Aggie Weighs in on Shadiness

[aggienaut]

   The Case 34 Plaintiff Brief is unchanged from last week, and the Defence Brief just came in. I recommend you read them, they're concise (1.5 and 1 pages respectively) and its relatively easy to grasp what the case is about and therefore rather what exactly it is we do in the ASUCD Supreme Court.


   The Hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday, Dec 6th) at 7:10pm in the MU Mee Rm Moot Court, UCD Law School.


   In other news, The Aggie published an editorial ("Sanders' Motives, Integrity Questionable"* today declaring former Lead Senator / Focus VP Candidate Jon "Independant" Sanders to have a shadiness factor of approximately nine**.
   Sanders belongs to the same fraternity (Delta Chi) that brought us Sen Thomas "Loopholes" Lloyd & Justice Daniel "Retroactive" Raff.

* Will someone please do something about the paragraph-long Aggie URLs?!
** Number nine not explicitly stated in the editorial, but clearly implied.

Comments

[sivart13.livejournal.com]

For internet linking purposes, aggie URLs such as the one you posted can be reduced to the bare minimum

http://californiaaggie.com/news/2006/12/05/Opinion/Editorial.Asucd.Executive.Office.Candidate-2522340.shtml

which is expanded via soft redirect to the "full form" when visited in the browser. If you want them to be any shorter than that, or are irked by the way that visiting the shorter URL redirects to the long one, your quarrel lies with Daniel Stone for selling the Aggie out to devil people.

[sostrowski.livejournal.com]

The problem with all of this is that it enforces the party line mentality in ASUCD. The slates make changes and negotiations just like any other club. It doesn't matter which slate Sanders is on. If you look at what Sanders has said in the past and his voting record he is one of the more independent senators.

A Tiny Defection

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I think the Aggie's main point was that it would have been unremarkable if he had merely switched parties and explained himself as such; but he essentially appears to have lied in saying explicitly that he didn't intend to run with the other party when in all probability he already intended to do so. The Aggie's complaint is not that he switched parties as a result of "changes & negotiations," but very specifically that he lied about it.

As the Aggie concludes:
"If Sanders left LEAD because he felt the slate erred by not choosing him as an executive office nominee, he should have explained the true reason for his dissociation. By giving ambiguous causes for leaving the slate, he casts justifiable suspicion on his motives."