Has the Calif. recall been postponed - CNN n/t

[janekat]

[janekat]

1. Check out CNN n/t

[morningglory]

2. Yes, so they can get touch screen voting machines in place

in all precincts!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. diebold and ES&S to the rescue of ahhnuld..omfg!

[LEW]

3. May go to the Supreme Court

Oh my.........everyone remember 2000. They are using the ruling used in Florida to stop this election. Ohhhh I love the USA!!!!!!

B-)

[Brotherjohn]

5. Woohoo! If it goes to the SCOTUS, they'll have to defend their FL 2000...

...decision. The CA court is saying that there isn't equal protection b/c different voting methods are being used. To my knowledge, the first time anyone has ever tried that bulls*** is the SCOTUS in selecting GWB. So the CA court MUST be using it as a precedent.

The SCOTUS will now have to defend their use of this ridiculous argument, and thus, their selection of GWB.

Of course, they could refuse to take the case if it comes their way. But either way, this will bring the issue to the forefront again, on a national level, which can only be good.

[jcgadfly]

6. I thought the decision in Bush v. Gore couldn't be used as precedent.

The Felonious Five won't have to defend anything.

[tom_paine]

7. Yep. As corrupt as Saddam's Supreme Court, it was

n/t

[Brotherjohn]

9. Well, yes, of course. I know that. But that's just it.

The fact that a lower court might come to them using it as a precedent(if they took the case) would force them, or at least their apologists (whether they took the case or not) in the media and in the political arena, to explain that ludicrous position.

Them saying it couldn't be used as precedent had no precedent itself. Them using "equal protection" to invalidate an election based on differing methods also had no precedent. Both positions were ludicrous.

If this issue even threatens to go to the Supreme Court, this debate will be brought up again on a national scale. That would not be good timing for Bush, who had hoped that 9-11 put any debate about his legitimacy to rest.

[BrotherBuzz]

10. Brother, I like your reasoning!

[knight_of_the_star]

15. It gets worse

This allows for the judges who were in opposition to the ruling to REALLY put their say out on the media. I know that when I was in DC for a school function Justice Souter had a LOT to say about WHY he thought that Bush v Gore was not ruled on properly. Looks like the recall is really going to spin around and bite the GOP right in the arse. Couldn't have happened to a bettter bunch of people :evilgrin: .

[BrotherBuzz]

16. You mean worse in a GOOD way!

I agree...

[Walt Starr]

12. They aren't using it as a precedent

however, they have ruled identically to how the SCOTUS ruled, upholding an identical argument as was upheld in Bush Vs. Gore.

IF the SCOTUS takes the case and strikes this decision down, it will be tanamount to saying Bush vs. Gore was wrong.

[Brotherjohn]

13. Clever, clever CA Court!

If they are NOT using it as a precedent, then the SCOTUS cannot overrule or refuse the case based on their earlier ruling saying that Florida 2000 could NOT be used as a precedent!

They would either have to:
A) take the case and independently make the same ludicrous ruling again
B) take the case and use their own ludicrous ruling as a precedent (despite them saying that no one should ever do so)
C) take the case and uphold it (in which case they would be conflicting with their ruling in Florida 2000)
or
D) or not take the case at all.

As I stated above, even if they did not take the case, the debate will come to the fore, which will result in new questions about the legitimacy of the decision in Florida 2000, and therefore, the legitimacy of the Bush presidency itself.

Clever, clever CA Court! They could end up making the CA recall backfire in a big way.

[Doomsayer13]

11. SCOTUS wont touch this

just like how they didn't touch Lautenberg V. Forrester

[mb7588a]

8. precedent

Any decision can be used as precedent can't it? They said "it shouldn't be used" as precedent. This much I remember. The same court probably will not use it as precedent then.

[knight_of_the_star]

14. They still can probably use it

Nowhere does it say that a judge can say that a case has no binding precednt. That kind of move has no precedent in and of itself. This should be interesting to see how it turns out.