Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 09/16/2003 9:19:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
"It is perhaps ironic that the sitting governor could well cast a vote on his own recall that would not be tallied," writes the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. More ironic would be the retention of a governor unable to use a punch card properly.
Nothing is too profound or too petty for the 9th Circuit Court to declare unconstitutional. From the Pledge of Allegiance to punch cards, the court sees grave threats to the Constitution. Indeed, whole countries may lose faith in democracy if punch cards remain in use. "We would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation's history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy."
Liberal judges are fond of these windy statements -- and equally fond of decisions which subvert them. The 9th Circuit speaks of the grave need for elections free of chaos, then promptly throws an election into chaos. It demands every vote be counted, then blocks the counting of all votes for months.
Federal judges are disenfranchising state voters far more effectively than punch cards. The 9th Circuit judges don't mind nixing the state election laws citizens voted for. Why don't those votes count?
The court's "national commitment to democracy" is more like an elitist campaign against democracy. Whenever the judicial elite don't approve of the people's laws, they junk them.
Weren't the Democrats now cheering this decision just telling us that no votes should be counted? That a recall election shouldn't be held? One-man, one-vote liberals, once their interests are threatened, suddenly become aristocrats fearful of direct democracy. Bill Clinton, sounding like the patricians he used to demagogue, says, "I'll continue to make my case to the people that a recall is not good for them."
Liberals believe in one-liberal, one-vote, but other arrangements leave them worried. The 9th Circuit's decision is pure ACLU-style willfulness. Punch cards don't violate the Constitution, just liberal wishes. Why? Because they don't conform to the judges' egalitarian vision of voting technology. It scandalizes them that the voters they like are using primitive punch cards when the voters they dislike are using computer screens.
Here we see how liberals define equality as sameness in every respect. If a Beverly Hills voter is using a computer and an Oxnard voter is using a punch card, well, that's obviously evidence of "inequality," according to liberals. But a lack of sameness is not automatic proof of inequality. Dissimilar things can be of equal value.
For every "inequality" liberals uproot, two or three far more real inequalities pop up in its place. The liberal project is endless because "inequalities" are endless.
Of course only certain inequalities register with them. Notice this gratuitous aside in the 9th Circuit's decision: "Plaintiffs have described [Proposition 54] as 'racially charged.' Whether or not that description is accurate, it is clear that the proposition is of significant interest to minority voters. As we have noted, the Plaintiffs have tendered significant evidence that the use of pre-scored punch card voting systems will disproportionately affect the minority population of California. Thus, there is a significant public interest in avoiding disproportionate disenfranchisement of the population most affected by the proposition."
Why does the court assume minorities are "the population most affected by the proposition"? Where is the proof for this?
The 9th Circuit gives itself away with such sophistries. Some votes are more equal than others for it. Before too long it will be telling us that a one-minority, two-votes system is constitutional.
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.