I know I said I wasn't going to get into ASUC elections on this side of my blogoverse, but I thought I'd direct you to the most recent few posts over at Hot for Teacher, since there's some actual lawyery-type stuff happening there, if you're interested.
Steve, you gypsy bastard, there's a hastily written Judicial Council brief over there just waiting for your unforgiving criticism.
Here's some forgiving criticism. First, your OP-ed states that there was a unanimous holding that the Elections Council lacked constitutional authority to censor vulgarity. It seems to me that the Judicial Council is instead saying that the constitutional authority exists but has not been exercised through statute. This is an important technical point, but should not affect the resolution of any future case based on the same facts and law.
Your brief is far better than that garbage you tried to argue about gay marriage, and you basically have the best of the legal arguments all the way through. I did feel like you came off like you were talking down to the judges (and this is coming from me) which may not have helped your chances as an individual. Also, not helping was the complete lack of "value" in your statement. How easy it would have been to change the last two fucks into the words "your professors" At least then you'd have something like a sentence to stand behind. As it was, you gave them an out, albeit an illegal one, by submitting and absurdist or postmodern string of profanity rather than the type of "idea" critical to an open election. You may have been right on the law (although I would have liked an extended section of your brief explaining why the censorship did not pass strict scrutiny) but you can do better than a string of fucks. You should be happy they've given you a chance to revise that fucking bullshit. Cunt.
the statement was indeed very postmodern, a direct response to the unfounded claim by an elections council official that profanity wouldn't be tolerated in the voters' guide. since this was my senate statement, a race which i don't plan on devoting any attention to, and i had already provided a legitimate AAVP statement, i felt the absurdist postmodernism was appropriate.
i think my statement about the EC lacking constitutional authority is accurate. i'm speaking in a positive sense. there's nothing in the ASUC constitution that specifically enables the elections council to censor vulgarity. but i see your point, depending on how broadly you define constitutional authority.
There's something wrong with me: I get a little weepy reading this stuff between you two. We miss you, Steve!
oh, you.
also, i do think that the string of profanity expressed an "idea," though not explicitly enough for the j-council. as kevin says in his blog:
"Holohan's statement can easily be read by voters as a nihilist rejection of the ASUC, as a promise of the Squelch!'s ideology of having fun with things, or many other interpretations."
that blog is calstuff.blogspot.com, by the way.
I have a few responses/additions. First, I too miss the frequent in person debates on the details of the relatively unimportant. This will have to do for the time being, and I think with time the weepyness should pass. I wasn't aware that this was a senate statement and not the VP statement, which makes it a little more defensible especially as its a response to and not the provocation of a threat to censor. Perhaps most importantly, the Office of Academic Affairs owes me a palm pilot.
See: http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=5071
While the article is garbage in nearly every respect, it does give me heart. If and when you are elected I will commence suit against you in your official capacity for my palm pilot. I'll see you in court. Cunt.
I have a few responses/additions. First, I too miss the frequent in person debates on the details of the relatively unimportant. This will have to do for the time being, and I think with time the weepyness should pass. I wasn't aware that this was a senate statement and not the VP statement, which makes it a little more defensible especially as its a response to and not the provocation of a threat to censor. Perhaps most importantly, the Office of Academic Affairs owes me a palm pilot.
See: http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=5071
While the article is garbage in nearly every respect, it does give me heart. If and when you are elected I will commence suit against you in your official capacity for my palm pilot. I'll see you in court. Cunt.
... (long awkward pause) ...sorry, I don't have time to write mean things on your crappy blog right now. the wife's on the phone. gotta go.
Further, keep in mind that if you win this you'll owe me a palm pilot and some flip-downs and thus my level of annoying persistence will double.
gaah! they're back! the spammers are back! there's a gremlin in my cab!
they must have been lurking, waiting ever so patiently, for gene to go abroad. save us, kristen! in god's name!
ok. should i delete this "flip-down shades" guy too? I am the FCC of CH! rawr!
i wouldn't worry about the flip-down shades guy. that gypsy has rolled on.