What are some Repug talking points for this court decision?

[jenk]

Sean Insanity seems very bitter today, he thinks that this decision invalidates ALL elections?!?!?!

[cspiguy]

1. are you trolling for freakers?

(use a 100 lb line and a three hook yellow and white roostertail sucker lure - no grimy worm needed)

1. Calif law says recalls have to be done 80 days from time of valid petition/signatures.
2. 9th is Federal, but the issue is State.
3. Punch cards were just fine for electing Gray, just not for recalling him.
4. Then they'll say the will of the people would be thwarted - as the Circuit court said, before this appeal.

any more?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. If Bush V Gore is followed then Voting Rights trumps state's rights

2. Voting Rights Act is a Federal matter.
3. If anything, that means Davis was elected by a larger margin given the communities whre punch cards are used.
4. The will of the people was thwarted when Issa paid for it to be.

;-) Just injecting some Dem talking points into the conversation.

[HFishbine]

4. But the Supremes

made it clear that Bush v Gore did not set ant precedent. Their opinions and interpretations of law were confined to that decision only according to the majority opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. That is correct. This time, of course, it WOULD set precedent

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The 9th crcuit didn't site the case, they merely used the logic. :D

[ComerPerro]

2. What do they care?

Republicans hate elections, becuase they show the will of the people.

Therefore, they lie and slander in order to sway the population enough to make their fraud legitimate.

They cheated in 2000, they tried to remove a democratically elected president in 1998, they initiated this insane recall and are trying for several others, and to win congress they threatened the country with terrorism and started a war.

[Brotherjohn]

5. "he thinks that this decision invalidates ALL elections?!?!?!"

That's what we Dems were saying about the SCOTUS Florida 2000 decision.

If different voting methods invalidate the recount there, then they invalidate the idea of different voting methods altogether, and therefore all previous elections! (technically it was different recount methods that they said violated 'equal protection", but they were based on different voting methods)

I think the CA court is setting up the SCOTUS to either contradict or explain themselves. That is why they specifically did NOT use the Florida 2000 decision as precedent (although it obviously is). Because that way, the SCOTUS cannot use that as a reason to turn down or overrule the case.

See my posts in the thread : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=340586

As I say there, even if the SCOTUS doesn't take the case, the issue of their FL 2000 decision, and therefore the issue of the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, will be brought to the fore again nationally. NOT good timing for Bush!

[leftyandproud]

7. I've heard..

unconstitutional..
activist judges writing law-only way to get the liberal agenda passed
libs think minorities are too stupid to vote properly
CA has democrats control EVERYTHING--If voting process is flawed, does this mean their positions of power are illegitimate?

all from 10 minutes of the anal cyst rush limbaugh..

[Brotherjohn]

9. Funny, he wasn't saying that after the Florida 2000 decision.

nt

[robbedvoter]

8. McClintock: We had elections during the civil war!

(Woodroff- that was a long time ago")
As for all the causes of action, "so what?" All elections in Cali proceeded with punch cards, without enough poll operators etc - so why change now?