Skip to comments.
9th Circuit's Rulings Frequently Overturned (Repost of 9th Circuit Court Article) (Rogue Court?)
The Washington Times ^
| 06/28/2002
| Joyce Howard Price (1st posted by kattracks 06/27/02)
Posted on 09/15/2003 5:39:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
I believe this warrants a repost now that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is back in the news on a high level case.
To: DoughtyOne
I believe you're correct.
2
posted on
09/15/2003 5:40:36 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: DoughtyOne
Timeline of this decision:
D+00:00:00:00 9th Circuit stops election
D+00:24:00:00 Appeal filed with SCOTUS
D+00:72:00:00 SCOTUS stops ROTFLTAO long enough to b!tch-slap 9th Circuit
3
posted on
09/15/2003 5:42:31 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("[Expletive deleted] 'em if they can't take a joke!" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: DoughtyOne
The court ruled that punch card ballots are a violation of FEDERAL law because they are too inaccurate. Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed.
4
posted on
09/15/2003 5:46:11 PM PDT
by
Brilliant
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: Poohbah
My take too, but it will be interesting to see how the democrat Attorney General for California words his appeal. Will he mount a sound legal challenge?
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: DoughtyOne
Wait a second- they're located in San Fransisco.... They should rule themselves as violating the 1st Amendment, disband, go home, and maybe there'd be a tiny bit of sanity back in the world.
9
posted on
09/15/2003 5:49:04 PM PDT
by
Vesuvian
To: DoughtyOne
I do not want this case going to the SCOTUS. I hope the 9th Circuit en banc overturns this ruling. If they don't, I hope the SCOTUS refuses to hear it.
I'm not from CA, so it's probably easier for me to say that because I don't have to suffer the consequences of the Davis incompetency, but I think states have to learn to cope with their judiciary's decisions. If people get outraged enough, they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.
If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections).
I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.
Donning flame retardant suit...
10
posted on
09/15/2003 5:51:55 PM PDT
by
randita
To: DoughtyOne
It ain't called the "9th CIRCUS" for nothing!
11
posted on
09/15/2003 5:52:11 PM PDT
by
Henchman
(I Hench, therefore I am!)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Brilliant
Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed.Well said. I think we need to leave Bush in there until we get this past Presidential election's kinks totally worked out.../sarcasm off
13
posted on
09/15/2003 5:53:55 PM PDT
by
PeoplesRep_of_LA
((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
To: Brilliant
I think they based their decision on the fact that it will disenfranchise those who cannot read...this could go on for ever.
14
posted on
09/15/2003 5:53:57 PM PDT
by
Henchman
(I Hench, therefore I am!)
To: randita
There's only one problem. The judges that serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, serve for life. The SCOTUS is the only relief we can get from them. We don't elect them. They are basicly imposed on us.
To: Brilliant
Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed. You still have not figured it out ... have you? I have been in lots of law suits in my time. Every time I asked what the law was, my attorneys told me in no uncertain terms what the law was. But when I asked how the judge would rule on the law not a single attorney would ever tell me how the judge would rule. Not one of my high priced attorneys ever knew how the judge would rule. Judicial decisions have little to do with the law. For if the judges ruled on the law, every attorney could apply the law and tell you how the judge was going to rule. But they can't. There is only one conclusion.
The law is whatever the judges say its is at the time that they say it.
Tomorrow the Judges may say the law says something else!!!!
16
posted on
09/15/2003 5:55:37 PM PDT
by
Common Tator
(I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
To: DoughtyOne
To: DoughtyOne
Pretty disgusting.
18
posted on
09/15/2003 5:56:53 PM PDT
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
To: DoughtyOne
Life?
19
posted on
09/15/2003 5:58:17 PM PDT
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
To: 68 grunt
Afraid so. That's my understanding. They are appointed by the President, reviewed and voted up or down by the Senate.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 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