Dude, that's *HUGE*. Do you know what this means? It means Democrats are growing marbles. Never thought I'd see the day...
They are not supposed to grow marbles when they are JUDGES! The courts are supposed to judge the laws that are already on the books. If a person wants to grow ball politically, they should do it when running for office and explaining what laws they want to PASS. And why is it a Democrat thing to block the recall? Because the recalled governor happens to be a Democrat?
"The judges agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the voting machines were prone to error and that Davis’ fate could be decided later. By that time, the counties have promised to replace their punch-card machines under a court order in separate litigation." Does anyone buy this? Come on. They are trying to save Davis.
How's it going to save Davis? at most it will give him a temporary reprieve for a month or two while they buy new machines. Shoot, if that's what it takes to fix the pathetic voting practices we still follow, even after the debacle of 2000, then I guess its worth it. The ACLU isn't a de-facto arm of the democratic party. They regularly line up on the same side as Klansman and other hate groups in 1st amendment matters, and were lined up with the GOP, the NRA, and the Christian Coalition against McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform). Love them or hate them, they are remarkably consistent. And this is in keeping with what they usually do.
Great. Could the next presidential election be put off for the same reason if someone complains loud enough to the courts?
Most of us defend free speech when it's only something we agree with. The ACLU defends *all* free speech, whether it's from George Bush or a Klansman. That's awesome. Considering how free speech *used* to be a major tenet of mainstream conservatives, it's surprising how most Republicans rip on them.
Well, it certainly helps Davis campaign for a while and perhaps he can fix some of the problems. You don't thin Davis is happy about this? I didn't accuse the ACLU of something here, I think they were sincere in their argument, but I doubt the court was being perfectly honest. It's the decision I have a problem with. How can it be in the public interest to delay an election like this?
This is why they call it the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. I just knew that they'd find a way to help out that two-bit scumbag who with his Democratic cronies in the legislature, has spent Cali into a 30-plus billion with a B dollar deficit. He is at the least incompetent and at the worst corrupt. Their reasoning for delaying the recall is specious at best.
The decision does help Davis because it kills some recall momentum. But, he has more rope to hang himself with. If things in California start looking up during his reprieve, he's in good shape; if it goes downhill, he's definitely toast. But, just because it helps the democrats, I don't buy that it was politically motivated. The punch-cards have already demonstrated they are somewhat unreliable. They were 'good enough' for many elections, but now that we have better technology, we need to use it. If they allow elections to go on without them, what motivation is there to modernize? What would end up happening is the counties that can afford it will have a more accurate representation of the will of the people and the poorer ones will have poorer representation due to ambiguities in their ballots. That seems to me like enough motivation for this decision.
So clearly you are opposed to politicians who lead regions which, under their tenure, spend a lot and acrue extreme deficits, correct? You must then think that doing so makes someone at least incompetent and at worst corrupt, correct? **************************************************** I am hoping you can see where I am going with this. Personally I have little or no interest in the situation in California. I tend to avoid partisan squabbles, unless they rise above them for me, like the next Presidential election. I doubt Arnold is qualified, notice his lack of substance, but also am generally for candidates out of the Old Boys network. Personally I think that Ueberoth was the most qualified Republican candidate, and am dissapointed he didn't catch on. But the kind of partisan catch phrase Bama threw out there sort of makes one wonder what his position on Bush is, given that he has dug a much deeper hole from a much better starting position. I myself am reluctant to ascribe personal responsibility to a leader for the economic developments of his region in a short term, but if you are going to do it for one, you must do it for another. I am sure, however, that bama will find reasons to excuse the gander while bashing the goose.
Wow, a $30 billion deficit is a lot. That *is* irresponsible. The projected 2004 federal deficit is close to $500 billion. Should Bush be removed?
Don't be so reluctant in Davis' case. It has been well documented how he personally screwed up in blowing up the budget. He didn't make the hard decision in cutting back that many other governors made. He continually made the politically expedient choices as the economy worsened.
I have heard that, and have also heard reasons why Bush is responsible for our current deficit, but I remain consistent in my position that short term economic responsibility is too ethereal to try and pin down, and am reluctant to hold either party personally responsible at this stage. My point was that if bama believes what he said, and justifies his accusations of Davis based on those reasons, he too should remain consistent and should hold Bush to be at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.
But what is 500 billion of a 2.2 trillion dollar deficit for starters? A lot less than 30 billion of whatever the state budget is that Gray-Out Davis has rung up in California. And this is a guy whose party controls the legislature and is basically a rubber stamp for whatever he wants to do. He has no excuse except he has never met uncontrolled spending he didn't like. Not so with Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, which is definitely not a rubberstamp. Bush inks all these spending bills by signing off on the liberal domestic agenda to appease you liberals, but then you accuse of him of financial mismanagement by running a deficit. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either come out against on him on spending or favor raising taxes to compensate.
I just hope the Supremes aren't allowed to save that two-bit scumbag Bush who with his Republican cronies in the legislature, has spent the US into a 500-plus billion with a B dollar deficit. He is at the least incompetent and at the worst corrupt.
