ACLU and 9th Ct. of Appeals - putting uppity voters in their place

[chuckster]

Let's face it, the California recall is a freak show but it does have one thing I like - it allows ordinary people to show their displeasure with their elected officials and ripples are putting the fear of God into politicians everywhere. There is one major problem with the California recall: If the people are allowed to make their own decision about whether to recall the governor or not, they may decide on action contrary to the wishes of elite political entities such as the ACLU. Besides, the disenfranchised voters of the areas of concern are incapable of remembering what happened in Florida and using that lesson as a reminder to be more careful this time about how they punch their ballotts. Sure, the ACLU did not act when the same punch card ballots were used to elect Davis, a Democrat, earlier. But that was OK because he's a Democrat and anytime the more liberal candidate wins that is good for the ACLU and thus all Americans in general. And let's face it, without the divine guidance of the American Crafty Lawyer's Union ordinary Californians could never decide on their own how their own government should be run. Thus, it is a good thing the ACLU went over the will of the people of California and to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and stopped this foolishness before someone forgets to make sure he punches his ballot all the way.

[Marley23]

That's not a debate, it's a rant.

[ambushed]

And it's not even a very good rant.

[David Simmons]

The California recall hasn't been subjected to a single voter yet. The petitions were the product of a burr under the saddle of Congressman Issa, who paid a lot of the cost of collecting signatures. Issa wanted to be governor but withdrew in tears when other candidates showed up.

My guess is, if you spent enough money you could get plenty of people to sign a petition to recall the Pope.

[GIGObuster]

A rant that is wrong also: the ACLU was bugging the California courts since early 2001! Could have affected the Davis re-election.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n041601b.html

ACLU Files CA Voting Rights Lawsuit, Saying Punch Cards
Belong in Junkyard, Not Voting Booth
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 17, 2001

Barking up the wrong tree or jerked around by the media chuckster? You decide!

[John Mace]

Originally posted by David Simmons
The California recall hasn't been subjected to a single voter yet. The petitions were the product of a burr under the saddle of Congressman Issa, who paid a lot of the cost of collecting signatures. Issa wanted to be governor but withdrew in tears when other candidates showed up.

My guess is, if you spent enough money you could get plenty of people to sign a petition to recall the Pope.

Except that there is no recognized procedure for recalling the pope. I'm no fan of the recall, but an objective observe must at least admit that the current recall adheres to the CA constitution and is entirely legal. The fact that a particular individual was the driving force behind this effort has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the action itself.

[SuaSponte]

chuckster, not only are you, as GigoBuster demonstrated, dead wrong about the ACLU and its efforts to end the use of punch card ballots, but you are dead wrong about the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit decision is fully in keeping with the US Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. Are you taking the position that the decision in that case was incorrect?

Sua

[Dogface]

I have a question: Why is the very exact same system that elected Grey Davis fair and just when it elected him but unfair and unjust for the recall?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

And above and beyond that, David Simmons, are you insinuating that Issa bought signatures? How does one go about doing that sort of thing? "Here's a c-note, just sign here"?

Braving the possibility that I might be thought of as an extremist here, or even a raving conservative bigoted nutcase (which I'm not), I happened to hear Michael Savage on the radio last night when I got in the car. In between the usual crap he says, he did make one point that makes sense to me. If the machines "disenfranchise" voters, and they've been used for years, and they are completely unacceptable for elections, then why does that not invalidate every election up until now that used those machines for voting purposes?

Think about it. If I'm a cop, and I testify in 100 trials against the accused, and then I am later found to have been a perjurer, then doesn't that invalidate all of my previous testimony?

My point is, if the ACLU is right, then all elections that used the machines are questionable. If they're right, then what the hell is the holdup?

[Fixed coding. -- MEB]

[Uncommon Sense]

The 9th court of appeals is just trying to do their part in keeping a liberal in power. The decision was made by three liberal judges.
If they are really concerned about disenfranchising the voters, this is not the election to be concerned about. They claim to be making the decision with the good of the poor, minorities, and the inner city (mostly democratic). Punch card ballots are the easiest to fake. This is actually the ideal situation for getting Grey re-elected.
What the 9th court is really doing is bying Grey more time to get his ducks in line so he can prevail in the recall effort. Even with the potential of a high inner city turnout and the possibility of fraudulent voting (via the punch card ballots) the liberals believe the race is too close at this point.
Think about this; would they have made the same decision if it was a conservative facing the recall. NO.

What the H. is the federal court gettng mixed up in a state re-call election anyway. Their superficial motives are being exposed.

I don`t like the punch card ballot myself, however I think the timing of this stinks to high heaven. After all, Grey himself was elected via the same method. Let the recall continue and square up the voting machine problem afterwards. Or get some new Effin machines in there ASAP. Oh, that`s right, the Dems. don`t want the new machines in the districts with the highest voter fraud. What a conundrum!!


[Rant]
The liberals will do anything to block a Bush appointee to any federal courts. Even when they are perfectly suited and come highly recommended (unless they`re liberal or moderate), can you say filli-stinkin`-buster. This is just another attempt at them getting their way. Screw that, let the recall continue and let the people of California get what they want. I for one am sick of being railroaded by the liberal agenda.
[/Rant over]

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by chuckster
[b]Let's face it, the California recall is a freak show but it does have one thing I like - it allows ordinary people to show their displeasure with their elected officials and ripples are putting the fear of God into politicians everywhere.

Ordinary people who have a million bucks or so to finance a petition drive, that is.

Yep, ordinary people like you and me.

Sure, the ACLU did not act when the same punch card ballots were used to elect Davis, a Democrat, earlier. But that was OK because he's a Democrat and anytime the more liberal candidate wins that is good for the ACLU and thus all Americans in general.

GIGObuster has already addressed this as well as I could.

Thus, it is a good thing the ACLU went over the will of the people of California and to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and stopped this foolishness before someone forgets to make sure he punches his ballot all the way.

You're right, the will of the people will be totally frustrated, denied, and undermined if they have to wait an extra five months for the recall election so that all CA citizens can have the same chance of having their votes count.

[BrotherCadfael]

Several bloggers have suggested that whichever court this is appealed to (whether the entire 9th Circuity or the Supremes) should allow the recall to proceed, but require them to use plain old, low-tech, paper ballots. Glenn Reynolds has a nice article about the virtues of this technology here .

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Think about it. If I'm a cop, and I testify in 100 trials against the accused, and then I am later found to have been a perjurer, then doesn't that invalidate all of my previous testimony?

My point is, if the ACLU is right, then all elections that used the machines are questionable. If they're right, then what the hell is the holdup?

Well, sure. If you're a cop, and you're found to have perjured in 100 trials, then it calls those trials into suspicion. What we should do is retry people again immediately, putting you right back on the stand again.

That would be analogous to finding the voting machines were bad in previous elections, and therefore running another election so quickly that the machines can't be replaced.

If the ACLU is right that the machines are questionable, then the holdup is exactly what they're saying it is: another election should not be held until the machines are replaced.

Daniel

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Dogface
I have a question: Why is the very exact same system that elected Grey Davis fair and just when it elected him but unfair and unjust for the recall?

According to the 9th Circuit decision, it was not. The 2002 election cannot be fixed - it's already happened. The 2003 recall election hasn't happened yet, so the problem can be fixed.

by Airman Doors
My point is, if the ACLU is right, then all elections that used the machines are questionable. If they're right, then what the hell is the holdup?

Our underfunded and overworked federal judiciary.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
[Rant]
The liberals will do anything to block a Bush appointee to any federal courts. Even when they are perfectly suited and come highly recommended (unless they`re liberal or moderate), can you say filli-stinkin`-buster. This is just another attempt at them getting their way. Screw that, let the recall continue and let the people of California get what they want. I for one am sick of being railroaded by the liberal agenda.
[/Rant over]

And the conservatives didn't do the same to Clinton's appointees?! Both parties have behaved like schmucks in this regard.

Sua

[mack]

California officials had already conceded that the machines are obsolete, and because of a previous ACLU lawsuit had agreed to replace them by March 2004.

http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/Vot...?ID=13591&c=32

If this is appealed to a higher court, what would the argument(s) be?

If the result of all this is that there is a single voting standard for the entire state, isn't that good? How could (or why would) anyone argue against that?

Also, (slight hijack) if this ruling stands, can it be used as a precedent? IOW will we have suits being filed in every state that has a punch-card (or other discredited) voting system?

[DSYoungEsq]

1) The only reason no one complained about 2002 was (a) there was already a consent decree in Common Cause I setting March, 2004 as the date the new machines would be in place, and (b) the outcomes in 2002 were not so close as to make the fact of the acknowledged ongoing violation of the U. S. Constitution a factor. Had they been that close, rest assured someone would have sued to overturn the election result.

2) The federal court was involved because the issue in question was violation of a U. S. Constitution provision, with no conjoined state law issue. The jurisdiction for such cases is, by the U. S. Constitution and by U. S. law, with the federal bench. Duh. (whuckfistle, you might want to actually obtain some knowledge before you rant; it makes for much more accurate assertions...)

3) The issue of retro-active application of the determination of unconstitutionality is a complex beast. In general, the Supreme Court has determined that it is best not to attempt to remedy every past instance of similar unconstitutional behaviour, because to do so not only puts into question the finality of court rulings but also provides for a very unsettled status with regard to state actions. Thus, the determination in Brown v. Board of Education, e.g., that equal protection of the laws was not provided through "separate but equal" schemes of service provision did not invalidate prior rulings and state actions to the contrary. The situation is somewhat different where violations of individual rights through criminal process are considered, and even then there is no strict rule as to when a holding of unconstitutionality will be retro-actively applied.

4) To the extent that the 9th Circuit concurs that voting in October with punch-card ballots in six counties will result in an equal protection violation, the court is simply applying the result of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Republicans were quite happy at the result there; as predicted at the time by some, now we see long faces on the part of some Republicans when the omelet is flipped and served up with liberal seasoning.

[mack]

Originally posted by mack
If the result of all this is that there is a single voting standard for the entire state, isn't that good? How could (or why would) anyone argue against that?

ehhh let me rephrase that: If the result of all this is that there are higher (not necessarily a single) voting standards.....

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by John Mace
Except that there is no recognized procedure for recalling the pope. I'm no fan of the recall, but an objective observe must at least admit that the current recall adheres to the CA constitution and is entirely legal. The fact that a particular individual was the driving force behind this effort has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the action itself.

No one disputed the legality of the recall. My point was that the 9th circuit decision was not in any way a rebuff to a voter's initiative. And there was no great public outcry for a recall.

Signers of a petition to recall the Pope wouldn't know or care whether or not there was a formal method for doing that. A petition against someone to sign? Where's the pen and which line do I use?

[DSYoungEsq]

mack, most states are already complying with the decision in Bush v. Gore by eliminating punch-card ballots. Indeed, there is federal legislation providing states with funds to accomplish the task. Ohio, for instance, is utilizing the federal fund to standardize electronic voting systems, upgrading from, depending on the county, such antiquated systems as levers (such as we use here in Lucas County and have been around for over a CENTURY), punch-cards, etc. So, in reality, the only issue is one of time; beaurocracy takes time to overcome inertia.

To give you an idea of the kind of problems that can arise, here in Ohio the Secretary of State decided to take bids from voting machine companies for systems complying with certain standards promulgated after the 2000 election. After opening the bids, the SoS told the companies they were too high, and he wanted their "best bid". One of the companies was determined to have failed to comply with this request, and wasn't allowed to negotiate a final price with the SoS (if it sounds confusing, it is; I've been reading about it for months and still can't figure out how your "best bid" isn't your best bid). The company sued; the SoS was enjoined from precluding the company from participating in the final determination of approved vendors.

In the meantime, Lucas Co. went ahead and negotiated a contract with one of the companies for machines that would replace the REALLY old lever machines we rely upon. Lucas Co. wanted to have these in place ASAP. The SoS told Lucas Co. that it could not procede with replacement of the machines because he hadn't finalized his approved list. So Lucas Co. has been forced to sit and kick its heels, using the old machines now for at least two local elections, while it awaits approval to do what it would have done last year anyway.

In California, there was a consent decree between the state and several voting interest groups that the state would replace its punch-card machines by the March, 2004 election. This decree was entered into in late 2001; it was agreed that the state wouldn't be able to replace the machines in time to complete the 2002 election, so everyone simply held their breath and prayed that no really close election result occurred. But the parties to the decree never considered that there might be a recall election in October, 2003 (why would they, since it's the first successful petition for statewide recall since the law was added in 1911!). The two initiatives scheduled for vote in October were on the ballot for March until the recall came along.

So the question is: do you allow the unexpected, unprecedented recall election, with its ungainly ballot filled with 135 alternative choices to proceed, knowing the U. S. Constitution is being violated by so doing? Or do you force the citizens of California to sit and wait for resolution of their political crisis while the state finishes its ministerial duty to correct its constitutionally flawed voting process?

Personally, I think the one factor the court didn't consider that it should have was: who wants to spend the next seven months listening to Arnold Schwartzenegger campaign (if you can call it that) for governor?????

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
And the conservatives didn't do the same to Clinton's appointees?! Both parties have behaved like schmucks in this regard.

Sua

Never has a filibuster been used by any party for this particular cause. Hey, good luck getting any of the next Democtratic President`s appointees past the conservatives next time around.

You`re right though - It`s very shmuckish.

DSY - "2) The federal court was involved because the issue in question was violation of a U. S. Constitution provision, with no conjoined state law issue. The jurisdiction for such cases is, by the U. S. Constitution and by U. S. law, with the federal bench. Duh. (whuckfistle, you might want to actually obtain some knowledge before you rant; it makes for much more accurate assertions...)"

Um, which US Constitutional Provision is being violated? Or should I ask, HOW is it being violated?

[Zoe]

Chuckster you described the ACLU as "elite political entities." How so? Anyone is welcome to become a member.

And it is one of the most non-partisan organizations in the country. Their purpose is to see that the civil liberties of all Americans are protected. If the ACLU is for Democrats and Liberals, it is hard to explain how they have gone to court for the KKK and neo-Nazis.

It is their membership which is probably mostly Liberals. I'm wondering why more Conservatives aren't concerned about protecting civil liberties.

whuckfistle: What the H. is the federal court gettng mixed up in a state re-call election anyway. Their superficial motives are being exposed.

Because the ACLU had already brought the punch ballot issue into court and had been promised that they would not be used in the next election. (So it was a non-partisan issue.) Since that promise was being broken, they went back to court and the ruling went against them. They have the right of appeal so it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is there for that purpose. Now the other side has a week to take it to the Supreme Court.

The liberals will do anything to block a Bush appointee to any federal courts. Even when they are perfectly suited and come highly recommended (unless they`re liberal or moderate)

I suspect the gentleman was conservative -- so conservative that he refused to answer any questions on his views.

[IzzyR]

Suasponte & DSYoungEsq,

You are both claiming that the current ruling is an application of the Bush/Gore USSC ruling. As I noted in the other current thread on the topic, the USSC specifically disclaimed this in their ruling. I wonder if you could comment on this.


[Fixed coding. -- MEB]

[mack]

Thanks, DSYoungEsq.

[John Mace]

The law of unintended consequences:

1. The CA constitution allows for candidates to declare themeselves "no less than 59 days prior to the date of the election". Great-- we need more candidates in this recall election.

2. The wonderful new optical scanning machines being used in CA cannot accomodate a ballot large enough for the recall and all the other candidates and issues expected in the March primary, as reported today in the SJ Merc.

3. More than 300k absentee ballots have already been cast. What do we do with those ballots, since a delayed vote ballot will certainly contain a different set of names (either more added, or those no longer running dropped)?

Actually, in this case it's the law of "consequences that a normal human being would easily think of before making an idiotic ruling such as this one."

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
And above and beyond that, David Simmons, are you insinuating that Issa bought signatures? How does one go about doing that sort of thing? "Here's a c-note, just sign here"?

No, what I'm saying is that willingness to sign a petition follows a normal (bell) curve. If you have enough money to stay the course you can finally collect enough signatures from the end of the bell curve willing sign anything put in front of them to qualify a petition requiring all Democrats to wear derby hats.

The point being that the 9th Circuit decision was not, as the title of the OP implies, a slap in the face to "the voters."


[Fixed coding. -- MEB]

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
If the machines "disenfranchise" voters, and they've been used for years, and they are completely unacceptable for elections, then why does that not invalidate every election up until now that used those machines for voting purposes?

Pardon my coding screwups.

I see DSY has beaten me to retroactivity, and has been much more thorough and detailed than I could have been.

But let me add that, as I understand it, a major issue in the ACLU's suit is the differential use of the old, presumably inferior machines, which raises an equal protection issue: if Group A is going to have to use voting machines that fail to count a higher proportion of votes than the voting machines that Group B gets to use, then Group A's votes effectively count less than those of Group B members. That wasn't an issue when everyone used the old machines.

DSY and Sua, is this an accurate summary? You're the lawyers; I'm just a number-cruncher.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
The liberals will do anything to block a Bush appointee to any federal courts. Even when they are perfectly suited and come highly recommended (unless they`re liberal or moderate), can you say filli-stinkin`-buster.

1) whuckfistle, you put your [rant] far later in your post than it belonged.

2) Could you provide some stats to back up this claim? Numbers of judicial nominations submitted to Congress/approved by Congress by Clinton and (so far) Bush would be very illustrative, if you have them.

[KoalaBear]

posted by Dogface:
Why is the very exact same system that elected Grey Davis fair and just when it elected him but unfair and unjust for the recall?

I would think that the answer is obvious.

The California race is expected to be close -- if the outcome of the recall hinges on fewer votes than the margin of polling error, we're back to the debacle of the 2000 presidential election.

Disqualifying 40,000 ballots because they were mispunched or miscounted isn't an issue when the winner would remain the same regardless of which candidate you attributed them to. But in the case of a tie, the candidates would fight tooth and nail over every hanging chad and possibly end up having the Supreme Court stop the recount in order to appoint the Republican governer of their choice.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by Zoe
[b]

I suspect the gentleman was conservative -- so conservative that he refused to answer any questions on his views.

I kind of doubt that.
Estrada served under the Clinton Admin in some high capacity (US. Department of Justice Solicitor General’s Office
Assistant to the Solicitor General ). I don`t think he was TOO conservative.


Estrada .

Or here.

RT Firefly The Bush numbers are here. And by the way, were in a Judicial emergancy. As far as appointees go.

[Uncommon Sense]

RTFirefly - I found the numbers. Enjoy.

Bush 76% , Clinton 90% .

And

Bush 36, Clinton 14 .

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Suasponte & DSYoungEsq,

You are both claiming that the current ruling is an application of the Bush/Gore USSC ruling. As I noted in the other current thread on the topic, the USSC specifically disclaimed this in their ruling. I wonder if you could comment on this. [/b]

In Bush v. Gore, the Supremes asserted that their decision applied only to that case. The Supreme Court has tried this trick in other cases in the past, and it never works.¹

It doesn't work because the attempt is an affront to the common law system, in two regards. First, every case is limited to a ruling on the facts presented, and the determination is only a determination of that one case. The decision, however, is made by the application of principles of law to those particular facts. Those principles of law are universal - you cannot make the claim that the principles apply differently in different cases.
Second, what is a lower court to do when faced with a situation that touches on matters decided in Bush v. Gore? They are going to apply that decision, because the Supreme Court said "this is how you decide such matters." At the very least, Bush v. Gore is persuasive precedent and, at most, controlling precedent.

Sua

¹ We saw a variation on this in the Lawrence opinions, which claimed that the decision there would not lead to legalization of gay marriages. Lawrence may or may not lead to gay marriage, but the Supremes' assertion that it would not is irrelevant.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
RTFirefly - I found the numbers. Enjoy.

Bush 76% , Clinton 90% .

And

Bush 36, Clinton 14 .

Wow. Whatever happened to 1995-2000? Did we just lose those years down a memory hole??

Comparing the first two years of the respective administrations provides a surface parallelism that creates the patina of a legitimate comparison without its actual presence. Anyone who was paying attention remembers how the Pubbies shelved large numbers of Clinton's nominees in the later years of his presidency. If you choose to put that part of the record outside of this debate, whuckfistle, then I have nothing more to say to you in this forum, and I honestly don't care enough about you to bother Pitting you.

[IzzyR]

Sua,

I believe you may have misunderstood my post. The SC did not merely say that the ruling was limited to the case at hand - they gave a specific rationale for this. Suppose the SC says "we rule this way only in Case X where Rationale Y applies, but this does not apply to Case Z where Rationale Y does not apply for the following reason..." Are you saying that the declaration by the SC that Rationale Y does not apply in the other case is to be disregarded by other courts?

Here's the relevant part of the opinion:

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

While they are not saying directly that their decision does not apply in local cases, they are clearly delineating reasoning that they feel only applies to the case at hand and describing why.

[Gadarene]

whuckfistle et al.: I've started a thread about Estrada here wherein you may continue your hijack.

[SuaSponte]

IzzyR, as DSYoungEsq already noted, there is a statewide remedy in place - the consent decree in Common Cause I. So your attempt at distinction, whether it would be apt in other circumstances, does not apply here.

Two other points - from your quote, the Supremes did not decide that local entities can use different systems for implementing elections. Instead, it simply noted that that was not the issue they were deciding in Bush v. Gore.
Point the second - if the issue of local entities using different systems for elections was at issue, the logic of Bush v. Gore would actually require uniform statewide systems for statewide elections. The reason is that "equal treatment and fundamental fairness" requires that all votes for a particular contest have the same change of being read correctly (or misread). To do that, you have to record and count the votes in the same manner.

So, if they wish, local entities can use a different system for electing the town dogcatcher (or mayor), but they would have to use the same, statewide, system for presidential, gubernatorial, etc., elections.

Sua

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
And by the way, were in a Judicial emergancy. As far as appointees go.

Oh really? According to Time (May 26, 2003, in its article about Alberto Gonzales),

Overall, 124 of Bush's judicial nominations have been approved, and the judiciary has its lowest vacancy rate in 13 years.

I guess it depends on how you define 'crisis'.

[Blalron]

We saw a variation on this in the Lawrence opinions, which claimed that the decision there would not lead to legalization of gay marriages. Lawrence may or may not lead to gay marriage, but the Supremes' assertion that it would not is irrelevant.

The never said that it wouldn't lead to gay marriages. They merely said that the specific issue before them was sodomy laws, and that's what they are ruling on at the moment.

Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.[emphasis mine]

[Blalron]

Here's another excerpt from the Lawrence decision:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.

It's common judicial practice to rule on the most narrow question possible (in this case, the constitutionality of sodomy laws), and leave broader questions for other cases.

[SuaSponte]

Blalron, re-read them. Particularly re-read O'Connor's concurrence.
Scalia certainly believed that the majority asserted that Lawrence would not lead to gay marriage - he refuted the assertion.

Sua

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
And above and beyond that, David Simmons, are you insinuating that Issa bought signatures? How does one go about doing that sort of thing? "Here's a c-note, just sign here"?

Just on this specific topic...

Yep. I could buy myself any number of signatures anywhere in the country starting oh, by Monday at the latest. There are firms I've used to do this for business purposes and they also do petitions.

Costs maybe a buck a name or so. Simplest thing in the world.


[Fixed coding. -- MEB]

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
there is a statewide remedy in place - the consent decree in Common Cause I. So your attempt at distinction, whether it would be apt in other circumstances, does not apply here.

I don't see how a "statewide remedy" makes a difference. The point is from where the unequal protection is derived. The SC reasoning (as I understand it) is that Government Entity A cannot treat one citizen differently than another citizen, but that Government Entity A can treat one citizen differently than Government Entity B treats another citizen. And since the different voting machines were the result of different decisions by different local governments, it makes no difference (for Equal Protection purposes) what consent decree the state might have entered into.

from your quote, the Supremes did not decide that local entities can use different systems for implementing elections. Instead, it simply noted that that was not the issue they were deciding in Bush v. Gore.

What difference does this make? The USSC said "we are not deciding that different treatment by different entities violates EP - we are specifically deciding only that different treatment by one entity violates EP". Now if you want you can say that you, Sua, believe that different treatment by different entities also violates EP, but you can't say that it is implied in the SC decision, as they specifically said that they are using a rationale that excludes your case. This is not analogous to the SC vaguely saying "we aren't saying that such-and-such will be derived from our decision".

Point the second - if the issue of local entities using different systems for elections was at issue, the logic of Bush v. Gore would actually require uniform statewide systems for statewide elections. The reason is that "equal treatment and fundamental fairness" requires that all votes for a particular contest have the same change of being read correctly (or misread). To do that, you have to record and count the votes in the same manner.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is this your own opinion, or are you claiming that the SC said this? (If so, where?)

[Blalron]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Blalron, re-read them. Particularly re-read O'Connor's concurrence.
Scalia certainly believed that the majority asserted that Lawrence would not lead to gay marriage - he refuted the assertion.

Sua

Sure, and he was also frothing at the mouth about how the Court has signed on to the homosexual "agenda", and how laws against bestiality were now under fire. I think his perception of the case may have been a bit off.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Wow. Whatever happened to 1995-2000? Did we just lose those years down a memory hole??

Comparing the first two years of the respective administrations provides a surface parallelism that creates the patina of a legitimate comparison without its actual presence. Anyone who was paying attention remembers how the Pubbies shelved large numbers of Clinton's nominees in the later years of his presidency. If you choose to put that part of the record outside of this debate, whuckfistle, then I have nothing more to say to you in this forum, and I honestly don't care enough about you to bother Pitting you.

1) EEEEEasy now. (A pitting after a couple of mild exchanges?)
2) Cite??? (about the Pubbies shelving appointees)

You--"2) Could you provide some stats to back up this claim? Numbers of judicial nominations submitted to Congress/approved by Congress by Clinton and (so far) Bush would be very illustrative, if you have them. "

Note the usage of the term "SO FAR".



How would you like me to compare the two POTUS. All of Clintons Eight years versus Bush`s Two? I wanted to make an apples to apples comparison. What`s to cause me to think that the next two or six years of the Bush Admin is going to be any different?

If you want to make unfair comparisons then dig up your own info. I wanted to make the most fair comparison available - hence the charts I referenced.

In fact, if you want to carry this further, in his first two years Bush lags behind every modern president in judicial nominees, dating back to Carter. (according to the links).


Judicial Emergency - "The formula by which a judicial vacancy is determined to be a "judicial emergency" has been changed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts effective December 2001, to identify courts where vacancies have resulted in only one active judge.
The formula now used is:
Any vacancy in a district court where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship; OR any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where weighted filings are between 430 to 600 per judgeship; OR any court with more than one authorized judgeship and only one active judge;
AND
Any vacancy in a court of appeals where adjusted filings per panel are in excess of 700; OR any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where adjusted filings are between 500 to 700 per panel. "

Let`s use the USDOJ`s (above) definition of "judicial emergency" for now.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
Yep. I could buy myself any number of signatures anywhere in the country starting oh, by Monday at the latest. There are firms I've used to do this for business purposes and they also do petitions.

You've aroused my curiosity. If you don't mind saying, what business purposes involve the collecting of masses of signatures?

To run for Gov of CA, it only takes 65, apparently. That takes half an hour in the mall parking lot, tops.

[Jonathan Chance]

Yep. But getting the X Hundreds of thousands for the recall is a proposition in need of professionals.

<hijack>
When working in a media that derives 90% of its revenue from advertising it is sometimes necessary to 'prove' that people signed up for your magazine through an audit. Those require that people signing up...well...sign something to get the magazine...even if it's free.

Where the signatures come from? I couldn't care less as long as we make rate-base.
</hijack.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I don't see how a "statewide remedy" makes a difference.

You don't? From your quote from Bush v. Gore

When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Here a court has ordered a statewide remedy.

The point is from where the unequal protection is derived. The SC reasoning (as I understand it) is that Government Entity A cannot treat one citizen differently than another citizen, but that Government Entity A can treat one citizen differently than Government Entity B treats another citizen.

No, no, no. The Supremes most certainly did not decide that or reason that. Again from your quote:

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.

IOW, they were not addressing that issue. If that issue were to come before the Supreme Court in a future case, they may well decide that local entities may not develop different systems. The issue is unaddressed and undecided by the Supremes.
IMO, were the issue to come before the Supremes, they would have to decide, in order to remain consistent with the decision in Bush v. Gore, that all voting for a particular contest would have to be conducted in the same manner.
This is the heart of equal protection jurisprudence - persons in the same circumstances must be treated alike. If, for example, Philadelphia used a system in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial election that resulted in 20% of its votes being uncounted, while Pittsburgh used a system in which only 2% were uncounted, the votes by Philadelphia residents are not treated equally, even though they are in the same circumstance as Pittsburgh residents - they are all Pennsylvania residents voting for their next governor.

What difference does this make? The USSC said "we are not deciding that different treatment by different entities violates EP - we are specifically deciding only that different treatment by one entity violates EP". Now if you want you can say that you, Sua, believe that different treatment by different entities also violates EP, but you can't say that it is implied in the SC decision, as they specifically said that they are using a rationale that excludes your case.

First of all, the Supremes most certainly did not "exclude" anything - they simply said that the issue wasn't before them. The principles of law set forth in Bush v. Gore, however, can be applied to that issue at a later date.
Let me give you an example. A discrimination case comes before the Supremes involving a black convert to Judaism (Sammy Davis, Jr. v. Alabama). The allegation is that the State of Alabama discriminated against Sammy as a black man, not as a Jew. The Supreme Court determines that the State of Alabama did discriminate against Sammy on the basis of his race. They include a sentence: "The question before the Court is not whether Alabama discriminated against Mr. Davis on the basis of his religious beliefs."
That does not mean that a Jewish person who suffers discrimination by Alabama the next week could not rely on the decision in Davis v. Alabama. He certainly could.
It simply means that the issue of religious discrimination was not relevant to the case.
All the the Supremes were saying was that the use of differing election systems by local entities is not at issue in Bush v. Gore, so the Supremes will not decide whether it is proper or improper for local entities to use differing systems.

But what is important is the principle established by Bush v. Gore - it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to treat and count votes in a statewide recount differently. I submit, and I believe I am on solid ground here, that the same Equal Protections concerns apply with equal force to the way votes are treated and counted in a statewide election. There is no logical difference between a statewide election and a statewide recount that would allow a different result.
So I certainly can say it is implied in the decision in Bush v. Gore.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is this your own opinion, or are you claiming that the SC said this? (If so, where?)

It is the logical application of the precedent of Bush v. Gore. What a court may not do - cause or allow the unequal treatment of votes - local election authorities may not do.

Sua


[Fixed coding. -- MEB]

[IzzyR]

sua,

You don't? From your quote from Bush v. Gore

Here a court has ordered a statewide remedy.

Well yeah, they used the word "statewide remedy", but that's not the crux of the issue. The point in that case was that the court had created the recount (the "statewide remedy" in that particular instance) and it was being conducted statewide under their auspices and on their authority. Under such a circumstance, to have varying standards violates EP, because the same entity (i.e. the court) would be treating different citizens differently in the same area of jurisdiction (the state). The decision used the term "statewide remedy" to reflect the difference between a statewide government action being treated differently within the state, and a multitude of local actions being treated differently in different localities. In the CA case, the election itself is being run by locals, and the differing standards arise from this local control. The fact that the court had given some statewide order does not suddenly transform the election itself into a "statewide remedy".

All the the Supremes were saying was that the use of differing election systems by local entities is not at issue in Bush v. Gore, so the Supremes will not decide whether it is proper or improper for local entities to use differing systems.

But what is important is the principle established by Bush v. Gore - it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to treat and count votes in a statewide recount differently. I submit, and I believe I am on solid ground here, that the same Equal Protections concerns apply with equal force to the way votes are treated and counted in a statewide election. There is no logical difference between a statewide election and a statewide recount that would allow a different result.
So I certainly can say it is implied in the decision in Bush v. Gore.

Well the SC itself doesn't seem to agree with you, or there would be no point in the disclaimer, and neither do I.

Suppose a state decided that one set of rules applies to people in County A and a different set to people in County B, I see that as a violation of EP. But if County A makes one set of rules and County B makes a different set, I don't see that as a violation.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
You--"2) Could you provide some stats to back up this claim? Numbers of judicial nominations submitted to Congress/approved by Congress by Clinton and (so far) Bush would be very illustrative, if you have them. "

Note the usage of the term "SO FAR".

Yes. Clinton (8 years) v. Bush (so far, since that's all we've got).

How would you like me to compare the two POTUS. All of Clintons Eight years versus Bush`s Two?

Why not? What's so difficult about comparing things that aren't over time periods of different lengths? "No, we can't compare Sandy Koufax' career to Nolan Ryan's; Koufax' career only lasted a decade, while Ryan pitched more than twice that long."

I wanted to make an apples to apples comparison. What`s to cause me to think that the next two or six years of the Bush Admin is going to be any different?

If you don't think it's going to be any different, then you should have absolutely no problem extrapolating the 2.5 years of the current administration and comparing that with Clinton's 8 years. Because the treatment of Clinton's judicial nominees did change substantially over time, and your insistence on cherry-picking the years that best suit your argument is fundamentally dishonest.

If you want to make unfair comparisons then dig up your own info.

No, I'll leave that to you; you've already demonstrated expertise in that area.

I wanted to make the most fair comparison available - hence the charts I referenced.

What nonsense, Mr. Cherry-Picker.

I'm done with you.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Well the SC itself doesn't seem to agree with you, or there would be no point in the disclaimer, and neither do I.

::sigh:: IzzyR, all this means is that you don't read court cases for a living. Disclaimers such as this are par for the course, and are included for a simple reason. Courts always attempt to rule upon the narrowest issues possible. When there is an issue at play that the court does not deem necessary to determination of the case, they will state that they are not ruling on that issue. That's all the Supremes did there.
You are resting your argument on a support that is not designed to take the weight. In the simplest terms, if I were to argue to a court that the Supreme Court had determined that local entities are allowed to use different election systems, and read your quote to the court, the court would bitchslap me. The court would say, "um, actually, the Supreme Court said that they were not deciding that issue. Not deciding an issue is the exact opposite of deciding an issue."

Suppose a state decided that one set of rules applies to people in County A and a different set to people in County B, I see that as a violation of EP. But if County A makes one set of rules and County B makes a different set, I don't see that as a violation.

In your scenario, if the set of rules enacted by the different counties result in a higher or lower rate of uncountable votes in a statewide election, do you then see an Equal Protection violation?

Sua