and as for suken lying, it was proved later that he did. Not through hearsay, but by actual people who were able to contradict statements that he made in affidavits where he, again, lied.

honestly, i think the j-council didn’t slap him with a contempt charge bc they aren’t as power hungry as you claim. they kind of gave him the benefit of the doubt bc what he was saying was soooo completely idiotic and stupid. plus, let’s not forget bret’s later tries at covering up suken’s idiocy with more dumb lies

It is true Suken didn’t run it as well as Bret did. But that does not negate the fact that SA was punished for their wrongdoing before the vote count, got more votes than anybody, and then were screwed by a power-hungry group of justices. Suken may or may not have lied in the first case- it can’t be proven beyond hearsay. If was he said was really as horrible as it has been made out to be, the J-Council could very well have asked for clarification on the spot, and struck him down immediately in contempt. Yet they didn’t.

Calholic, who are you anyway?

That is where things get fishy. SUKEN VAKIL, who is no longer a student on campus, allegedly lied in the original case and was sued by Andy. Yet nobody can prove what Suken did or did not say. Certainly not most of the 4 justices who ruled in that case. In fact, most of those justices weren’t actually there for the original hearing where it was claimed Suken committed perjury.

The J-Council has long been a power grabbing beast with no checks on it for some time now. Years even. An old friend of mine, Mike Davis, started that trend. This is especially possible during the summer months when there is no active senate. In this particular case, there was no active President, either (it is very difficult to remain President when you no longer live in Berkeley, have already graduated, and have started work).

The very same constitution, bylaws, and JRPs that you refer to that give the “other branches of the government to reinforce them” don’t work when there are no checks on the one active branch of government. Further, those same rules are intended to prevent the J-Council from over-extending their authority. Unfortunately, those “other branches of government” haven’t been allowed to exist lately to check the J-Council’s power.
SA certainly illegally chalked. They never denied that they chalked. The statement in question was one regarding how effective chalking is in a campaign. From a person who has done more ASUC campaigns than just about anybody else, chalking isn’t very effective EXCEPT for when it allows a personal contact between a candidate/campaigner and a potential voter. The reason SA pushes chalking until late at night and flyering early the next morning is because people see and hear about how hard the SA campaigns work. When was the last time you gave a first place vote to a serious contender for executive office because of chalking? If anybody actually has, it has certainly not been enough to affect the outcome of an executive race.

To judge student sentiment by the posters on blogs is impossible. Those that read and post on CalStuff, Beetlebeat, and Calaholic are not typical students–they are students (and alums and other folks) with a particular interest in the student government. Most of the posters on CalStuff and Beetlebeat have long been involved with ASUC politics. I have been friends with several of them for several years and known many others for a long time.

This is not to discount the opinions of those posting on these blogs. Indeed, the bloggers and frequent commenters know quite a bit more about the ASUC, its structure, government, and history than the typical student would ever care to know. Still, it is the typical student that must decide an election in a democratic system. For a court (or a journalist) to determine the will of an electorate is undemocratic.