Become a Fan

twitter / LegalPadblog

LAWJOBS.COM S.F. BAY AREA JOB LISTINGS

« ACLU Secures Release of Two Disabled Immigrants | Main | Incumbent S.F. Judge Secures Key Endorsements »

April 02, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d052253ef01347f9a7c44970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John Eastman: A Loss Becomes a Victory, Con Law a Conservative Calling Card:

Comments

David Cameron Carr

These battles over misleading ballot designations by lawyers suggest a completely different meaning to the term "con" law.

Tim Kowal

This post is not quite accurate. "Constitutional Law Attorney" was actually not one of Eastman's alternatives. Eastman's choice and two alternatives were "Assistant Attorney General," "Special Assistant Attorney-General," and "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney." Steve Cooley objected to all three: he said Eastman could not say he was "Assistant Attorney General" without qualifying it by saying he was the AAG of "South Dakota." (Requiring geographical qualifiers in candidates' job descriptions is unprecedented and is not the law.) But then Cooley also objected to "Special Assistant Attorney-General" because it violated the three-word limit of Elections Code section 13107(a)(3). Thus, Cooley obviously did not expect Eastman to insert any "South Dakota" qualifier into his "Assistant Attorney General" designation, as this (already accurate job description) maxed out the word limit. Cooley was just playing games here.

Who knows what hair-brained reason Cooley objected to "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney."

More on this here: http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/cooley-misleadingly-accusing-eastman-of-being-misleading/

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • lawjobs
    Search For Jobs

    Job Type

    Region

    Keyword (optional)

February 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28