[kingu]

I've read the decision, and I have to say, what a bizare ruling. Judging from how it was written, choices in language and issues not part of the case, this decision was written with the intention of being overturned.

Which makes me wonder if the intention was to force the SCOTUS to overturn /and/ come up with a reason that would weaken the rulings of Bush v Gore, giving a double victory to Democrats who will use both to bash the 'right-wing' SCOTUS and re-energize the vote for 2004.

Were it my choice, I would not appeal this to SCOTUS, but rather within the 9th Circuit...

[over3Owithabrain]

I've read the decision, and I have to say, what a bizare ruling. Judging from how it was written, choices in language and issues not part of the case, this decision was written with the intention of being overturned. Which makes me wonder if the intention was to force the SCOTUS to overturn /and/ come up with a reason that would weaken the rulings of Bush v Gore, giving a double victory to Democrats who will use both to bash the 'right-wing' SCOTUS and re-energize the vote for 2004.

Bingo! That's exactly what I think. The Dems aren't merely trying to keep Davis in power, heck, they know he is weak and they could do without him. They are playing for the home-run; that is, bringing up the canard of "disenfranchisement" again for 2004. And they can count of millions of myrmidons to fall for this stunt. Thus, you see Clinton and his cabal strutting around right now.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Ninth Circuit is a wild-hair Court generally, not just on this particular three-judge panel. If it were my choice, I'd take it straight to the Supremes and not bother with asking all the 36 (is it?) judges of the Ninth Circuit to confer by telephone. There is no requirement that parties to the case go to the whole Circuit (en banc) before asking the SCOTUS for Emergency Relief.

John / Billybob