Lanacan posted:
LOLOLOLOL
Repubs blamed Dems for the same thing during the first round of recalls. Repubs lost, but I'm sure Dem's claim will stand thanks to the <sarcasm>un biased</sarcasm> G.A.B. in Madison.
Edit:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/135094973.html
It sounds like the courts took a very strict interpretation of the word "induce" in the statute. The whole law hinges on it. If one takes a strict interpretation closer to compulsion than enticement, then neither the BBQ nor the subs were illegal. I'm a linguist but not a lawyer, so I can't comment specifically on the legal interpretation of "induce" in this context; the linguistic interpretation hinges on the outcome of the induced, not the actions of the inducers, where the law must go by the actions of the inducers. (In other words, one is linguistically "induced" if one produces the desired result of going to the polls, and not "induced" if one does not, regardless of the efforts of those inducing.)
It does seem clear that either neither or both of these actions were illegal. They are definitely highly similar. If the earlier BBQ ruling established precedent, then Romney and Ryan are in the clear.
-----signature-----
"... We just need a president to sign this stuff... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president."
-Grover Norquist
.
MICHIGAN - Where the trees are the right height!
