Kansas GOP Insider (wannabe): Shocker. Well not really.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Shocker. Well not really.

Who saw this one coming?

Oh wait. Everyone.

A panel of liberal Democratic judges ruled today that the Democrats do not have to put a Democrat on the ballot for U.S. Senate. It's true, there already is a Democrat on the ballot, but Greg Orman is running without a 'D' behind his name. (And that shouldn't count, because the Democrats had a primary and everything. No really. Just a few months ago, they had a primary election with two whole candidates battling it out to be the guy who drops out of the race to make way for Orman.)

What is it with liberals and their basic misunderstanding of language?

"Shall" equals "used in laws,  regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory." No seriously. That's the actual definition from Webster's Dictionary. 

I feel pretty certain that when law makers use that word in legislation, the legislators interpret "shall" to mean "mandatory." 

I am also really, really confident what the word "is" means as I am a native English speaker with, apparently, an unusually exceptional understanding of the meaning of common words. I am not a judge, alas, so I am not adept at parsing language so words mean what I want them to mean instead of what they actually mean.

So, the Democrats will not replace Chad Taylor on the ballot. Everyone saw that coming, right? And by everyone, I mean the Roberts campaign staff. You guys knew this was coming, and are properly prepared, right?


  1. From the opinion (God forbid you actually read it): "Black's Law Dictionary provides a full five distinct meanings of the word "shall":

    1. "Has a duty to; more broadly, is required to"
    2. "Should (as often interpreted by the courts)"
    3. "May"
    4. "Will (as a future ..tense verb)"
    5. "Is entitled to."

    So construction is clearly required, as was established in previous Kansas case law (you know, the thing judge's use to decide cases). You have no clue what you are talking about and, like Kris Kobach, are hanging your entire argument on a dictionary opposed to case law, legislative history, enforcement mechanisms (or the lack there of), subject matter at issue, and impact on the parties.

  2. I think it's funny that someone took the time to reply and make that last comment. Clearly, they win.