Conservatives Criticize Court's Delay of California Recall

As the national media buzz over yesterday's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend California's October 7 recall election, some conservatives are criticizing the court's ruling as an activist court's gift to Democrats.

According to The Washington Times, the court's three-judge panel said holding the elections as scheduled would result in a "hurried, constitutionally infirm election." No new date for the recall has been set, but the panel suggested holding the election in March, when the Democratic primary election is scheduled. The appellate court has delayed enforcement of its decision for a week to allow for an expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One issue in the panel's decision is the fact that some ballots would be cast using punch-card ballot machines similar to those that caused such chaos in Florida during the last presidential election. It has been argued that the outdated machines could compromise the accuracy of the ballot count, although a series of lower courts have already dismissed these arguments as without merit.

According to Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, the embattled governor Gray Davis is widely seen as the biggest winner from the court's ruling.

Bauer feels the circuit court's decision has already tainted the validity of the election, even if the Supreme Court should reverse the ruling and allow the election to proceed as scheduled. Moreover, he says, "if the election is delayed so that it coincides with the March 2004 Democratic presidential primary, as many liberal activists are requesting, Davis again wins, as Democrat turnout that day will be sky-high."

Some conservatives see the decision to delay the recall as yet another case of activist courts circumventing the democratic process. Joseph Starrs, director of the Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church, considers the ruling to be a prime example of why President Bush needs to act decisively to break the current congressional block on the appointment of new judges.

"Bush should plan to utilize his power to make recess appointments to replace these activist judges who are making a mockery of our constitution and our election process," Starrs says.

A Call for Catholic Consistency
But despite the legal setback, the recall election campaign is continuing. And in the midst of that political battle, Roman Catholic pro-life advocate Judie Brown of the American Life League is looking for some accountability from those candidates who are members of her denomination.

Brown's organization has fired a Catholic salvo at the front-runners in the California gubernatorial recall race. She points out that the three leading candidates -- Governor Gray Davis, Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, and Arnold Schwartzenegger -- all profess Catholicism, yet all are pro-choice.

"We're about to take on all the bishops in the State of California," Brown says, "because we have three candidates for governor .... Each of these gentlemen claims to be Catholic. Each of these gentlemen is pro-abortion. And so we're running a full-page ad in the Sacramento Bee exposing this and asking the bishops to deny them Holy Communion."

Brown says her group has pictures of each of the three leading candidates receiving the sacrament. "And that, again, is a scandal," she says.

The pro-life activist has been targeting Catholic politicians all across the nation who do not support church teachings regarding abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality. Brown maintains that one cannot be a true Catholic while opposing the Church's teachings.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 562 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 562

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 2 circuits, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 6, 2003

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/6/2003--Introduced.

Authorizes a circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service or who is a senior judge to elect to be assigned to either of the two new circuits.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 H. R. 1033

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 1033 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1033

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two circuits, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 27, 2003

Mr. SIMPSON (for himself, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. NETHERCUTT, and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/27/2003--Introduced.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 - Divides the current U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit into: (1) the ninth circuit, composed of California and Nevada, consisting of 20 judges (25 as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in San Francisco and Los Angeles; (2) the tenth circuit, composed of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, consisting of 14 judges (as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in Denver, Wichita, and Oklahoma City; and (3) the twelfth circuit, composed of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington, consisting of eight judges (ten as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in Portland and Seattle.

Authorizes a circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service or who is a senior judge to elect to be assigned to: (1) either the new ninth or twelfth circuit; or (2) the new ninth or tenth circuit if such judge's official station is in Arizona.

California has done it again. It has set a new standard for contempt of constitutional government and individual freedom. This time it's the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has upheld California's so-called "assault weapons" ban in the case Silveira v. Lockyer. The court declared that the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment protects the people's right not to own firearms, but to maintain a state militia.

This may come as a surprise to most Americans. According to recent ABC News and Zogby polls, about 75% of the population think the Second Amendment means just what it says — that the right to keep and bear arms is possessed by people, not states. This was the settled meaning of the Second Amendment until twentieth century progressive liberal theory began to erode the entire notion of individual rights.

But California is not like most of America. When the nation went for a Republican congressional majority in last month's election, Californians stayed solidly Democratic. While most other states have relaxed their restrictions on responsible gun owners, California has tightened the screws.

Some of California's legal attacks on gun owners have been gratuitously nasty. For example, the "assault weapon" ban at issue in Silveira outlawed a youth Olympic shooting team's competition guns. The bill's author, Senator Don Perata, advised the young athletes to get out of California.

Still, until now times have been tough for Second Amendment revisionists. Late last year the Fifth Circuit Court ruled just the opposite of the Ninth — that the Second Amendment does indeed affirm an individual right to own firearms. Then Attorney General Ashcroft issued a formal statement agreeing with that interpretation, dismaying gun grabbers everywhere. The Claremont Institute: The Great Leap Backward in the Ninth ...

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) delivered the following remarks during House debate on H. Res. 132:

"Today we will consider H. Res. 132, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment and urges the Attorney General to appeal this ruling.

"We’re here today because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continues to get it wrong. Sensenbrenner Statement on Pledge of Allegiance Resolution

HONOLULU -- Two men convicted of killing an Army pilot in 1998 have had their murder convictions overturned.

Roberto Miguel and Bryson Jose were convicted of felony murder for the death of Capt. John Latchum. Latchum was shot in 1998 when he caught Jose and Miguel trying to break into his Waianae vacation cabin.

An appeals court Wednesday ruled that Judge Helen Gillmor should have let the defense try to blame one of the witnesses, Donald Callaruda, for the shooting. Ninth Circuit Outrage

In response to the ruling, Simpson indicated this is just the most recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit that either defies commonsense or lacks merit under the Constitution. "This circuit, without question, is the most overturned appeals court in the nation. In the 1996-1997 session alone, the Ninth Circuit saw 95 percent of its cases reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned," said Simpson. "I am confident the Supreme Court will once again make the correct decision and overturn this outrageous decision."

The Ninth Circuit is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of nearly 50 million people. By comparison, the Ninth Circuit serves 15 million more people than the next largest circuit and about 20 million more than the average jurisdiction of the other courts of appeal. To address this situation, Simpson has introduced legislation (H.R. 1203) that would split the Ninth Circuit into two smaller courts. "This decision stands as overwhelming proof that Congress needs to take up my legislation to reform the Ninth Circuit," said Simpson. "This decision, coming out of California, clearly demonstrates this circuit is too large and no longer accurately represents the people of the Intermountain West."

US Representative Mike Simpson (ID02) - Simpson Calls 9th Circuit ...

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic

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.