legal contracts require consideration (compensation). What consideration did Kucinich or any of the candidates give to NBC in exchange for the right to participate in this debate?

Without a contract, it comes down to the judge abridging NBC's right to change it's mind.

Again, I think NBC is making a mistake here, but the courts have no authority in this matter.

If you listen to the judge' reasoning for his injunction, he states he is 'offended by that' refering to NBC changing the requirements. He cites no laws to back up his ruling. Just that he is offended.

I get offended nearly every day, does that mean who ever offended me should be legally required to act in ways that only please me? That might seem nice, but odds are it'll offend you much of the time.

Matters like this should be left to the court of public opinion.

What consideration did Kucinich or any of the candidates give to NBC in exchange for the right to participate in this debate?

Ratings? Advertising dollars? Exclusive ownership of the video to use as they see fit and to sell to whoever wants to use it?

Syngas, are you an attorney and expert in contract law, or do you just play one on the blogs? Are you an expert as pertains to what constitutes "consideration"?

Perhaps you should advise the NBC lawyers, because it seems that they failed to make the argument that you made.

They say that there has been no breach of contract because:

NBC submits that this argument fails in light of the foregoing jurisdictional defects.

"Ratings? Advertising dollars? Exclusive ownership of the video to use as they see fit and to sell to whoever wants to use it?"

Kucinich promised those things to NBC in exchange for the right to participate in the debate?

Did any of the candidates promise NBC it would have high ratings for this debate?

Did any of the candidates promise NBC a specific minimum advertising dollar amount for this debate?

NBC is clearly guilty of not delivering on a promised gift. Failing to deliver on a promised gift is not enforcible in court.

The case is two fold:FCC Regulations of public airwaves(Sec. 315) as well as the breach of contract.

NBC has a weak case and that's why they backed off and allowed Kucinich into the debate.

And Syngas, how can you possible analyze the court ruling when you don't even know what the ruling is?

"I'm offended by that. I'm going to grant whatever preliminary injunction we can to see that he is permitted to debate in the debate tomorrow night."

LOL Syn, way to frame the Quote so it looks like the judge is ruling on personal feelings rather than facts.

Here's the first part of the quote which is relevant to WHY the Judge was Offended. "If the criteria was one set of rules and you changed the rules in the middle of the game to exclude someone out of the game, i'm offended by that..."

Syngas, that was not his ruling. He was to issue the written ruling this morning.

His full statement was, "If the criteria was one set of rules and you changed the rules in the middle of the game so as to exclude somebody after having invited them, I'm offended by that,"

But this is just what was reported by the press. I didn't watch the full hearing. Did you?

Anyway, if you read what I posted above, you'll see what actual legal arguments are being made and they have nothing whatsover to do with what you're going on about. And, I'm sorry, but you have a rather simplistic notion of what "consideration" is and you are not a lawyer, although it seems that you think you have a full understanding of contract law.

Dar also explained what the legal considerations were, but you ignored that too.

Dar also explained what the legal considerations were, but you ignored that too.
You're surprised by that?

You're surprised by that?

LOL!

I applaud all of your zeal in this matter. Would you be so inclined to make these arguments if the plaintiff were Bill Richardson? I doubt it.

I don't care which political side is taken, it's about time the people use the courts to start kicking around television stations for only supporting what they think should be brodcasted. It should happen more, republican and democratic.

"And, I'm sorry, but you have a rather simplistic notion of what "consideration" is and you are not a lawyer,"

Okay Judge JoAnn,

What was the consideration Kucinich offered and NBC accepted?

Syngas,

I used to be married to an attorney, so I know enough to not attempt to be a lawyer. I read both of the legal documents and neither Kucinich nor NBC even discuss consideration, which means that it is not even an issue here. Is it possible to get this through your thick skull?

I'm not about to get into a discussion of what consideration is because it's too complex and I am not a lawyer.

Would you be so inclined to make these arguments if the plaintiff were Bill Richardson? I doubt it.

Bullshit.

Alexander Pope:

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fir'd at first Sight with what the Muse imparts, In fearless Youth we tempt the Heights of Arts, While from the bounded Level of our Mind, Short Views we take, nor see the lengths behind, But more advanc'd, behold with strange Surprize New, distant Scenes of endless Science rise! So pleas'd at first, the towring Alps we try, Mount o'er the Vales, and seem to tread the Sky; Th' Eternal Snows appear already past, And the first Clouds and Mountains seem the last: But those attain'd, we tremble to survey The growing Labours of the lengthen'd Way, Th' increasing Prospect tires our wandering Eyes, Hills peep o'er Hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

More from Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticism" for Syngas, the contract law expert and real estate tycoon. :)

Of all the Causes which conspire to blind Man's erring Judgment, and misguide the Mind, What the weak Head with strongest Byass rules, Is Pride, the never-failing Vice of Fools. Whatever Nature has in Worth deny'd, She gives in large Recruits of needful Pride; For as in Bodies, thus in Souls, we find What wants in Blood and Spirits, swell'd with Wind; Pride, where Wit fails, steps in to our Defence, And fills up all the mighty Void of Sense! If once right Reason drives that Cloud away, Truth breaks upon us with resistless Day; Trust not your self; but your Defects to know, Make use of ev'ry Friend--and ev'ry Foe.

I applaud all of your zeal in this matter. Would you be so inclined to make these arguments if the plaintiff were Bill Richardson? I doubt it.

I see your Richardson, and raise you a Tancredo.

And BTW, I haven't read anything about the case either, other than what's divulged here.

My contract arguement just sounded closest to what kuchinich was arguing from the Local News summary, that the TV station stepped out of the agreement they had reached with the Kuchinich party, that's all.

That the Court finds that there was a contract between the parties

... Indeed, this detail was not disputed by any of the parties (neither Kucinich nor NBC, but it was mentioned by the judge as a matter of course, and would have been mentioned in any case vis à vis contract law.

This, Syngas, is a far cry from your previous allegations that the judge decided this matter because he was "offended by that" and that this case has to do with "consideration"...

Now that you know what "THAT" is, will you admit that you were talking out of your ass?

If I were you, I wouldn't place the little smiley face after "ruling" as this just proves how ignorant that you were to begin with... Not that you understand what any of this means, of course, as you are an expert in fields that you know little about... A little learning is a dangerous thing...

Wait.. I was right, sort of?

blink blink

/faint

Wait.. I was right, sort of?

blink blink

/faint

LOL!

And i began my rant with the Nevada State Constitution which didn't have anything at all to do with the issues at hand, but nevermind that, cause I kinda almost sorta, in a way knew what I was talking about.. wink wink..

Smiley face?

Need some glasses JoAnn?

"Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Las Vegas lawyer Donald Campbell said in a filing submitted to Nevada's high court, which hears all state appeals."

appeal

"I can just say, 'Thank God' for that judge, and hopefully his ruling will be sustained," the Ohio congressman told reporters.

http://www2.lasvegasnow.com/docs/nbc_responds.pdf

Don't read that one JoAnn, they're just talking out of their ass.

To the comment on the previous post quoting Donald Campbell with "Mr. Kucinish's claim... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed... 1st amendment".

Ok you don't REALLY believe there is a complete 100% independence enjoyed by journalists, where they're 100% NOT influenced by ANYONE in a government position? Really?

The founding fathers had some good ideas. Our nation has grown fat and lazy. When not faced with any real loss of freedom or impending death, i.e. most of us here in US, most folks are complacent. How many revolutions happen because folks are concerned about someone ELSE'S problem? How many folks worry about their freedoms getting taken away, until they experience a significant decrease of quality of life because of that loss of freedom?

Wake up guys, there is very little 'free press' in our country left. Get some perspective and read foreign press (not just UK either as they're quite similar to us these days).

Too bad Clinton, Obama, etc etc. didn't refuse to debate unless ALL candidates were included... Would have cost them nothing, since these are the 'little guys'...

For all you folks quoting amendments and such, WRITE YOUR CANDIDATES and your senators/congressmen, to make your voice heard on this.

none of us here has any power to effect change by remaining silent, or sitting in comfort of our desks, ranting at strangers...

and you can write these guys from the comfort of said desk computer...

Nevada Supreme Court Order

Page three should be of particular interest to you JoAnn and Magnolia Electric Company.

Oops, that should have been page 4.

Okay, I'll give you this one Syngas.

We do finally see mention now of consideration along with the issue of jurisdiction.

WTF, this can't be right, Both sides in an internet debate are correct? HOLY SHIT.

I know enough to not attempt to be a lawyer.

This is the wisest statement in this thread.

Legal arguments are almost always this way on blogs. Parties in the debate tend to insert their opinion on the matter and project that opinion onto the legality of the decision. Case in point: calligraph routinely states that mistakes in death penalty cases are exceedingly rare. He likes the death penalty. He also states that John Edwards made his fortune winning frivolous lawsuits. (Much of Edwards success was in court, with evidence presented to a jury - not class action legal extortion or even out-of-court settlements.) Yet, because calligraph doesn't like Edwards, he's decided his lawsuits are frivolous and apparently listens to pundits who reinforce his prejudice.

I have no idea whether the judge properly applied the law in the NBC-Kucinich question, though generally speaking I would have been surprised to learn that NBC couldn't do what they wanted - including rescinding their invitation - even if I don't like it and I think we should have a different process altogether.

Tim,

I understand that the law is much more complex than most people imagine it to be. I've met a lot of people who think that they perfectly understand the law... That is until they need the services of an actual lawyer...

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson