Federal Appeals Court Delays California Recall

September 15, 2003 8:23 PM

The Gropenator will have to spin his wheels for awhile: California's Vote Delayed by Court Over Punch Cards. And here's the kicker--it's deja vu all over again, Bizarro stylee: Bush v. Gore Outlives Its Limited Warranty for Use in California

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was meant to be a ticket good for one ride. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," the justices said in their unsigned opinion in 2000, "for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Three judges on the federal appeals court in San Francisco, all appointed by Democratic presidents, decided yesterday to use it for another ride anyway.
posted by y2karl (8 comments total)

You know, y2karl, I was about to yell at you in regards to how your first link is a double, but the second one makes up for it just by the level of pure poetic justice. I never considered the Bush v. Gore precedent in the discussion, that's an awesome observation.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:32 PM on September 15, 2003

I'd like to thank the Ninth Circuit for the pile of six-packs in my living room. They nicely caused several bets made at end of the last presidential election to pay off in spades.
posted by rudyfink at 8:36 PM on September 15, 2003

Ah, y2k, ya know I love ya...but this shoulda gone in the post from this morning.
posted by dejah420 at 8:48 PM on September 15, 2003

my but what long petards the supremes do find themselves being a hoisted from...
(as if they ever had any chance of being allowed to forget they issued such a shameful opinion as B v G)

Look soon for the Court to bitch-slap the 9th circuit.
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:14 PM on September 15, 2003

Well, it will be interesting to see if they do, Fupped Duck. I doubt that the Supreme Court is particularly excited to get into these issues again, given the likelihood of another 5-4 decision, more acrimony between the Justices and the further tarnishing of the Court's reputation.

Especially when you consider that all nine Justices would have to basically switch sides on the legal question in order to get their desired political result, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they refused to review it just to save face.
posted by boltman at 10:44 PM on September 15, 2003

/shrug

From the supreme court page on the Florida Elections.

Bush v Gore

Bush v Palm Beach

I don't think it would amount to a "switch of sides". I suspect each side will stick to its familiar grounds: state/federal and guarantee of suffrage. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the court used this as an opportunity to try to clear up the muddled waters.
posted by rudyfink at 3:10 AM on September 16, 2003

Look soon for the Court to bitch-slap the 9th circuit.

Umm... don't hold your breath. If the Supreme Court takes this, they would have to take it up right now in an immediate special session on behalf of angered Republicans... which, you know, in the upcoming presidential election some people might make some slight allusions to.

Letting the ruling stay keeps Bush away from his current pattern of non-involvement in the race and gives the local candidates a few more months to bitch about Davis. Assuming the vote is rescheduled for the DNC primary, Arnold's fucked, but seriously, if you think the GOP going to court is a better plan, you haven't looked a the big picture.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:29 AM on September 16, 2003

In Bush v. Gore, it was the five conservatives that appealled to the equal protection clause to argue that the recount must be halted because all the votes would not be treated the same. The four liberal members said their was no equal protection issue.

In this case, the ninth circuit used the same equal protection argument made by Renquist & co. to postpone the California election, helping the Democrats this time. While there may be more subtle arguments that the five conservatives could make to reverse the 9th Circuit's decision, it will still involve some degree of backpedaling on the equal protection issue.

So, as XQUZYPHYR notes, it's going to make the Court look pretty bad if they take it up and reverse. So I'm just saying that maybe they won't. Believe it or not, the justices actually do care about their reputations in the legal world.
posted by boltman at 6:55 AM on September 16, 2003