More on Cuccinelli Lawsuit

Now that we covered what will happen to Republicans if they vote in this years Democratic primary, let's talk about where the case stands in court.

Jaded JD has an excellent post up, detailing what happened in court yesterday.  My sources told a similar story, but not exactly the same.

Jaded predicts a 3-0 ruling in favor of Senator Cuccinelli.  My understanding is that Judge Goodwin (Clinton '95) was the most favorable to the Senator, while Judge Duncan (Bush '03) was warm to the Senator, and Chief Judge Wilkinson (Reagan '86) was the most poker faced.

The issue at stake in appeals court yesterday was whether or not to overturn the district court ruling that the lawsuit was too early and did not yet have standing.

There are three possible outcomes here

1)  The Appeals Court could rule to affirm the district court ruling that the lawsuit was not yet ripe.  That would basically end the case for now, with no change to Virginia law.  Based on the reactions yesterday, that is the least likely outcome.

2)  The Appeals Court could rule to reverse the district court ruling that the lawsuit was not yet ripe.  That would send the case back to district court to be decided on the merits, which is where Cuccinelli's case is the strongest.  This is the most likely outcome based on reactions yesterday

3)  Both sides filed motions for summary judgement.  Basically, if the judges were to reverse the ruling as described in scenario #2, they could decide to then not send it back to district court, and decide the case themselves.  This is not likely, but if they do choose to do this, it is much more likely based on reactions yesterday that they would decide summary judgement in favor of Cuccinelli, instead of in favor of the Commonwealth.

From everything I have heard, I am optimistic that the era of open primaries may end on June 13th. 

RINOs and DINOs, prepare to meet your base!

Comments

[Ubiquitous Minion]

It was Chief Judge Wilkins, not Judge Wilkinson. Judge Wilkinson's tenure as Chief Judge ended a few years back. There were no Virginians on the panel. It may be that Judge Luttig was originally on the panel but Chief Judge Wilkins designated District Judge Goodwin to replace him after the resignation.

[Virginia Centrist]

Thank god someone is sticking up for the ideologues. It'll be a refreshing change to see no moderate members from either party in either House of the legislature. If history is any indication, liberals and conservatives will work together in harmony and many great deeds will be done.

[notlarrysabato]

Minion, thanks, I will correct that.

[William]

Yeah - this is awful.
A move towards LESS turnout and MORE partisanship.

Perfect excuse for half the electorate to say "why the f___ should I care?" every spring.

Awesome.

[joe]

My guess is that more than half the electorate already says "why the f___ should I care" every spring already.

Interesting development.

[Riley, Not O'Reilly]

I think that option 2 will be what happens. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn it, but they won't rule on the merits of the case and remand it to District Court for trial. It would be VERY unusual for them to rule on something that had not already been ruled on by the District Court since they would have no basis to do so.

[George Templeton]

Gee I didn't realize by closing primaries you would eliminate all moderates from voting. I didn't realize that moderates don't vote in Democratic or Republican primaries. Nothing prevents the poor little moderates from voting in the primary and then deciding they don't like the winner and voting against him in the general election.

[Riley, Not O'Reilly]

The states that make the most sense with their primaries are the ones that allow members of a party and independents to vote in partisan primaries, but not members of the other party. That would solve the problems people have raised here.

[Virginia Centrist]

George -

Come on. This is a power grab by extremists. You know that. People like Cuccinelli, who want gays throw in jail...or worse - beaten...this is part of their plan...

[George Templeton]

How nice Mr. Centrist, if you support closed primaries, then your homophobic or in with people who are.
I will admit I haven't heard all of Cuccinelli's campaign speeches or floor speeches, but do you have to equate being for the marraige amendment with being for treating gay people like some third-world totalitarian regime would. That's a cheap shot.
But I digress. What is wrong with saying, people who are members of your party should vote in your party's primary and that's it. If moderates are as prevalent and valuable as everyone tells us they are then they should register with a party and try to move it to the center, not cherry pick which party they want to be a part of on what day. As I said above, if you don't like who wins the primary you voted in and you want to vote for the other party's candidate in the election, then nothing is stopping you.
Why shouldn't those who are committed to a party's cause pick the candidate they want. What gives me a registered Republican the right to pick the Democratic candidate for anything? If I want to help a Democratic candidate I think is weak, or one I personally respect and like (because I figure if the GOP is going to lose to anybody I would rather it be him or her) then I can have my effect that way.

[George Templeton]

As usual I dropped a part of my post, I meant to say that if I want to help a Democrat for whatever reason, then i will send that candidate money and I can have my effect that way.

[Virginia Centrist]

Doesn't cuccinelli support sodomy laws?

that's rounding up gay people and throwing them in jail

[Virginia Centrist]

That being said - my comment was way over the top.

But I'm just reminding people that when you support criminalizing a behavior shared by a large minority group...it's a slippery slope...

[Josh Chernila]

George,

You know as well as anyone that the Virginia Ammendment Against Unmarried Couples has nothing to do with defending marriage and everything to do with driving right-wing extremists to the polls in November while stripping rights and protections from the unmarried.

If it ain't hate, it's at least as pure a case of puritanical cynicism as Virginia Voters are ever likely to see.

If the Virginia legislature actually wanted to protect marriage, the best thing we could do would be to increase education for women. But we all know this thing has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with cynical politics.

Josh - can you explain this?

"If the Virginia legislature actually wanted to protect marriage, the best thing we could do would be to increase education for women."

[George Templeton]

Mr. Chernila I will concede that the marraige amendment is poorly written. I would prefer the amendment simply said:
Marraige is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Gay marraige shall not be legal in the state of Virginia and the state will not recognize homosexual unions from other states.
I know in your eyes supporting something like this still makes me a bigot. But my points are these: Just because I do not support gay marriage doesn't make me a homophobe. Secondly, while Sen. Cuccinelli does support those laws, the last time I checked Virginia wasn't rounding up gays and throwing them in jail. I would say that in this day and age (and maybe I am wrong) those laws are another way of punishing people who commit sexual assault, not two consenting adults engaging in activity in the privacy of their homes. This is way off the topic of this particular post, but I wanted to respond to Mr. Chernila and Mr. Centrist. I do enjoy debating this with both of you.