Skip to comments.
MSNBC- Recall election to be delayed
Pete Williams MSNBC ^
| Pete Williams
Posted on 09/15/2003 10:18:32 AM PDT by Ragirl
California Appeals Court - Recall should be blocked!!!
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2003election; 9thcircuit; 9thcircuitcourt; circus; circustent; davisrecalleelection; democrap; dirtytricks; election2003; floriduhagain; graydavis; impeachthe9th; outofcontrol; recall; thefixisin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 801-811 next last
To: over3Owithabrain
I don't challenge your legal acumen, CBB. My thoughts are political. If SCOTUS overturns the 9th, this will give the Dems more ammo to whine, "there they go again", etc.. It's factually wrong of course but when did that matter? It's a win-win for the Dems. If it get overturned, their "broken glass" partisans will be motivated to vote on Oct 7th to "send a message" to the "out-of-control right-wing" Supreme Court.
To: Peach
The Torch case was ruled by the NJSC, if I recall. The 9th circuit is a federal court and I don't think that SCOTUS will have any fear of overturning them. No federalism issues here.
To: Peach
"What's the likelihood this will get overturned - and then go forward just in time for the illegals to get their licenses and the ability to vote?"That's the 'rats plan masterminded by the Clinton's
To: Sabertooth
Is there yet a recall of Lt. Gov. Bustamonte at this time (or are you projecting one)?
364
posted on
09/15/2003 11:19:15 AM PDT
by
flamefront
(To the victor go the oils. No oil or oil-money for islamofascist weapons of mass annihilation.)
To: A_Niceguy_in_CA
How does a Federal Court have jurisdiction over a state election for a state office?Same question I was asking during the Florida 2000 fiasco. I was flamed repeatedly for saying that the feds had no business interfering.
But now that Bush v. Gore has opened the door to federal interference in what should be (under the U.S. Constitution) purely state matters, I am not looking like such an idiot.
365
posted on
09/15/2003 11:19:22 AM PDT
by
snopercod
(Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:)
Comment #366 Removed by Moderator
To: Credo
Yes.
367
posted on
09/15/2003 11:19:34 AM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Everyone talks about Congress; I am doing something about it.)
To: Peach
Pious ba$tards.
Prairie
368
posted on
09/15/2003 11:19:43 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
To: Sabertooth
Oh my gosh, Sabertooth. You must live near me.
To: AmishDude
good point
370
posted on
09/15/2003 11:19:50 AM PDT
by
mwl1
To: A_Niceguy_in_CA
That's my fear is that they want this postponed (perhaps knowing the ruling wouldn't stand up) - a postponement still helps them because the illegals who are getting a drivers license in a few months will be able to vote.
371
posted on
09/15/2003 11:20:10 AM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Ragirl
The best thing that could possibly have happened for the CA GOP at this time!
372
posted on
09/15/2003 11:20:21 AM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(Israel is the canary in the coal mine of Islamofascism)
To: Sabertooth
I'm with ya Big Cat
To: AmishDude
SCOTUS overturns Ninth Circus decisions all the time. (I remember one day when it overturned three such decisions summarily per curiam (meaning it didn't think the decisions merited a reasoned opinion justifying the reversal). SCOTUS loves to reverse the Ninth Circus.
To: Ragirl
What! We can't depend on hanging chads? How shall the waters be muddied, without this conscious effort to create voter error?
Another avalanche of fecal matter tumbles down on California. Voting rights are not denied. To anybody.
To: Dog
They absolutely did! Libs missing no chance to practice partisanship.
Last I heard, California had a constitution. The judges are supposed to uphold and defend that. Not interpret national foreign policy.
wankers!!
Prairie
376
posted on
09/15/2003 11:21:28 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
To: maye_momma
LOL!
If you only had a clue.
Buh-bye
To: snopercod
I was flamed repeatedly for saying that the feds had no business interfering. Not by me.
I say, USSC had no jurisdiction in Bush v. Gore AND decided it wrongly, to boot.
For which we will all pay in the future.
To: Congressman Billybob
Judge Napolitano on Fox, right now, is saying that the Circuit Justice on this is Kennedy. I believe he's wrong on that.
Correct.
It's O'Connor.
379
posted on
09/15/2003 11:21:47 AM PDT
by
pogo101
To: Ragirl
The 9th Circuit rescues the libs again.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 801-811 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson