"CUT and RUN" Tom Delay Forced to Stay on Ballot!

"CUT and RUN" Tom DeLay can't run away from the election anymore. Even though he tried to run away and he and the Texas GOP tried twist the election laws to get a "new Tom DeLay" candidate, even the GOP-controlled US Supreme Court refused to allow his replacement on the ballot. Can you imagine the Greedy Old Party trying to convince District 22 voters to vote for "CUT and RUN" Tom after he up and quit his district, leaving voters without representation as the nation teeters on the brink. Everyone knows he's a crook and he constantly is dragging his district through the court system trying to get a special deal. And everyone knows if he inadvertently won this election, he would just "CUT and RUN" again by quitting. He has always been a chicken hawk, and this latest episode proves it once again. DeLay Must Stay on Ballot as Court Rejects Appeal

Posted by Pete on Aug 07, 2006 - 11:12 PM [ Edit | Delete ]

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL August 8, 2006 HOUSTON, Aug. 7 — The United States Supreme Court dealt a final blow on Monday to efforts by the Texas Republican Party to replace former Representative Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, leaving him the reluctant party nominee from his longtime district. Three state and federal courts had already ruled that Mr. DeLay had to remain the party’s choice despite his assertions that he had moved to Virginia from Texas. In April, he announced he would give up his re-election campaign and resign his seat to allow the party to select another candidate while he battled legal charges. On Monday, Republican lawyers filed a final appeal to the Supreme Court, but it was rejected hours later without comment by the circuit justice, Antonin Scalia. “There’s nothing else we’re going to do legally,” said James Bopp Jr., the lawyer who argued the case for the Republicans. “We’ve certainly exhausted our appeals.” The court’s refusal to intervene handed a major victory to Democrats, who have fought to keep Mr. DeLay in the spotlight as a reminder of the Washington lobbying scandal involving his associate Jack Abramoff. It will make it harder for Republicans to retain Mr. DeLay’s old seat and will allow Democrats to send a wider message that change is needed on Capitol Hill. It is unclear whether Mr. DeLay, 59, the former House majority leader, who first won the seat in 1984, will now actively campaign in an election he has said he does not belong in. During the appeals, he never said whether he would run if he remained on the ballot, and Dani DeLay Ferro, his daughter and spokeswoman, said after the Supreme Court decision that he had no immediate statement. Mr. Bopp said he did not know whether Mr. DeLay would actively run for the seat, but he suggested the outcome might not be as predetermined as Democrats believe. “It’s now up to the voters to determine if the Democrats will be happy on Election Day for choosing Tom DeLay,” he said. Mr. DeLay, who had been criticized repeatedly by the House Ethics Committee for his fund-raising tactics, was indicted in Texas in September on charges of violating campaign finance law. The court rulings prevented the Republicans from choosing a successor out of several eager contenders. The Democrats, though, have long had a nominee in the 22nd District: former Representative Nick Lampson, who lost his neighboring seat after the 2003 redistricting engineered by Mr. DeLay. In a statement, Mr. Lampson said, “I welcome a strong issue-based campaign against Tom DeLay.” The Texas Democratic Party chairman, Boyd Richie, applauded the Supreme Court’s refusal to block the lower court orders preventing the Republican Party chairwoman, Tina J. Benkiser, from trying to select another nominee. “We are not surprised that Justice Scalia has denied the Republicans’ motion to stay,” Mr. Richie said. “Every judge involved in the case so far has agreed with us on the merits of our argument. It is time for Tom DeLay and the Republican Party to get out of the courtroom and quit this abuse of the voters, who have been without representation for months. Both parties have candidates, and it is now time to move forward and allow voters to participate in a fair and meaningful election.” The legal issue hinged in part on whether party officials could replace a nominee who had been selected by the voters. Having decisively won a hard-fought four-way primary in March, Mr. DeLay upended Texas politics by unexpectedly declaring that he would drop his campaign and resign his 22-year seat to move to Virginia. But a Texas judge, a federal judge in Austin and a three-judge federal appeals panel in New Orleans blocked the Republican Party from choosing a replacement under provisions of Texas election law and the Constitution that barred tampering with candidate lists and election standards. The federal courts ruled that the only residency requirement for House candidates under the Constitution was that they lived in the state they were running in “when elected.” No one could know now whether Mr. DeLay would be a resident of Texas in November, the judges said, rejecting claims by Ms. Benkiser that the party could name a replacement because Mr. DeLay had shown documentation of his move to Virginia. With the clock ticking toward November and the Republicans and Mr. DeLay saying he was ineligible to run in Texas, Mr. Bopp, the lawyer, filed Monday for a Supreme Court stay, arguing that the Democrats, by insisting on Mr. DeLay as the nominee, were infringing on the Republicans’ constitutional right of free association and intruding in Republican Party affairs. But the appellate judges had ruled that they saw the move more as an effort by Republicans to replace a wounded candidate in ways unfair to the Democrats, and Justice Scalia, in turning down the final appeal, said nothing to indicate that he saw it differently. Cris Feldman, a lawyer for the Democrats, said: “Five judges to date have agreed the Texas Republican Party violated state and federal law, and it’s apparent that Justice Scalia agrees with us. Now it’s time for Tom DeLay to decide whether he will cut or run.”