Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated] Ohio to outlaw recounts and shield Diebold (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're Right (none)
    You're confused.  Especially if you think the only difference is the strikethrough, and completely missed that "(A) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the..." is new language, but is not designated as such in the comment to which I replied.

    So, you were partially correct...about being confused.  The rest flows from that...

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:35:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What about this prof's comments? (none)
      I too have issues with Fitirakis, but don't you think that the prof cited here is a) trustworthy and b) knowledgeable concerning this topic?
      •  Possibly (none)
        I can't open the link.  I don't know him, but I'll assume that if he's a prof at the law school he's probably a good source.  It's the first evidence anyone has put forth that may be good.  If that was in the original diary I probably wouldn't have posted my original comment.  But again, I can't open the link, so I don't know whether any of the other claims put forth by Fitrakis and repeated in this diary are supported by the prof's testimony.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 07:07:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't assume (none)
      You're confused. Especially if you think the only difference is the strikethrough, and completely missed that "(A) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the..." is new language, but is not designated as such in the comment to which I replied.

      No, in fact, I've read from the original, and I know what all the conventions mean. And you're being deliberately obfuscatory and not, in fact, answering my question.

      Which is to say: 'Except as otherwise provided in this division...' is indeed new language. And what this bit means, as far as I can see, is 'Except as otherwise provided below [where it says that all federal elections cannot be challenged], certain classes of people can challenge elections.'

      Is that not what you see? Or, I should more specifically ask, is that not a perfectly valid interpretation of what you see? Clearly it isn't the one you're using, because otherwise (and I'm being charitable here) you probably wouldn't be arguing about this. If not, please don't just say 'no', please give me some decent parsing of the legalese that gives me some idea of why I'm wrong.

      I admit that I am not a lawyer and have no more than a layman's understanding of law, albeit a layman with a couple of contract law classes under his belt. And I admit that it's hardly your job to instruct me in the finer points. However, with all the expostulating you're doing on here, it's not like you don't have time, if you stop being so snippy for five minutes, to give me an idea where you're actually coming from.

      So, you were partially correct...about being confused. The rest flows from that...

      Thank you so much for clearing that up. I'd hate to think that I was, for example, absolutely certain and completely wrong. Much rather be confused. At least confusion is curable.

      -fred

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site