Are voting machine issues being intentionally spotlighted by 9th?

[Flubadubya]

Since the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court delaying the California recall, the media is abuzz with talk of whether the delay has any merit based on voting machine problems. Is it possible that these justices have some special "method in their madness"?

Can you think of a better way of putting the voting machine issue into the mainstream media than this?

How far it will go or where it will be taken is anyone's guess, but wouldn't it be nice if this were just the ticket for putting the touch-screen voting machine debacle front and center?

[shirlden]

1. My thoughts exactly

Now we need to see how this plays out with any appeals. I do think that this has put the Repugs into a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation. Would love to see this dropped in the lap of Scotus. It just might burn a big hole in those robes. Sandra may wish she had retired yesterday.

:kick:

[DEMActivist]

2. I don't think it's intentional

But it will be the result. Particularly since oral arguments in Susan Marie Webber's appeal will be heard on October 8th.

US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Hears Challenge to Paperless Touchscreen Voting Systems on Oct. 8

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced it will hear oral argument next month in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of paperless “touchscreen” voting machines which do not permit voter-verified ballots and a true external recount in the event of a contested election.

The lawsuit was originally brought by Susan Marie Weber, a Palm Desert resident, against Bill Jones in his capacity as California's Secretary of State, and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Mischelle Townsend in August, 2001. (Photo: http://www.electionguardians.org/actions.htm )
-----------------------
My personal opinion is that if there were ANY "intention" it was to throw Bush v. Gore back at the SCOTUS. But I think we may ALL be attributing motive in places that don't exist - wishing it were true.

[Flubadubya]

3. I agree that the primary intent was to challenge SCOTUS...

on the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I bet they didn't do this without realizing that, in the process, the voting machine issue would be given some much needed air play. This court has proven itself to be pretty wily in the past.

[DEMActivist]

4. I hope that was the intent....

Just afraid to hope for much, honestly.

It says an awful lot that we can't trust our judicial system after the SCOTUS 2000 decision, doesn't it?

It says a lot that we are all questioning the motive of an appellate court instead of being assured that the justices are simply following the law.

[Flubadubya]

5. I'm afraid I agree on the cynicism part...

After December 2000, it will be a very long time before any kind of faith can be restored in our justice system... if ever.