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 09/17/2003 10:50:17 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:08:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election to delay the California recall, a link legal experts called tenuous at best and a direct challenge to the high court at worst.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Gee I made the same "daring the Supreme Court" point on a post two days ago in a post (just for fun gloat:)
From...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982862/posts?page=57#57
The Lib on the 9th are daring the Supreme Court to over turn... because if the do...it provides the Dem gobes of ammo for 2004... it was a win/win ruling for any lib to make
"The panel did a remarkable job, with remarkable speed, and it got the law right," the ACLU said.
The way the article reads makes this statement look like it's in the brief. If it is, it's simply pathetic.
"Pathetic" is a very, very, very nice way to describe it.
If the Left can produce a leftist professor to endorse the outrageous opinion of three leftists judges who can say that 5 Justices cannot also be found?
Relying on the Supreme Court to straighten out leftist circuits is like relyng on the UN to keep the peace. This is a very dangerous constitutional road we are running down. Reason and the whole idea of the non ideological rule of law are put on the defensive here. At best, we can restore some confidence in our system but we will not get back to the Status Quo Ante and the Left will now have another tool. Constitutional government is too vulnerable, even in America, to have no salvation except a Hail Mary pass from the Supreme Court.
There must be an across the board counterattack against this wave of judicial ursurptation. It is a very great pity that the opportunity presented by the Estrada fillibuster has been squandered.
So now we have only to play 60 minutes of defense.
Anticipating the Ninth Circuit's decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc of the three-judge panel's ruling that postponed California's recall election: Sometime today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is expected to announce whether a majority of that court's non-recused active judges has voted to rehear en banc the case in which a three-judge panel of that court issued a ruling on Monday postponing California's recall election. The Ninth Circuit typically posts such orders to the opinion page of its Web site at 1:30 p.m eastern time / 10:30 a.m. pacific time each day, but this order conceivably could issue at any time.
As I have previously noted, two of the twenty-six active judges on the Ninth Circuit are recused from this case, requiring that thirteen of the remaining twenty-four judges votes in favor of rehearing en banc for it to be granted.
If rehearing en banc is denied, that too can be accomplished by a simple one paragraph order. Nevertheless, in a controversial case such as this, it is very likely that some or all of the judges who voted for rehearing en banc will wish to have their dissent from its denial noted. Such dissenting judges can issue an opinion explaining why they disagree with the denial of rehearing en banc, join a dissenting colleague's opinion, or simply note their disagreement without explanation.
If rehearing en banc is granted, the Ninth Circuit will not disclose how any of the twenty-four judges voted on the question. Rather, all that we will know is that at least thirteen of them voted "yes." If rehearing en banc is denied, the Ninth Circuit similarly will not release the actual vote tally (although if twelve judges note their dissent, we will know that the outcome was 12-12, which in fact is what "Edward Boyd" is predicting). But a judge who votes in favor of rehearing en banc is under no obligation to disclose to the public how he or she voted if rehearing en banc is denied. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has a tradition of keeping the actual vote tally on whether to grant rehearing en banc a secret.
Finally, if rehearing en banc is denied, the losing parties can seek discretionary review of the three-judge panel's ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. On the other hand, if rehearing en banc is granted, the time for seeking U.S. Supreme Court review will not begin to run until after the en banc court issues its ruling.
posted at 9:05 AM by Howard Bashman
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.