Skip to comments.
Court Rules California Recall Must Go On
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&e=2&u=/ap/20030923/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall ^
Posted on 09/23/2003 9:14:43 AM PDT by sonsofliberty2000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: sonsofliberty2000
The California Constitution prevails in this case.
2
posted on
09/23/2003 9:19:42 AM PDT
by
Rudder
To: sonsofliberty2000
Yay
3
posted on
09/23/2003 9:19:47 AM PDT
by
b9
To: sonsofliberty2000
Someone who almost got their early voting ballot recinded should now sue the ACLU. We need to keep the ACLU so busy defending lawsuits against them, that they no longer have the time to file their stupid lawsuits that are taking freedoms away from each and every one of us. The ACLU has strayed from their original intent and have become the "enemy within"
To: sonsofliberty2000
The ninth knew that SCOTUS would drop the hammer. WOe is the day that Schumer appoints the SC.
5
posted on
09/23/2003 9:20:27 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(Success will not come to you. You go to success.)
To: sonsofliberty2000

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which brought the challenge, did not immediately say whether it would appeal.
Oh, (crossing fingers) I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals, I hope the ACLU appeals... (I just want to see the SCOTUS dogpile on the ACLU.)
|
6
posted on
09/23/2003 9:21:43 AM PDT
by
Sabertooth
(No Drivers' Licences for Illegal Aliens. Petition SB60. http://www.saveourlicense.com/n_home.htm)
To: sonsofliberty2000
Someone in a related thread predicted this, saying the 9th Circuit is more conservative than it looks, that there have been games played to get specific cases assigned to Liberal judges within the Circuit. This would seem to support that analysis.
7
posted on
09/23/2003 9:21:48 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(this space intentionally blank)
To: BushisTheMan
Someone who almost got their early voting ballot recinded should now sue the ACLU. It would be great if there was a minority from the precincts that the ACLU was claiming were too stupid to vote. THEY are the ones that should sue for defamation.
8
posted on
09/23/2003 9:21:57 AM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I'm voting for Arnold. McClintock doesn't deserve my vote!)
To: sonsofliberty2000
"
The 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) unanimously overturned the Sept. 15 decision of a three-judge panel from the same circuit."Does that mean the three judges of the original panel changed their votes?
If so, they are proven to be a bunch of political hacks in contempt of the law and guilty of betraying the public trust.
Impeachment, anyone?
To: sonsofliberty2000
Possible new (evolving) DU theory: Bush threatened the 9th Circus.
To: nightdriver
That is what is astounding. I heard that the three stooges who made the initial ruling would be included with the 11 judge panel. Now, suddenly, the ruling is unanimous. (Shaking my head here boss, shaking my head).
To: nightdriver
No, the three original judges were not part of this decision. They just got slapped down from their own.
12
posted on
09/23/2003 9:26:22 AM PDT
by
Boxsford
To: nightdriver
The 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) unanimously
Does that mean the three judges of the original panel changed their votes?
There are more than eleven members of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Thus, what this means is that either the three man panel member(s) changed his/their vote, or that the three men were not among the eleven of the 'en banc' panel.
To: sonsofliberty2000
So Sandra Day is going to lay the smacketh down on the ACLU now?
14
posted on
09/23/2003 9:27:11 AM PDT
by
rftc
To: nightdriver
Does that mean the three judges of the original panel changed their votes?There are 27 judges in the 9th. The original three were naturally not part of the 11-member panel, which was called in reaction to their decision.
To: Enterprise
They were not part of the 11 judge panel that made this decison.
16
posted on
09/23/2003 9:28:00 AM PDT
by
Boxsford
To: sonsofliberty2000
Let the good times roll!
17
posted on
09/23/2003 9:31:54 AM PDT
by
SwinneySwitch
(The barbarians are inside the gates!)
To: Sir Gawain
That's funny - my theory is that they got their marching orders from Clinton who wanted to have the recall election now and not in March.
18
posted on
09/23/2003 9:32:03 AM PDT
by
Let's Roll
(And those that cried Appease! Appease! are hanged by those they tried to please!")
To: sonsofliberty2000
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which brought the challenge, did not immediately say whether it would appeal. These clowns will make legal mountains out of precedent molehills.
But even they are not so stupid as to think they have a prayer (is it still legal to use that traditional expression?) at the Supreme court level.
If Davis' chances of survival are 0.00001%, the ACLU in this case is at 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%
19
posted on
09/23/2003 9:32:21 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
To: sonsofliberty2000
20
posted on
09/23/2003 9:32:46 AM PDT
by
ppaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 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