Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:19:58 PM
I know
I said I would post nothing more about Berg, and I am not. This is simply notice that his case has been dismissed for lack of standing. Apparently Berg does plan to appeal the ruling on the motion to dismiss, so there will doubtless be more (provided the court hears his appeal).
There is one point of interest. In replying
to a comment on my previous article I wrote:
Nor does lying about one's past. There is no legal obligation to tell
the truth in a campaign. I suppose someone may make a far fetched
argument that they donated based on false information, as Berg alleges,
but that sounds like some bizarre theory an overachieving first year
law student would invent, not something a judge would accept.
Oddly enough, in their ruling the court wrote:
The "promises" that Plaintiff identifies are statements of principle
and intent in the political realm. They are not enforceable promises
under contract law. Indeed, our political system could not function if
every political message articulated by a campaign could be
characterized as a legally binding contract enforceable by individual
voters. Of course, voters are free to vote out of office those
politicians seen to have breached campaign promises. Federal courts,
however, are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political
rhetoric
I suppose my year in law school was not entirely wasted after all. Who knew you could recall so much after that many pints of Bass?