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 ^

[sonsofliberty2000]

Court Rules California Recall Must Go On 6 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, rejecting a three-judge panel's decision to put it off for months.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) steps in quickly, the decision means Election Day is two weeks away.

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. The original panel postponed the election on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) because six counties would use outdated punch-card ballots that were the subject of the "hanging chads" battle in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

The decision clears the way for a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be asked to revisit its Bush v. Gore decision in the 2000 election.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which brought the challenge, did not immediately say whether it would appeal.

[sonsofliberty2000]

Patriot Paradox

[Rudder]

The California Constitution prevails in this case.

[b9]

Yay

[BushisTheMan]

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"

[.cnI redruM]

The ninth knew that SCOTUS would drop the hammer. WOe is the day that Schumer appoints the SC.

[Sabertooth]

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.)

[FreedomPoster]

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.

[BunnySlippers]

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.

[nightdriver]

"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?

[Sir Gawain]

Possible new (evolving) DU theory: Bush threatened the 9th Circus.

[Enterprise]

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).

[Boxsford]

No, the three original judges were not part of this decision. They just got slapped down from their own.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

[rftc]

So Sandra Day is going to lay the smacketh down on the ACLU now?

[hellinahandcart]

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.

[Boxsford]

They were not part of the 11 judge panel that made this decison.

[SwinneySwitch]

Let the good times roll!

[Let's Roll]

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.

[Publius6961]

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%

[ppaul]

Rock 'n Roll!!!