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)

[Born Conservative]

 

 

[sd-joe]

>> "IMHO, the issue here is that we don't have a uniform election system across the country. Thus, there is no way to ensure equal protection." <<

True, but the country has got along pretty well for a couple hundred years without a uniform system. And if you take the position (and make it the most important issue that there is) that "there is no way to ensure equal protection" (which is probably true) then it opens up EVERY election to attack from the courts. This could result in chaos and anarchy, just what the commie libs would like.

[arasina]

Isn't the ruling by the 9th Circuit PANEL OF 3 JUDGES disenfranchising all the voters who signed the petition by delaying the recall vote until MARCH?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 15.

(a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.

(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

California Constitution (Elections)

[kennyboy509]

Hey Mann!

Da 9th iz on FIRE!

Da SUE Pream court should put dem out wid an ice pick an uh sledge hammer.

Ha ! I kill me.

Congress will eventually bust up this bunch of sycophants.

[DiamondDon1]

Hey D1:

How do we impeach these three Justices? Any idea?

Is it the House / Senate thing again, you know like Clinton?

Just wondering where to start...

DD

[Iconoclast2]

Yep, that's the next step. We have to destroy democracy to save democratic values.

[Jabba the Nutt]

These are Federal Judges and can only be impeached by Congress. I agree that this is the solution. Impeach a few judges, cut off their pay. For the education of the others...

The problem is that Republican elected officials, with a few exceptions, are spineless, cowardly, creeps. We need to unelect many of them in the primary.

[sd-joe]

Hmmmm.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Yup. All you need is for the House Judiciary Committee http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ to vote Articles of Impeachment. Then you need a majority of the House. If you get that, it goes over to the Senate for trial. What they've done is use the Senate Judiciary committee and then have a pro forma trial in the whole Senate, then a vote. I believe it takes a two-thirds vote.

The chances of successfully removing these judges is nil, but it would be a great lesson for other judges to stop trying to run the country from their courtrooms. Being an impeached judge would still be a huge slap in the face and well worth doing.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that it is. It's a direct conflict with the California constitution section concerning recall election rules.

If these voting methods were sound to bring Davis to office for the second time, they are sound enough to recall him with.

I wish the SCOTUS could soundly slap down the ACLU on this one. This is nothing but a nuisance suit IMO. It should have been slapped down at the appealate court.

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[DoughtyOne]

I'm afraid I don't really know. Congress may have the power to impeach. That would be a tough sell, but if this court doesn't have candidates, there would hardly ever be one that could have a candidate.

As per an article I reposted today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was overruled 27 times on 28 presented cases by the SCOTUS in 1996,7. 17 of those cases were overruled by all nine SCOTUS justices. That's a 96.4% overturn rate, with 60.7% of them being unanimous.

This is a rogue court. It simply has no tools with which to judge matters judiciously.

As much as I dislike what these justices are doing, I am loathe to use impeachment to get rid of them. Imagine what the democrats would do when they gained power again. It would be a wholesale slaughter on moderate to conservative judges.

The SCOTUS should sensure them resoundingly. Perhaps a few rounds of the Supreme Court slaming them like the Barnie Fifes of the judicial proces they are in public, would shape them up a little.

Still, if they continue this, they should be removed. This is just insane. No matter my concerns, at some point something has to be done. Are we there? Probably so.

[DoughtyOne]

I think someone else put the answer up for you. BTW, sorry, I didn't realize this was the 9th vs SCOTUS thread I posted earlier today.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I'm glad this article will be helpful to you. Kattracks originally brought this to our attention in 2002.

[Mia T]

EPILOGUE: THE 9^TH CIRCUIT RULING
(IMPEACHED EX- PREZ STUMPS FOR DAVIS
CLINTON PARADIGM PROVES INSTRUCTIVE FOR CALIFORNIA)



(requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


^{Q ERTY8}missus clinton's REAL virtual office update^BUMP

[randita]

The best thing the Supremes could do is take the case away from the 9th and then declare the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter. Case and game over....Election proceeds on schedule.

Agree wholeheartedly. David Dreier said on FNC last night that the 9th Circus basiclly declared null and void the law in the CA Constitution that says that a recall election must be held within 80 days of the recall petition certification. If it is postponed until March, obviously that violates state law. The equal protection question pulls the feds into it--or at least the left thinks it does.

If this 9th Circus decision holds on the basis of equal protection, that opens up so many cans of worms that the nation will be overrun with the slimy creatures.

Most states do not have uniform voting procedures from county to county. And even if they do, there are certain areas where voter error is much higher even when the voting procedure is exactly the same. So is someone's equal protection violated if they happen to be stupid and can't figure out how to vote properly when other people are smarter and can?

Gore vs. Bush was a terrible precedent. I'm grateful it turned out the way it did, but I wish it didn't have to be done. And I don't blame it on Bush. It was Gore and the Democrats all the way. Even though they lost, they probably rejoiced over the fact that the precedent was set for courts to interfere in state election law. They could see the possibilities which have already come to fruition in NJ (almost in HI) and now in CA.

[sd-joe]

Although I agree with most of what you are saying, I believe that you are generalizing and extending too much the US Supreme Court ruling in the Fla case.

The US SC in the Fla ruling made a point of stating that it's ruling was specific to the circumstances of the Fla election and not a general broad ruling.

Also, the US SC ruling was in response to a really bad ruling by the FL SC. Basically the US SC said that state law governed election proceedures and that the Fla SC could not override those laws.

Also, both state and federal law imposed certain time restraints (dates) by which certain things had to be done, and it was impossible to do a full and fair recount within those time restraints.

[DoughtyOne]

What a first class grade aaa b---h. Thanks Mia T. It never hurts to have a booster shot!