I can't believe the shock being expressed by the GOP members. They continue to imply that this is a partisan issue and that the court is acting out of political motive. I'm not going to argue against that because it's immaterial whether the judge was politically motivated--the voting machines are the same ones that were used in Florida and the basis for the ultimate decision in Bush's favor. The high court has already rules that these machines have to be replaced before the next election but this recall managed to fly in under the wire.

I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule differently without being inconsistent. They would have to rule that the recall has to continue based on the "will of the voters" and the constitutional requirement to have the election within 60 days of certification. How will they square that with their previous ruling that the "will of the voters" is being circumvented by obsolete machines?

The fact that it is a federal court involved in state matter mean anything? THe 9th circuit is the worst court in the country, they are responsible for everything wrong with the American judicial system.

Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
Date: 15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

Your entitled to your own opinions... But the fact of the matter is these judges have set just about every precident in modern law. They are less interested in interpreting the law, rather they would make policy on how they think the laws should be.

It is sweetly ironic that the precedent set by the GOP party 3 years ago in the Florida debacle has impeded their effort at a partisan coup in California.

Federal court for a Federal election.... Federal Court for a state election... oh wait that isn't in their jurisdiction.

I find your perception of our legal structure perplexing.

How do you come to the conclusion that federal appellate and supreme court decisions aren't binding on state affairs?

The Supreme Court stepped in to rule whether the lower, State court's ruling was in accordance with the laws governing the nation, as a whole.

That decision went through the same process this one is going through--case filed with a regional court, appeal filed with the state appellate court, reviewed and decided by state supremt court. Appeal filed with federal appellate court and, ultimately, decided on by the Supreme Court of the land.

The ramifications of that supreme decision declared that the polling devices that were used in Florida had to be replaced by the next election. That recent supreme decision supercedes our early 1900's referendum to hold recall elections within X days from certification of the signatures.

You didn't even answer the underlying question--how do you justify arguing for an election a few months before the scheduled replacement of machines that were already judged by the highest court in our country to undermine voting principles and fairness?

The number of candidates on the ballot exacerbates the dilemma. The fact that our fiscal crisis is causing polling stations in various counties to close should also be a matter of concern to those desiring fair election processes. You should also know that we already had an election scheduled in March.

is too ....is not is too is not is too is not is too isnot istoo isnotistooisnot

Spiraling into oblivion......the way it looks from here is that California is very messed up. Democrats control every statewide office and both houses of the legislature. We California residents have every right to expect our government to run in an efficient and responsible manner. Obviously, running a $24B surplus to an estimated $38B deficit in 5 years, the current regime lacks the qualifications to husband the resources of the state.
Granted, depending on which pundit you ask, there were some unforseeable circumstances which led to our current situation. These shortfalls only amplify the flaws in the current scheme of taxation of the highest income earners and businesses. As their fortunes go so go the fortunes of the state.
I fear, nay, know many businesses and higher income earners are leaving the state. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona are packed with Golden staters fleeing for greener pastures.
Millions of Illegal aliens are straining our resources
Slackers and special interests are sucking us dry....oops slipping into oblivion.....anyway we are following on a trend that cannot continue

Gray has to go

Cruz is frankly the same as gray

Arnold is famous but what does he know about anything?

Ariana is an independent republican democrat with green tendencies...I can't see a cohesive leadership idea thing. (bye the bye ....has she done anything besides marry a rich guy and be on a lot of talk shows? not trying to be mean I just don't know)

Larry Flynt...I could never get that angry
Tom lots of government experience....is that good? I tend to agree with many of his positions but I am not sure he can broker the kind of changes we need in california.

Peter U is out

Camejo....latin for nut burger

In summation the grand conclusion is.......Bend over california...

Arianna has done a lot more than "marry a rich guy and be on a lot of talk shows." Scroll back a page or two and read one of the links I provided concerning her bio.

FYI, the three states you listed are receiving retired people--not businesses. Oregon's economy is worse than ours right now as a result of all those "Golden staters fleeing." Retirees sell their property down here for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) and buy it up there for tens of thousands of dollars. They drive the reality through the roof and refuse to pay taxes on the services the local community needs. In Oregon, at least, there are no business moving from here to there. I don't know about Vegas or Arizona but I suspect (and have heard) the situation is similar.

i want the write in

Where was the vote for the court of appeals?

You know, I wasn't old enough to know or care what kind of person he was as an actor or as president, but Ronald Reagan got elected regardless of his star status.
Of course, that isn't the perfect argument, I'm just stating some forgotten facts, maybe..

The race is back on...

Where's Mary Carey?

Arnold.
He is too liberal of a conservative for me. But I think this allows him to balance out the conservative wing of the party. Ultimately it could be a good thing.

Sunday, October 5, 2003
Two Days left, Arnold ahead by 10 Votes on the TFP.

*cough cough*

Who is now the governator?

*cough cough*

:lol: :lol: :lol:

By the early look of it. It wasn't even close. It just shows that the public has zero faith in their politicians and maybe the politicians actually need to start doing their jobs before they all lose their jobs to actors!

I am really liking this!!!

TFP'ers got it right!