Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (9025)	9/23/2003 1:56:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793698

From the "Legal Theory" Blog: I think this decision confirms the feeling that the three-Judge panel engaged in "gotcha" legalisms with the Supremes. A lot of egg on their faces. --------------------------------------------------------------- What Does It Mean? The last phrase "issue the mandate forthwith" means that the Ninth Circuit has made its final decision and that power over the case has been returned to the United States District Court. Any further attack on the denial of the preliminary injunction must now take place either in the United States Supreme Court or in the District Court. Neither option seems promising. Moreover, because the decision was unanimous, and the panel included both Democrats and Republicans, the en banc decision will undercut any claim by the plaintiffs that they have been the victim of a decision based on low politics. The plaintiffs will likely seek certiorari and a stay from the Supreme Court, but there is no reason to believe that this request will be granted. (Howard Bashman makes this point here.) For all intents and purposes, it seems highly likely that the legal challenge to the recall election is over. What Was the Legal Basis for the Decision? Essentially, the Ninth Circuit said two things. First, the plaintiffs had shown only a possibility of success on the merits--not a strong probability. Why? On the equal protection claim, the Court said that Bush v. Gore, although ambiguous, was distinguishable. On the Voting Rights Act claim, the Court said that the theory might be strong but the evidence did not establish "disparate impact" to a "strong likelihood." Second, the balance of equities did not favor a preliminary injunction, given only a possibility of success on the merits. Why not? Because delaying the recall would impair a significant interest of the voters of the State of California. lsolum.blogspot.com