« Daily SF/Writing Blog Reading List | Main | The Tragedy of Orthodoxy »

August 07, 2006

News That Makes Me Wish I Already Had My Schadenfreude.us Site Up and in Full Effect, Yo

Bid to remove DeLay's name from ballot tossed

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday rejected a request by Texas Republicans to block an appeals court ruling that says former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's name must appear on the November ballot.

Antonin Scalia, people. Clearly, an activist judge.

Posted by john at August 7, 2006 06:50 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.scalzi.com/mt2/mt-tb.cgi/3977

Comments

FooBart | August 7, 2006 07:02 PM

As a Texan who's had an up close view of "The DeLay Years", all I can say is .. WHOO-HOOO!!

Cassie | August 7, 2006 07:35 PM

I'm curious: What will happen if Delay wins?

John Scalzi | August 7, 2006 07:39 PM

I would image he would resign and there would be another Republican appointed in his place.

Chang | August 7, 2006 07:44 PM

Those pushy Italians and their political agendas. Damn them.

Seriously, oh my freaking god. Maybe the guy does have a soul?!

Dave | August 7, 2006 07:54 PM


Sadly, this doesn't invalidate the 2002 New Jersey Senate race, when the Dems successfully pulled the same trick after Torricelli got caught.

Michael_Patty | August 7, 2006 09:14 PM

*sigh* I hate politics. It's all just one big, nasty, polarized, do-unto-others, spiteful hatefest. And that doesn't even take into account all the dirty dealing on both sides.

Can we just clean house and start over?

John Scalzi for Senate!!

John Scalzi | August 7, 2006 09:25 PM

Heh. There's no way on earth I could get elected. But thanks.

shana | August 7, 2006 09:43 PM

not in the good state of ohio, anyway. and definitely not with certain pictures around.

also btw, i name-checked you over at Leigh Grossman's posts on literary agents, over at the daily kos.

Hugh | August 7, 2006 11:56 PM

I would image he would resign and there would be another Republican appointed in his place.

Actually, when a House member resigns, there would be a special election held to elect a replacement. With Senators, the Governor of the State appoints a Senator to serve the remainder of the two year cycle.

Anne C. | August 8, 2006 12:31 AM

"definitely not with certain pictures around"

One of those would be the interracial same-sex French kiss picture posted here on Whatever.

Justine Larbalestier | August 8, 2006 02:02 AM

I will never stop being proud of having taken that photo. Good times!

dan dragna | August 8, 2006 04:17 AM

"My Schadenfreude.us Site..."

The German word "Schadenfreude" translates, in English--generously--as: "a parasitic pleasure at another's suffering."

Do you really get 'off on' the errors of your fellow citizens to the extent that your snarky blog posts suggest? Do you really think that celebrating the mistakes of your countrymen makes you look cosmopolitan and cool in comparison? Do you really think you could do better? Recall these words:

If I were a rich man,

Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.

If I were a wealthy man,
I wouldn't have to work hard,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man,

I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen.

Right in the middle of the town,
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below,
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.

I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks,
For the town to see and hear,
And each loud "cheep" and "swaqwk" and "honk" and "quack,"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."

If I were a rich man...
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum,
If I were a wealthy man,
I wouldn't have to work hard,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

I see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife,
With a proper double-chin,
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in
Screaming at the servants, day and night.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise,
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong,
When you're rich, they think you really know!

If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.

And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall,
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day,
That would be the sweetest thing of all.

If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum,
If I were a wealthy man,
I wouldn't have to work hard,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man!


Wickedpinto | August 8, 2006 07:06 AM

He followed the law. Blackmunn didn't.

Wickedpinto | August 8, 2006 07:12 AM

Another thing? How long before the lunatics start coming up with rovian conspiracies describing how while the other guy had been the candidate, using legal funds is now pushed aside with to delay to replace him in the election, so that tom could win, only to resign again, thereby creating a 2 candidate ticket that can't be reasonable financially opposed by a democratic candidate?

The Plaintiff's were out of line requiring a mandatory candidate without a requirement of individual support by the candidate themselves, and by treating party by laws as actual laws, isn't exactly the best precedent. The outcome will satisfy my political leanings, but I'm of the general opinion that as soon as 5 of 9 make a decision, when I never voted for any of the 9, let alone the five, it is a formula for lasting and standing argument.

I wouldn't be surprised to find this particular decision to be one of those ridiculous standing decisions by the SCOTUS by one side or the other to demonstrate the willingness of the impartial and a-political branch to eagerly inject themselves into day to day democratic politics.

Q | August 8, 2006 07:16 AM

translates "generously" as that? Um... no.

From my German studies I recall it more as "shameful pleasure". But more often see it defined simply as the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. Now, if you feel schadenfreude over bad things happening to good people, thats not so nice... but schadenfreude direct act scum such as DeLay is not really something to feel so bad about... And I am confident that Scalzi fits into the latter category.

John Scalzi | August 8, 2006 08:19 AM

Dan Dragna:

I hope you're ready to pay the makers of Fiddler on the Roof for the full reposting of their lyrics.

I'm well aware of what schadenfreude means. Your "oh mercy me" flop sweat at the word notwithstanding, why, yes, I am taking a positive delight at a unrepentant scumbag hack like DeLay getting dragged through crap and taking the Texas and national Republican party with him. Because in this case he and they richly deserve it.

In other words: save your moral tut-tuting. If you want to send DeLay a hug and a fruit basket, that's your business. As for me, I think taking some satisfaction at his fall is perfectly fine.

Steve Buchheit | August 8, 2006 08:27 AM

Live by the hammer, die by the hammer, so to speak.

Regan | August 8, 2006 08:34 AM

John said:

Heh. There's no way on earth I could get elected. But thanks.

Yes, but my money's on you for the first election not on Earth. ;)

Eric Blair | August 8, 2006 09:44 AM

You'll never know until you actually run for office, Scalzi.

As Dave pointed out, this means that Senator Lautenberg shouldn't be in office right now.

Bearpaw | August 8, 2006 10:06 AM

I have it on good authority that New Jersey and Texas are two different places, with different laws and such. But that may be only a fact, and we all know that facts have a liberal bias.

mythago | August 8, 2006 10:23 AM

The Plaintiff's were out of line requiring a mandatory candidate without a requirement of individual support by the candidate themselves, and by treating party by laws as actual laws, isn't exactly the best precedent.

This isn't good English, and for anyone who's wondering, it isn't even legalese.

I'm not sure why certain commentators are getting all bent out of shape about this ruling. It's a no-brainer: If you fulfill the law's requirements for getting on the ballot, win a primary, and get on the ballot, you stay on.

Tripp | August 8, 2006 11:42 AM

Man, I just love it when college republicans try to educate Scalzi on word definitions.

The hubris and resulting slap down give me schadenfreude.

John H | August 8, 2006 12:26 PM

As has been pointed out, Texas and New Jersey have different laws and different legal precedents.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the two cases is this:

In New Jersey there was a law on the books that allowed a candidate to drop out of the race after the primary. The Republicans argued the Torricelli missed the deadline to do so. The Democrats argued that he had notified party officials of his intent to drop out (by telling them to find a replacement candidate) before the deadline but didn't officially drop out until after the deadline. There was legal precedent for exceptions to the deadline and the court allowed the Democrats to replace him on the ballot.

In Texas there apparently isn't a law providing a candidate the opportunity to drop out of the race after being selected. The Democrats argued that DeLay meets the minimum requirements under federal law for being on the ballot and so should not be replaced. The court decided on a strict interpretation of the law as it currently stands and rejected the Republicans' bid to replace DeLay.

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the New Jersey case, probably because it dealt entirely with a state law and its interpretation. It rejected the appeal on the Texas case because the federal requirements for being on the ballot have been met (as the Texas court had already ruled) - there was really nothing for the Texas Republicans to appeal.

Jason O | August 8, 2006 12:44 PM

I've never had a real problem with DeLay up until he started denying there was any government waste and that there was nowhere to cut.

After that little crack and his frequent attempts to pork barrel Federal monies into Texas programs I decided he had to go. I don't really care if he is pulling in money that benefits my state, I refuse to enrich Texas by using the tax dollars of other states. That is just wrong.

I don't have anything against the Republicans and vote for them often. However, DeLay deserves this. He deserves to lose his spot and the Republicans deserve the damage for backing him so wholeheartedly. I can honestly say I'd be saying the same thing if he were a Democrat. It's not DeLay the Republican I have a problem with. It's DeLay the corrupt scumbag I want out of office.

John Scalzi | August 8, 2006 12:55 PM

Jason O:

Yeah, that's pretty much the size of it for me, too.

Chang | August 8, 2006 01:09 PM

SCORE: Scalzicce the Barefoot 1, Self-righteous chumps: 0

Brian Greenberg | August 8, 2006 02:55 PM

Schadenfreude also usually means misplaced shameful pleasure; at least that's what I always took it to mean.

Here's the thing: I'm sure there are many intelligent, well-meaning people in Texas who both prefer Republican positions to Democratic ones, and don't want a crook as their representative. In this rare case where a politician is basically admitting he's a crook, we're leaving those people with no sufficient representation. Their choices are to vote for a guy they substantatively disagree with, or vote for the crook.

Yes, it feels good that DeLay is getting slapped around and yes, the law is being properly applied, but the pleasure of Delay's pain here is at the expense of the Texas voters, and that doesn't seem right at all...

John H | August 8, 2006 04:20 PM

Okay, my earlier explanation of the Texas case was not right (as I said, I am not a lawyer). Texas does allow a candidate to withdraw from the race - Tom DeLay has apparently done that today. What Texas law does not allow is a provision for replacing a candidate who withdraws.

What Tom DeLay was trying to do was get himself declared ineligible by moving his residence from Texas to Virginia. What the judge ruled was that allowing the state to declare him ineligible now 'would amount to a de facto residency requirement in violation of the United States Constitution'.

Phil | August 9, 2006 03:32 PM

All judges are activist once they hit the big Court. He is just a bit more open about it. And a bit more drastic in his activism. Blackmun, Marshall. To go back a little, Brandeis was very activist.

But Scalia is getting a bit absurd.

Wickedpinto | August 13, 2006 06:44 AM

Mythago? and John H.

First, to John H. Delay removed himself from the race prior to the ballot, but that is PARTY, but the party laws required he be a participant, though he openly retired, so since he was no longer a participant in any way, he is no longer a participant, to Force delay as a candidate is conscription of public service, which has been illegal since 1974, I think. So any enforcement of requiring an independant non governmental organization to serve, without federal support is even more illegal.

granted My language sucks, but how can a party that led the way in opposing the draft support the a draft only when it suits their purposes? Also! the Dem's who demand that Delay, despite his own wishes be on the ballot, deny someone else else to take his place who wants to?

How can Gore be the "real president" since he won the "popular vote" which is a joke in our form of government, but a replacement who is popularly voted fore replacement NOT be a fan of Democracy? After all, the PARTY selected him in the stead of Delay. But then again, the Dem's are going through a lot of philosophical pains right now, cuz less than 15% of connecticuit chose lamont, even though lieberman will will the general?

I thought it was the VOTES that counted? or do only some? or only the ones that suit your ideals? or what?

I'm not anti-democrat, though I'm mostly republican in my leanings, but I am ALL republican in my votes, as long as democrats keep up this ridiculous FARCE of fairness!

Democrats? You might get a vote? granted, ONE, but you might get MY vote, if you stop treating me like a retard! I'm not retarded, I'm a DRUNK! get it straight.

Solana | November 19, 2006 03:04 AM

Thanks+bro%21+Real+good+

Post a comment.

Comments are moderated to stop spam; if your comment goes into moderation, it may take a couple of hours to be released. Please read this for my comment moderation policies.
Preview will not show paragraph breaks. Trust me, they're there.
The proprietor generally responds to commenters in kind. If you're polite, he'll be polite. If you're a jackass, he'll be a jackass. If you are ignorant, he may correct you.
When in doubt, read the comment thread rules.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)