Oh yippee, the recall is back on

[SweetZombieJesus]

Back to the main distraction!

[Bandit]

1. I take it the appeals court overturned themselves.

Surprize surprize.

[slackmaster]

2. Unanimous decision

Eleven to Zip.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. it will go to USSC...ACLU will file papers to have USSC hear it

isn't that what they said yesterday?...i heard them say that if it was overturned ...they would take it all the way....both sides promised to do this

[aquart]

4. Just for the evil fun of it.

Come on, Supremes, if it wasn't fair for Bush, how come it's fair for California?

Giggle.(I will find amusement wherever I can. These are hard times.)

[StopThief]

5. The Supreme Court is 100% certain. . .

to decline the opportunity to review this. Those of you in California, make sure you know the location of your voting precinct.

[mike_c]

6. wanna bet the the SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal?

That's one can of worms they REALLY don't want to revisit....

[Hanuman]

8. They will not hear this case...

It has been justly settled now.

[slackmaster]

21. The Supremes wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole

Not a chance IMO.

[nolabels]

24. How long would it need to be? Maybe they don't know how to shop

http://www.geodatasys.com/pole3.htm

[Hanuman]

7. WOW- I'm actually shocked!

I didn't think the 9th circuit had it in them to rule fairly.

Yeah- I'm pro-recall, in case you didn't guess. But more importantly, my MAJOR pet peeve in politics is judicial activism on either side of an issue.

When conservative courts rule unconstitutionally (as did the SCOTUS when they overturned the CA voters approval of medical marijuana) or when a liberal court rules unconstitutionally, I am outraged.

There isn't a valid comparison between the Recall and Bush vs. Gore. First of all the ruling in B V G specifically pointed out that this was a "one-off" ruling and that it was not to be used a precedent in future cases.

Second, the paper ballots have a lower error rate than all other voting systems.

Third, we have used these ballots (and they are not Florida "butterfly ballots") for 40 years without issue or objection.

And finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the California Constitution has called for this election to be carried out at the proscribed time. To delay the election on such tenuous circumstances is flat-out unconstitutional.

I am right- and the very liberal 9th circuit court has agreed. The real question here is:

WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS THE ACLU DOING THIS FOR?

ARE THEY INSANE?!!?

[papau]

9. Seems that some folks disagree with you as to Bush v Gore and CA

decision comparison.

I agree I like this decision - and think it correct - but we must rub the nose of the USSC in Gore v Bush via an appeal -

It is the way some folks use to try to teach a dog stop shitting in the house - and I'd like to try the same on our USSC friends.

On to the appeal!

:-)

[plcdude]

10. now the fun begins

as we look at hanging and pregnant chads from the 44% of voters who will be voting the good old fashion way. I wonder what the court's reasoning is for this over turn.

[Shrek]

15. Some of the court's reasoning

Can be found here.

[uptohere]

17. but punch cards are the most accurate method

.

[rotanilloc]

11. re: wow! i'm actually shocked

Amen! Judicial Activism is anti-American. If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Even though the ACLU is on our side, I still don't like them, they've become politcal, they used to be non-partisan. For example they seem to support only those portions of the Bill of Rights they agree with. "The 2nd Amendment? We'd never support that, guns are bad, we can't allow people to defend themselves." Bullshit, I am a proud Democrat and a proud gun owner. I am so sick of fellow party members who think that the gun causes the crime, not the criminal. 45 states have concealed carry of weapons, and there haven't been problems, it has been only positive. Why must my party fight for pretty much all freedoms, except for the one that guarantees all the others? Remember, only the use or threat or potential use of force prevents totalitarianism. Hitler disarmed the Jews, then killed the Jews. Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all enforced a state monopoly on weapons...and then murdered MILLIONS!

[Hanuman]

13. Way to turn a Recall thread into a pro 2nd rant!

.
by the way: welcome to DU.

[rotanilloc]

16. you're right

you're right, I did go into rant mode, didn't I? Oops, the danger of a wandering mind!

[FullCountNotRecount]

19. ACLU has defended the Second Amendment a few times

And may I remind you the first words of the Second Amendment are:

"A Well-regulated"

These are the only rights that call for regulations before the rights.

[slackmaster]

22. Got a cite for that?

I've never heard of the ACLU even filing an amicus curiae brief in a Second Amendment case, much less actually taking one.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Equal Protection Clause

gee now what was THAT about? Seems some ballots are more equal than others.
So please continue to enjoy your delusions of Bush v. Gore being a fair and impartial ruling.

[Hanuman]

14. Where did I say that--

Bush v Gore was fair and impartial?

I just said the ruling was specifically tailored to the case that they decided and 2000, and was never intended to be used as precedent for further elections.

You see what you want to see, perhaps.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. Your inability to see what the ACLU is doing here

speaks volumes about your views on fairness and impartiality.

And why did the USSC say that B v G could not be used as precedent? Was it perhaps because something was WRONG with it?

[Hanuman]

28. Well, ultimately, your argument is destoyed

by the 9th circuit when they chose to overturn the 3-judge panel, irregardless of the 2000 bush v Gore case.

And the ACLU has just decided not to appeal to the SCOTUS, so I don't know how you justify your views or really what they even are at this point.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. Bush v. Gore was wrong. Period.

Florida had the right to count the votes as it saw fit.
ANd re: the 9th's and ACLU's decisions not to argue. Well, obviously no one wants to touch Bush V. Gore anymore,and in the end that's what it is really all about here.

[Hanuman]

30. Fine- it was wrong.

What does it have to do with the Recall?

Very little in my humble opinion.

Let's let it go.

[TLM]

18. So you see nothing wrong with saying people in poor communities...

should vote on different equipment than the rest of the state and that they should have to do so in fewer and fewer polling locations because many are closed due to lack of funds for this recall election?


You think that is fair?


Well what am I asking you for... you seem to think it is fair for a rich repuke to fund a recall signature drive and reverse the will of the voters so they can install a republican before the 2004 election.

[Hanuman]

20. I've voted with the punch cards my entire life...

I trust the cards. I understand them. And I understand that they are more accurate and reliable than any other form of voting so far devised.

Yes- I am COMPLETELY comfortable with rich and poor alike using the punch card.

Furtermore, I believe that electronic voting is far more liable to create confusion (at least in the short run) and voter fraud in the long run.

[slackmaster]

25. Punch cards leave a solid audit trail

As long as they are never left under sole control of an individual and protected from fire, they can always be recounted.

[Hanuman]

23. As far as Issa goes-

yes, I will certainly conceed that Issa's cash helped the recall to obtain signatures- it may have even been instrumental in achieving them. That's debatable, but I'm willing to conceed the point.

But so what?

Issa's cash didn't buy guns for the gatherers to hold to the heads of the signatories. To only allow that 1.5 million dollars "bought" the recall is to

a) claim that 2 million registered voters (35% of which were democrats) were bamboozled into signing the petition.

b) believe that everything is rosy and sweet in the state of California-- and only if these dastardly pro-recall assholes would just crawl back under their rocks, we'd never have to worry about anything ever again.

yeah right.

[slackmaster]

27. The court did not buy that argument

From the ruling:

Plaintiffs have made a stronger showing on their Voting Rights Act claim. In
a nutshell, plaintiffs argue that the alleged disparate impact of punch-card ballots on
minority voters violated Section 2 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiffs allege
that minority voters disproportionately reside in punch-card counties and that, even
within those counties, punch-card machines discard minority votes at a higher rate.
To establish a Section 2 violation, plaintiffs need only demonstrate “a causal
connection between the challenged voting practice and prohibited
discriminatory result.” Smith v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power
Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is
significant dispute in the record, however, as to the degree and significance of the
disparity. Thus, although plaintiffs have shown a possibility of success on the
merits, we cannot say that at this stage they have shown a strong likelihood.