DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely ‘Political Rhetoric’

(Let me see if I got this straight: you have a woman running for president who is largely disliked because she is a proven habitual liar. You have that same candidate pulling ahead with the female vote because 9 other women came forward just recently and lied about the other candidate. And you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz who lied to the entire party and all the party faithful when she and the DNC claimed they would give the other candidates for the nomination a fair shot at winning and they now claim we can’t hold them accountable because all those Bernie supporters KNEW she would lie and steal the nomination for her friend Hillary Clinton. All of that and the MSM is out there lying on an hourly basis about Trump doing whatever they can to ensure that lying woman candidate becomes president. Does that about sum it up? It’s a real shame and embarrassment that this woman is going to go down in history as our first female president. Just look at what it took to usher her into office. When she is sworn in, historically speaking, it will truly be a bad day for the better half of our species.)

from the Observer

Democratic National Committee (DNC) lawyers responded on October 14 in support of their motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against the DNC and former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, maintaining that a fair and balanced Democratic primary is just a “political promise.”

“Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to litigate on the basis of purported political promises, including ‘statements of principle and intent in the political realm’” wrote the DNC lawyers. “These decisions have not always been explicit in their reasoning, but they reflect the long-standing judicial understanding that, because they inherently raise serious questions of justiciability and threaten core First Amendment rights of political speech and association, “[p]olitical squabbles are not as easily resolved in federal courts as are some other disputes.” Wymbs v. Republican State Exec. Comm. of Fla., 719 F.2d 1072, 1077 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 281-85 (1962)); see also Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 529 (“[V]oters are free to vote out of office those politicians seen to have breached campaign promises,” but “[f]ederal courts … are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric”); Dornan v. U.S. Sec’y of Def., 676 F. Supp. 6, 7 (D.D.C. 1987) (holding action based in part on political promise nonjusticiable); see also O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1972); Irish v. Democratic Farmer-Labor Party of Minn., 399 F.2d 119, 120-21 (8th Cir. 1968)”

The DNC lawyers’ argument here is that the charter’s demand that the chair and DNC staff remain neutral throughout the Democratic primary is a political promise, similar to policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren’t fulfilled when in office. The lawyers cite an argument made in another court case stating that voters are free to vote out politicians. In their initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit, DNC lawyers argued Bernie Sanders supporters were aware the DNC and Wasserman Schultz were biased against their candidate. Now their argument is a neutral DNC and DNC chair are just political promises, leaving voters susceptible to the deception that the DNC would treat Clinton and Sanders equally. The lawyers argue liability only applies to consumer-merchant relationships.

[read more here]

(Pardon me for asking, but doesn’t a party member’s donation to the DNC fall under that category of “consumer-merchant relationships“? and therefore, wouldn’t that argument in and of itself set up the DNC for another lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie voters who donated to the Democratic National Committee? Just a thought.)