Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • “Litigating (former) Senator Hillary Clinton’s Legal Woes: A Response to Professor Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) and Michael Stern (Point of Order blog)”

    Posted by Jonathan on February 2nd, 2016 (All posts by )

    Seth Barrett Tillman responds to a couple of thoughtful critics of his earlier post about possible legal issues facing some of the current presidential candidates.

    Excerpt:

    In a prior post, I wrote that in evaluating election law provisions, including qualifications, we should allow ties go to the runner, expand the democracy, allow the contested candidate to compete, and allow the voters to decide. I stand behind all of that. But in a conflict, should there be a conflict, between a criminal prosecution and an election, we have two competing principles: one, protecting the democratic process from wrongful manipulation by prosecutors and courts, and two, the rule of law, applying the criminal law without fear or favor to all, even against those who are politically connected. I certainly do not want prosecutors and courts pre-empting the voters in elections. But I also do not want a candidate’s participation in an election to amount to immunity in regard to established law, particularly where other (less fortunate) people have faced similar sanctions for similar conduct. This is a genuine conflict, it is not one which I have opined on in the past, and there are no easy solutions.
     
    [. . .]
     
    I know that my merely raising the legal issues which are likely to arise from a Clinton indictment or impeachment does not interfere with either democracy or “letting the voters decide.” Quite the opposite. Voters who have been fully informed about the legal jeopardy Senator Clinton may or may not face under Section 2071 exercise their voting rights in a more meaningful fashion than they otherwise would. If you do not agree with that, then tell me why?

    There is much more of interest in Seth’s new post.

     

    3 Responses to ““Litigating (former) Senator Hillary Clinton’s Legal Woes: A Response to Professor Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) and Michael Stern (Point of Order blog)””

    1. Mike K Says:

      Senator Ted Stevens could not be reached for comment.

    2. Ginny Says:

      Hard times make for bad choices as the saying goes. Those of us from the land of Ronnie Earle and those who watched the backers of Walker pursued and attacked can see the problem. On the other hand, is there any justice when someone for their own shady reasons endangers the lives of men and women who risk theirs everyday for us? The practices of the Clintons and the Obamas has demonstrated that as a country we no longer respect the concept of equality before the law – they don’t and they get by with it.

    3. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      And for that matter, the political leadership of Europe has also demonstrated contempt for the law, for honesty, and even basic decency. Keeps them in power though. So screw you, plebs. And I’m sure we all noted the Breitbart piece on the retired German media boss conceding that the German government decides what they will and will not print in the papers. We are losing our way and we need to set things aright.