Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Voter ID Upheld: 9th Circus Ct. App. smacked down

Discussion in 'Legal' started by beerslurpy, Oct 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    With a per curiam pdf for you to read.

    Basically the 9th circus overturned the district court without actually bothering to give any good reasons for doing so. The supreme court was basically like "uh you can't do that, here is a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for you to review."

    This is awesome because it means that AZ (and anyone else that wishes) can proceed with voter ID laws. Which means that illegals cant vote! Fancy that.
     
  2. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Bad news for Democrats. They really need that segment of the Democratic base--the illegal and dead vote--for '08.:)

    I am certain that the 9th Circuit will correct their mistake and Voter ID will be ruled unconstitutional.
     
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Well, not quite so frequently, anyway.
     
  4. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    The Supreme Court's ruling specifically instructs that the election should proceed with the law in place.

    Various Dem groups sued to overturn the law, and asked for a preliminary injunction against the law being enforced. The district court denied them without issuing any findings of fact or conclusions of law.

    The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th CCA and the denial was overturned without comment. The State of Arizona requested a rehearing and this was denied without comment. This was appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Since then, the District Court released its findings and conclusions and said that the plaintiffs had some chance of succeeding in their lawsuit, but it was not an overwhelming chance that justified granting a preliminary injunction (basically giving them their victory up front before they win their suit).

    Holding:
    The 9th CCA has to actually list reasons that the lower court is obviously wrong in their decision and if they cant show that they have to defer to them. And even though the district court didnt actually issue anything the 9th CCA had to defer to, they were still obliged to illustrate the reasons for their reversal.
     
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I notice a concurring opinion from Stevens - the Ninth must have really hosed their decision to earn that. Was it a 9-0 decision? The per curiam doesn't mention the breakdown.
     
  6. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    I'm going off the opinion, so I have no more knowledge than anyone else that read it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page