Monday, June 19, 2006
Hey, that's mean
The Daily Cal has things to say about the SADQ. I'll start with the editorial.
The summary is "Yeah, they lied their asses off. Yeah, they deserved to be punished. But this was too harsh!" Skim to the bottom for my big political philosophy whining.
Too bad [the Judicial Council] drew a blank on the spirit of the law - to take appropriate action to ensure a fair campaign.
Too bad the Daily Cal drew a blank on the role of the Judicial Council. There's more to the Judicial Council than elections violations. It's also in charge of making sure that officials follow the rules when elections are not going on. More on this later.
Responding to "one-day chalk" with party disqualification? A little excessive, to say the least.
How about responding to straight lying to the body in charge of making sure rules are followed?
The Judicial Council serves as an arbiter of election disputes. If a candidate or party egregiously violates campaign laws, the council should hold the party accountable to uphold a fair election.
But in this case the council seemed more concerned with the party's disrespect of the council than the party's campaign violations.
That is what this case was about. The campaign violations had already been dealt with.
Now, for those at the Daily Cal and others, please keep in mind that "disrespecting the Judicial Council" is "disrespecting the apparatus by which our government officials are bound to the rules." What the candidates were disqualified for was no less than spitting in the face of the rules, declaring "We can do whatever we want, and no Constitution or By-laws can stop us." If you're interested in the dictatorship approach to government, this is fine, but the democratic-minded among us don't like this approach. We want our officials to be hobbled by rules, so they don't abuse their power.
. . .
. . .