Recall decision...going to the SC.

Group promises appeal, Davis to keep campaigning



Los Angeles-AP -- One of the groups that put the recall of Governor Gray Davis on the California ballot is promising a quick appeal of today's court ruling.

A federal appeals court postponed the election -- which had been set for October seventh. The judges objected to the use of an outdated punch-card system in six of California's counties.

But the court isn't implementing its decision for another week -- to allow time for an appeal to the U-S Supreme Court.

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1443135

I doubt SCOTUS wants to get involved in another election debacle

This Supreme Court has neither. While no Court's decisions are predictable, this one's perspectives are leavened with such insane partisan zealotry it's even less predictable than most, IMHO.

The interesting game here will be how quickly the court decides to rule or not rule.

Remember, they couldn't get Scalia to the Courthouse fast enough to overturn the Florida recount in 2000...now will he be as quick to stick his slimy fingers into this one and force the election in October?

I get a strong feeling that RoveCo. is now hoping for the delay and have this campaign to play around with whenever a distraction is needed. He's got a bunch of cards to play here...McClintock finally pulling out, more celebrity Ah-nold apperances/endorsements, energizing the wingnut base with dilusions of taking power there and so on...and he's gonna need every distraction he can get to keep people thinking about how poorer they are, more scared they are and less protected.

One would think the media would be the loser since they lose this "mini-superbowl" election, but they always seem to make lemons out of lemonaide...and given the choice of sitting for 3 months in Sacramento or L.A. or Baghdad, we know where all the CNN talking heads would rather be.

that more than one SC Justice, and O'Conner in particular, felt great regret about the ruling and the aftermath that the Court would now appear so politicized. Some suggest this is why O'Conner penned a book a few years later - to try for damage control regarding her part in the policitization of the Judiciary. They key telling point that more than one who ruled in the majority on that case is the little bitty clause that tried to make the ruling "anti-precident" setting. That is what the Court does, divines on law and sets precidents. This caveat was like a huge admission that the players knew better and knew that by acting this way they had opened the doors for the judicial branch of the country to start stepping into the electoral process.

I do believe that OConner is very sensitive to this charge, and that she may not be alone. I do not expect a repeat performance. But then again... I never would have guessed, prior to Nov 2002 that the Supreme Court would overstep its constitutional bounds to assist a political party/politician and decide an election. And never would I have guessed that such intervention would not have set off a constitutional crisis. It should have, but it did not.

prior to Nov 2000.

Supreme Clowns feel about voting - right?

The ACLU picked the wrong reason cuz some counties were using those old PAPER punch cards when everyone else would have newer machines. Thanks 4 promoting the no paper trail vote.

Now if the SCOTUS were to overule the 9th Circut, wouldn't they be overuling their decision in WhistleDick v. Gore? Equal opportunity?

it'd create major hell..and the freeps are aware..

Selection 2000. Whether it's delayed til March or SCOTUS decrees it's held next month, EITHER WAY, it's good for Dems. Either way! Why? Because California has more registered Dems than rethugs. Many of those Dems, in fact most, are moderate to liberal. That's the group that remains outraged over the stolen election in 2000. That's the group that will tend to view this as another attempt by rethugs to steal yet another election they couldn't win fair 'n' square. And that's exactly the block of voters that rethugs would rather see so discouraged that they stay home and don't bother to vote. And either way, that is not going to happen now. Especially if SCOTUS steps in. Mark my words: that will inflame Democrats like nobody's business. Voter turnout will be high. WAY higher than expected. Dems will be motivated like crazy to avalanche to the polls.

They'll come out by the trainload next month if the election remains on for next month. They'll come out in even bigger numbers in March, which conveniently is when the presidential primary is held out here. They'll be extremely well motivated to turn out for that, by then, anyway. And it'll be enough to either keep Gray Davis where he is or elevate Bustamante. Dems are angry. There is no love lost between bush and California Dems. California Dems are not his friends and have not intention of changing that status any time soon. Either way, this is bad for rethugs. And I couldn't be more delighted!

As one well-known and despised (out here in California especially) rethug recently put it - "bring 'em on."

So it's a good thing that this mess stretches out for the Dems?

I can agree that this recall has really energized the party on a national basis unlike anything I've seen in recent years, but would that intensity last? Now that all bets are off for the meantime, wouldn't it be best just to let the Repugs continue to campaign and then call them on both the need and now the legality of such an election. Let's hang 'em by the ropes they've left us!

It's time Dems focus on the lies and abuses of this regime and not stop hammering it or let sideshows like this one get in the way. Every chance people must be reminded how much more prosperous, safer and healthier this nation was prior to the 2000 election sham.

We have to point out how every issue this regime has backed has been a total failure and how both morally and ideologically bankrupt the Repugnican agenda is...and if we don't stop it now, there's sure to be more suffering ahead.

maybe now the mass media will finally give this issue a forum. I am looking at this as a real means to give the no paper trail voting problem some real media attention. Bev Harris on CNN, how cool would that be?

No question, Dibold should be examined a lot more than is is (especially after that goofy Ohio GOOP campaign contribution).

Right now I'll be happy with more scrutiny of this regime and it's corrupt and inept party and all the games they've been playing over the past 10 years to overthrow popularly elected governments.

There's a golden story, Pulitzer, riches and imortality for any journalist with the guts to take on this regime and expose these dogs for who they are. I know there are many valiant journalists...too bad most have to work outside this country...but it's time for the "mainstream" media to stop being bullied by this regime and start being that vital fifth estate that is as important to the balance of power as any judiciary.

If they come in and rescue this GOP (Greed Over Patriotism) coup they will remind everyone just how crooked repukes are just in time for the 2004 elections and seal Bush's* impending loss in a lead coffin.

If the decide to avoid the issue- the nutcases at Freak Republikkk are already making crazy threats- then their wingnut accomplices will turn on them.

"If the decide to avoid the issue- the nutcases at Freak Republikkk are already making crazy threats- then their wingnut accomplices will turn on them."

What kind of threats are the nut jobs making?

Stuff like, "Time for another revolution; we need to overthrow this government", yadda, yadda, yadda.

They're nuts. Really.

This really shows their ignorance. The Supreme Court and the federal court system are not the government but the independent judiciary.

Before or after the last election that put Davis in the State House?

.

given that punch cards are used in mostly Dem districts including the main Dem district in San Diego county.

http://www.mortysmall.com/spooky3.shtml

Hollow Man (2000) DVD
Hollow Man(2000) VHS
Paul Verhoeven's nasty, high-tech variation on "The Invisible Man" stars Kevin Bacon as a self-absorbed scientist working on a government invisibility project who tests the serum on himself, even though all of its kinks haven't been worked out. Those side-effects turn the unseen Bacon into an amoral maniac and send him on a violent rampage against co-worker (and ex-girlfriend) Elisabeth Shue and the rest of his crew. With Josh Brolin, William Devane. 112 min. Widescreen; Soundtracks: English 5.1 and Dolby Surround, French; Subtitles: English, French; audio commentary by Verhoeven and Bacon; isolated music score; deleted scenes; "making of" featurettes; theatrical trailers; web links; scene access.
(snip)

The Ninth Circuit pointed out that there isn't any requirement that pending ballot initiatives be consolidated with the recall election, so there's no harm in moving the vote on them till March. Also, the California Constitution has a strict timeline for preparing and mailing voter information on propositions in advance of an election, and CA blew those deadlines. The court said: "Thus, the election laws of CA not only do not require that the initiatives be placed on the special election ballot; the laws will be violated if they are placed on the ballot." The court's reasoning here is unassailable.

The recall part of the decision is still good, but there's room to argue. For example, the main issue is that punchcards aren't as reliable as other systems, so there's an equal protection problem. There's a "slippery slope" argument here -- what if in March some counties use optical scanning, and others use touch screens? How much of an error rate is allowed before there's a constitutional violation? Is the only way to go using just one type of system statewide? Also, my precinct uses punchcards, but I have the option of going to another polling place and using a touchscreen. If everyone else has that option, where's the problem? No one said that voting has to be convenient.

Fortunately, the 9th Circuit based its decision for the most part on Bush v. Gore, and cited the Supremes frequently. The Supreme Court can only take the case if there's a split in Circuit law (which doesn't appear to be the case), or if there's an important issue they haven't yet resolved. To take this case they'd have to admit they didn't do a good enough job in the Bush v. Gore case, and they'd have to insert themselves into yet another election. I don't think they'll be inclined to do this.

My money is on the Supreme Court not reviewing this decision. (And yes, I read all 65 pages of it!)

for your insight and perspective.

That was "unprecedentable", remember?? LOL!

I read on another thread a comment that the California Secretary of State had declared the punch card ballots unreliable, and ordered them replaced by the previously scheduled March 2004 elections, and the October recall date woiuldn't allow time for that. Assuming the state SoS has the authority over this issue (just like good old Kate Harris did down in Florida), that should be an argument for delaying until March as well.

I think part of the issue is that the older punchcards have a higher error rate than newer systems already in place in other (richer) counties, and the 4 counties in question are those that have disenfranchised minorities in the past, so that makes the error rate issue more important to the court. Not that it stopped Asscrack's DoJ from giving their okey-dokey, but members of the Bush Cabal are not to be trusted to make anything but the most blatantly partisan of decisions.

Justification: A delay will harm Ahnuld's "legitimacy".

(seriously, I don't think they'll touch it)

CNN Legal Analyst- ruling rely's heavily on Bush v. Gore- Repukes skewered by their own arguments.

Folks, between this and BBV (Bev Harris) I can't help but think we're heading for a complete election accountability meltdown.

Scalia made sure of that. It was a one-of-a-kind ruling designed to appoint the boy king and NOTHING ELSE. Sheesh. And they call this guy a "Legal Analyst"!

So for the USSC to reverse this, they would in essence be saying their Bush v. Gore ruling was wrong.

LMAO- can't have it both ways- 'Big Tony' must be squealing like a stuck pig about now.

But it can't touch it!

The Ninth Circuit relied too heavily on Bush v. Gore, in a factually analogous set of circumstances. Were SCOTUS to overturn the Ninth Circuit now, it would, in effect, be casting doubt on the legitimacy of its own decision in Bush v. Gore, and on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency itself.

If you have yet to read the Ninth Circuit's Circuit's opinion, you may wish to do so. Here's the link!

I find it quite interesting that the Ninth Circuit opinion, like Bush v. Gore, is per curiam. I also find it interesting that the panel relied so heavily on Bush v. Gore. I wonder to what extent that the panel is relishing in having forced SCOTUS into what appears to be a Hobson's Choice.

It will be fun watching Scalia and Company squirm out of this fix.