On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:28:25 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>[SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION v SHELLEY]
>
>I don't see anything nutty there.
What was nutty, if you read discussions about it, was that the 3 judge
court was trying to stop a recall of Davis because it was going to
pass and guess who was going to become Governor. This in spite of it
being specifically allowed by California law. Those judges were just
putting their political beliefs in action, which was well known.
>
>The three-judge panel declared that the state itself had found
>the voting method defective and based on the state's actions
>ruled that using the same method would violate the equal
>protection clause of the Constitution and that, therefore, the
>state judge erred in denying a petition to prevent the election.
Baloney. It was a perfectly political decision and they were trying
to pretend that the Bush-Gore decision applied. That after all the
Democrats argued endlessly that that Supreme Court decision was wrong.
Typical of them, as they are just as hypocritical in having all votes
count in the Clinton-Obama nomination after carrying on about the
Florida decision.
>
>The full Ninth circuit, sitting ebn bnc basically overturned the
>decision by rulign that lots of unfair elections had been allowed
>to proceed and they couldn't see any rason to stop this one.
En banc decisions are extremely rare and most think this was only done
because the Supreme Court was going to overrule the decision anyway.
>
>Or is that the decision you think was nutty?
No, the 3 judge one. Blatanly political.
>
>I couldn't find anything about marijuana in the decision.
That was a different case.
>
>I find that usually a person that thinks a court decsionis nutty
>simply didn't agree with the decision.
Lots do. I base my views on things like the obvious political nature
of a decision, particularly when there is a long history of it. Like
this one.
>
>No myself, I was much disheartened by teh Supreme court decsion
>in the Florida Bush/gor case, but after reading the decision
>carefully I found, to my regret, that I had to agree the decision
>was legally sound.
I thought so too. |