9th Circuit does it again

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/...elay/index.html

 

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Monday ordered California election officials to halt preparations for the October 7 gubernatorial recall election, citing concerns about a "hurried, constitutionally infirm" process.

 

The ruling from a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals follows a hearing last week in which the American Civil Liberties Union sought a postponement of the vote. A lower court last month had rejected the request.

 

Voters had been scheduled to go to the polls October 7 to decide whether to remove California Gov. Gray Davis. But the ACLU argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

 

The ACLU brought suit, saying the punch-card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest.

 

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court concluded, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. "The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear."

 

If Monday's ruling stands, the recall vote could be moved to March 2004.

 

Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Davis, said the governor and his campaign will "keep moving forward until it's settled.

 

"It's in the court's hands," Ragone said. "We are taking measure. We'd be pleased by anything that leads to greater enfranchisement in the state of California."

 

There was no immediate reaction from the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate to replace Davis should the recall succeed.

[Firestarter 0]

CNN story

 

And the only court in the country with a reversal rate of 78-96% of reviewed cases goes up to bat one more time.

[Firestarter 0]

Okay, that was scary. We both posted the same story at exactly the same time.

 

Get a life, you pathetic political junkie!

 

Edit: Historical note - the two topics were consolidated into one. My title and subtitle were kept, even though JotW got top billing. I demanded, and received, a higher cut of the gate.

Edited September 15, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Gee, the 9th Circuit. What a shock. Wonder if this will be taken to a higher court?

 

Here's my solution for all the "disenfranchised" voters of California.

 

CHECK YOUR VOTING CARD FOR HANGING CHADS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT IT...

[Guest JMA]

Kudos to the ACLU. Still, even if Davis isn't recalled, I hope Arnold runs in the next election.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

EDIT: I guess Marney's and JOTW's threads got merged and I made a similar post in both threads so I'm aborting one of those posts before it grows limbs...

Edited September 16, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Firestarter 0]

Gee, the 9th Circuit. What a shock. Wonder if this will be taken to a higher court?

Bound to be. And since the recall is perfectly legal under California's constitution, stupid and degenerative though I think it is, the appellate court's decision is bound to be overturned. Just like 78-96% of its previous reviewed rulings have been.

 

In fact, I'll call it now. The Supreme Court will reverse this within the week-long stay.

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

MUST...........HOLD......BACK............RAGE~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Can the 9th Circuit be recalled?...

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Can the 9th Circuit be recalled?...

Let's hope so.

[Firestarter 0]

Can the 9th Circuit be recalled?...

Actually, there was a plan to split it up and create a new 12th Circuit at one point. I wonder what happened to that?

 

<makes calls>

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm sure there could be a case for recalling this bunch, what with their high overturned record and all...

[Firestarter 0]

Hmm, it was S346 under the 107th. No one seems to know what exactly happened to it right now. Probably got bogged down in a committee somewhere. I'll dig around a bit more later.

 

Edit: Scanned the congressional record briefly. My best guess is that it died in the Judiciary committee.

Edited September 15, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The 9th Court.

 

Gotta love judges that don't use the law in their rulings.

[Guest Razor Roman]

Here are my feelings on the issue.

 

1. Why is the ACLU challenging the recall? Are they insinuating that people of color are not smart enough to figure out how to vote? If I were a person of color, I would be outraged by that.

 

2. Those voting machines were good enough to elect Davis last year. What's wrong with them now?

 

 

Now, granted, I AM a Republican, but I try to side on where the law stands (like the recent 10 Commandments issue) . I don't know who I'd vote for, and am not actively supporting a candidate (especially since I am in New Jersey). I also don't understand how the Democrats claim the GOP is thwarting the will of the voters, when it was the voters that put the recall in, in the first place.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

2. Those voting machines were good enough to elect Davis last year. What's wrong with them now?

I was watching O'Reilly last week OMG FAUX NEWS LOL 2003! and he had some scumbag attorney on talking about this. The attorney said that after the last election there was some rule that mandated all punch-card voting machines replaced by updated machines. The organization that used to be the American Civil Liberties Union but is now known as the ACLU is merely acting on this voting machine upgrade.

 

The scumbag lawyer said this, not me. And remember, it was on FAUX NEWS LOL 2003!...

[Firestarter 0]

This part is my favourite:

 

"The only potential justification is that the California Constitution requires that a recall election be held within sixty days of certification by the Secretary of State. However, this justification has no application to placement of the initiatives on the ballot because there is no similar time constraint applicable to them, and they were originally scheduled to be placed on the March 2004 ballot. As to the gubernatorial recall vote, this rationale is also weak. Indeed, had the recall petition been certified just a month and a half later than it was, the recall election would have been scheduled to take place not within sixty to eighty days as provided in the California Constitution, art. II, §15(a), but instead in March 2004..."

 

Are these people high? No, really, have they been taking liberal advantage (sorry) of Prop 215? The state constitution is "only [a] potential justification?" What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck? And where's all this blather about a month and a half coming from? Someone help me out here, because I'm trying really, really, hard, but I can't even begin to see how that's relevant. Earlier in the decision:

 

"If the Secretary of State had issued the certification a month and a half later than he did, as originally planned based on the date by which sufficient valid petition signatures needed to be filed, the recall election would have been held at the next regular election March 2, 2004. However, sufficient signatures were submitted before the deadline, motivating the Secretary of State to issue a certification earlier than originally planned."

 

Yes... and?! What in God's name is your point, you complete raving lunatics? If the Secretary of State had issued the certification a decade and a half later than he did, Gray Davis's term would've expired and no one would've needed to vote on this at all! Hey, let's just cancel the recall instead of postponing it, it's just MANDATED BY LAW, right? WHO CARES ABOUT THE DETAILS?

 

And THIS!

 

"We would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation’s history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy."

 

Well isn't that just dandy. I'm SO FUCKING HAPPY we have the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by panel of their collective head-up-the-ass HONOR Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez to engage in PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.

 

What's that you say? That's not an appellate court's role?

 

SILLY BOY

 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALONE SHALL DETERMINE THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S ROLE!

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus God. Is it too much to ask for a sense of shame from these cretins if nothing else.

[Firestarter 0]

Clarification: As I've said in more than one previous thread, I really don't like the idea of the recall, I think no provision for it should ever have been part of California's constitution, so the outcome of the decision doesn't bother me in the least.

 

But I fucking HATE the 9th Circuit.

 

BE CONSISTENT! MAKE SOME FUCKING SENSE ONCE IN A WHILE! LEARN TO FUCKING COUNT! TAKE A BASIC FUCKING LOGIC CLASS! IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FEDERAL FUCKING JUDGES, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

 

 

 

 

I'm on the verge of breaking down in tears out of pure frustration. What's wrong with them?! What?!

Edited September 15, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The attorney said that after the last election there was some rule that mandated all punch-card voting machines replaced by updated machines. The organization that used to be the American Civil Liberties Union but is now known as the ACLU is merely acting on this voting machine upgrade.

 

The scumbag lawyer said this, not me. And remember, it was on FAUX NEWS LOL 2003!...

Hey I visit DA' FAUX NEWS 'LOL'ACAUST homepage so often that it actually welcomes me by my first name when I go to it.

 

Gray Davis said he'd remove all the punchcard ballot machines by 2004. It's only a few months from 2004 and they're still around. So it seems the effort to recall Gray Davis is on hold because Gray Davis was too lazy/slow to replace the voting machines he said he would.

[Vyce 0]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the inevitable Gore / Bush comparison yet.

 

The recall supporters do have a legitimate gripe; Bill O'Reilly is the key person saying this (so it must be wrong, RIGHT?) but those ballots were just peachy keen for Davis' election, yet they're not good enough now? I think that's some of the inconsistency that Marney was talking about.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually, although the voting machines were found faulty, Davis said he'd have them all replaced when 2004 started, and that was agreed upon.

 

Both sides are kind of at fault here, the ACLU didn't give Davis all the time he asked for, and Davis probably could have gone about this faster than he has.

[Firestarter 0]

In fact, I'll call it now. The Supreme Court will reverse this within the week-long stay.

Just wanted to point out that I was better than right, and gloat over it for a bit.

 

That is all. Carry on.