BREAKING Yahoo News-Court to Reconsider Calif. Recall Delay

[MoonAndSun]

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20030919/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall>


"Without commenting on the merits, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said it would convene an 11-member panel to consider the timing of the vote on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites). For the moment, Friday's action delays a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.


A date for the rehearing was not immediately announced."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sham]

2. Gah!

The court rehears about a dozen cases each year, and usually reverses the original three-judge panel's decision.

I don't even know what to think about this anymore. If the recall proceeds as scheduled, it will be a violation of federal law. If it is postponed, it will be a violation of the state constitution. Neither seems like a particularly attractive option, although I admit I am itching to see Bush v. Gore thrown back in the SCOTUS's face.

What kind of guy is this secretary of state Shelley? I have no idea about him. Is he working in the best interest of CA, or does he have an agenda like everyone else?

[papau]

4. We're developing some interesting case law

The USSC will be asked to review whatever the decision is - and will thereby lock down the Gore decision as law of the land - if the election is stopped, or show it as political - if the election is allowed to take place.

I do not see how we lose!

:-)

[plcdude]

7. I agree

this is a good situation. They are between a rock and a hard place on this one and if they are to be seen as remotely consistent they are probably going to uphold the three judge decision. I get a kick out of the "so called" liberal media talking about the fact that the appeals are usually turn over. It is sort of like when brilliant sportscasters compare last year's team with this years as though that is a predictor. The merits of the case will be heard. Remember this only a request to delay so that voting procedures are equitable. But of course, that is the rub for the conservative side - equal treatment has gone around and now has come around. This is great!

[piece sine]

22. yeah but...

The U.S. Supremes don't have to hear any case they don't want to deal with. You imply they have no choice but to hear it, but alas that's not the case. If the en banc Nineth decides one way or another, the Supremes could well let that stand.

[Lexingtonian]

23. what matters is

that the 9th burns up the 17 days to Oct 7, forcing the thing to March. Everything else, other than jamming up the USSC Five, is of no importance.

[slackmaster]

10. What federal law???

If the recall proceeds as scheduled, it will be a violation of federal law.

Cite, please.

[joshcryer]

12. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001

It makes the machines that are being used in several counties in CA illegitimate.

In other words: the 9th is right on this one. Just like it is 99.99% of the time. Only 1/10th of 1% of its cases have been reversed. This is fact.

[Newsjock]

3. CNN whores it up yet again

Candy Crowley just did a 30-second reader over the plans of Bustamante and McClintock to boycott the scripted debate, but then they gave five minutes to Rep. David Drier, R-Calif., a Schwarzenegger campaign adviser, to spout off virtually unchallenged about how great his candidate is. Crowley throws a couple softball questions... do you agree that Arnold is weak? ... no, of course not.

Anyone to represent Davis, Bustamante, or even McClintock? Not a prayer.

Absolutely vile, sickening, disgusting, beneath contempt.

[realFedUp]

5. I agree, unfair and unbalanced

and if I never see David Dreier acting as Arnold's
translator....it will be too soon.

[realFedUp]

6. The 11 judges were chosen

Bob Franken ran through the list and I think he said there
were 8 chosen by Republican presidents...will that shut
the conservatives up? I didn't hear if the decision
would be made in Pasadena or SF...anyone?

[papau]

9. Monday 4pm San Francisco is the hearing

Friday's decision does not overturn the 3 Judge ruling -- but it will now be reviewed by the larger group of appellate judges, who will be picked at random from among the active judges in the circuit. The hearing is set for 4 p.m. Monday in San Francisco.

The 9th Circuit has 26 active judges -- 17 appointed by Democratic presidents and nine by Republican presidents. Three of the Democratic-appointed judges were recused from the case, which means the random pool will have 14 Democratic appointees and nine Republican appointees

[AndyTiedye]

8. Who Owns The News?

THEM. Even here in California. :(

[joshcryer]

11. This is NOT NEWS guys! This was posted the other day!

It's just being regurgitated to make the 9th look bad. En banc was expected by several DUers here the day the judgement was made. Don't believe me? Use the search feature or backtrack a few days.

I repeat, this is not news. It's just more whoredom. Whoredom at its best.

[realFedUp]

13. Sure en banc was expected but it's still news

to which judges were chosen by the lottery and where
the decision will be held.
It's expected that either side will appeal to the
Supremes also and that will still be news technically.

:-)

[regnaD kciN]

14. I wonder...

...how many of these 11 judges are Reagan/Bush appointees?

[Shrek]

15. Not many, apparently

From article at MSNBC:

Shortly after its announcement, the court drew the judges who will hear the case and scheduled arguments for 1 p.m. (4 p.m. ET) Monday. Of the judges who will decide the case, seven were appointed by President Clinton, two by Ronald Reagan, one by George H.W. Bush and one, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder, by Jimmy Carter. None of the 11 was among the three judges who delayed the Oct. 7 election on Monday.

[LastDemInIdaho]

16. Sounds like a shoe-in for Davis

This recall dog ain't gonna hunt.

[Llewlladdwr]

21. Actually, doesn't look good for Davis at all.

It only takes 6 of the 11 judges to reverse the decision of the 3 judge panel. And this is about as conservative a panel as you could get in the 9th Circuit.

[David__77]

17. 3 GOPers.

Of the 11, I hear that 7 are Clinton appointees, 1 Carter appointee.

2 Reagan, 1 Bush I appointee.

We'll see what happens. What I want to know is when O'Connor comes back to Washington.

[Rose Siding]

18. For one brief DELICIOUS moment...

I thought recall DeLay. Tom. It was a wonderful moment. But now it's gone. Sigh :(

[Starpass]

19. correction needed--Bob Franken said 8 were DEMS and 3 repukes

I also heard discussions on various networks that said that if they overturn the decision, the Supreme Ct. will NOT become involved BUT if they uphold the decision the Supremes probably WILL. Not very obvious, are they?? The only thing that seems to make the Supremes a little reluctant is that they are smarting from the "looking political" label that they got and don't want to "expend their capital again" - or some such line was given. In a word, I was thinking that they really don't want to get involved because they are keeping themselves pure for the next time they have to make George the president---even if they have to refute their own goddamn ruling!!!

[Big_Mike]

20. And you are suprised?

Remember, this is the same body that gave us Dredd Scott, authorized the resettlement of Japanese-Americans (full citizens, no less), and also allowed the secret military tribunals currently being implemented. The USSC has a lengthy history of bowing in whatever direction the current wind blows. Frankly, a Portugese (sp) Man-o-war has more backbone (none) than the USSC.

They "grant deference" or "acquiece to the national need" and figure we can straighten it out in 10 or 20 years.

'Nuff said.

Big Mike