Flawed logic
The decision handed down yesterday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the California gubernatorial recall election was nothing less than insulting, infuriating, and not without irony. The liberal bias of the three judge panel, no doubt carefully hand picked by the ACLU and Governor Davis, was more than transparent. It's sad that judges of any political point of view have become so partisan. I wish for federal judges not to be conservative or liberal, but instead, intelligent, independent thinkers who see beyond dogma to search for truth. That might sound naively idealistic, but that's what the rule of law should be all about. When I compare the United States to practically any other nation on earth, it is the rule of law that separates America from anywhere else. And in my mind, the Sharia does not cut it.
Allow me to explain why.
If you buy their logic, the three-judge panel and the ACLU believe that as many as 40,000 votes may not get counted in the recall vote because six California counties still use punch-card ballots, the same system that sent the 2000 presidential race into chaos. In making its ruling, the panel leaned heavily on the Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided 2000 election.
In a 66-page, unsigned opinion, the panel, made up of Judges Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, cited Bush v. Gore repeatedly to support the view that California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election would be unconstitutional if the state, as planned, used outmoded punch-card ballot machines like those that contributed to the deadlock in Florida in 2000. The punch-card technology would deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to have their ballots counted fairly, the court ruled.
The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, some 40,000 voters out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.
Never mind the fact that the three judges are basing their opinion on an event that has not happened yet, using estimates that have no scientific basis in fact and making conclusions on results that may never approach the hype being spewed forth by groups with a vested interest in promoting FUD.
If I were a member of the minorities referred to in the legal decision, I would be outraged. The ACLU's contention and the court's opinion is that African American and Hispanic voters are incapable of making a decision, much less being accountable for the act of voting properly. That's patronizing perfectly intelligent and capable people, regardless of whether they are a minority. Why should a African American or Hispanic voter statistically be any less able than a white or Asian voter to make sure that the X or punched hole is correctly filled out? For years, liberals have fought for equal rights for minorities, and to dispel the myths that a minority is any less able than their white counterparts. Yet, when it is convenient, liberals show their hypocracy and bias to suit their point of view. And here, the ACLU, purportedly the champion of the downtrodden masses of minorities, is selling the intelligence and abilities of minority groups short to defend an incompetent white man, namely Governor Davis.
The right to vote is one of the most important rights of any American, one to not be taken lightly. If our vote is to count, it is up to us as individuals to make sure that we have followed the instructions that our ballot is properly completed. No technology is flawless. And in countries around the world, simple paper ballots with an X or a hole has served the purpose of democracy for decades. But now, when it suits the purposes of liberal special interests, the legitimate will of the people is being denied to preserve the status quo. That's not just voter disenfransement. It's outright fraud and manipulation.
Look at it another way. If I was pulled over for speeding, and in court I told the judge, "Your honor, you must let me off because I did not understand the speed limit," I would get laughed out of court. Ignorance, I am reminded, is no defense of the law. So why should voting be any different? If I am responsible for knowing the speed limit to exercise my priviledge to drive, I should be just as vigilant with my right to vote.
But I have a solution. I'm thinking of writing the ACLU and asking for their help to get a recent court decision overturned on the grounds that my voting rights have been infringed upon. Just imagine: having the ACLU duke it out in court against the ACLU. Maybe then it would degrade into a fight to the death, and the ACLU, like two circling scorpions, would end up consuming itself. That would be justice for all.
The decision handed down yesterday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the California gubernatorial recall election was nothing less than insulting, infuriating, and not without irony. The liberal bias of the three judge panel, no doubt carefully hand picked by the ACLU and Governor Davis, was more than transparent. It's sad that judges of any political point of view have become so partisan. I wish for federal judges not to be conservative or liberal, but instead, intelligent, independent thinkers who see beyond dogma to search for truth. That might sound naively idealistic, but that's what the rule of law should be all about. When I compare the United States to practically any other nation on earth, it is the rule of law that separates America from anywhere else. And in my mind, the Sharia does not cut it.
Allow me to explain why.
If you buy their logic, the three-judge panel and the ACLU believe that as many as 40,000 votes may not get counted in the recall vote because six California counties still use punch-card ballots, the same system that sent the 2000 presidential race into chaos. In making its ruling, the panel leaned heavily on the Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided 2000 election.
In a 66-page, unsigned opinion, the panel, made up of Judges Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, cited Bush v. Gore repeatedly to support the view that California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election would be unconstitutional if the state, as planned, used outmoded punch-card ballot machines like those that contributed to the deadlock in Florida in 2000. The punch-card technology would deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to have their ballots counted fairly, the court ruled.
The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, some 40,000 voters out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.
Never mind the fact that the three judges are basing their opinion on an event that has not happened yet, using estimates that have no scientific basis in fact and making conclusions on results that may never approach the hype being spewed forth by groups with a vested interest in promoting FUD.
If I were a member of the minorities referred to in the legal decision, I would be outraged. The ACLU's contention and the court's opinion is that African American and Hispanic voters are incapable of making a decision, much less being accountable for the act of voting properly. That's patronizing perfectly intelligent and capable people, regardless of whether they are a minority. Why should a African American or Hispanic voter statistically be any less able than a white or Asian voter to make sure that the X or punched hole is correctly filled out? For years, liberals have fought for equal rights for minorities, and to dispel the myths that a minority is any less able than their white counterparts. Yet, when it is convenient, liberals show their hypocracy and bias to suit their point of view. And here, the ACLU, purportedly the champion of the downtrodden masses of minorities, is selling the intelligence and abilities of minority groups short to defend an incompetent white man, namely Governor Davis.
The right to vote is one of the most important rights of any American, one to not be taken lightly. If our vote is to count, it is up to us as individuals to make sure that we have followed the instructions that our ballot is properly completed. No technology is flawless. And in countries around the world, simple paper ballots with an X or a hole has served the purpose of democracy for decades. But now, when it suits the purposes of liberal special interests, the legitimate will of the people is being denied to preserve the status quo. That's not just voter disenfransement. It's outright fraud and manipulation.
Look at it another way. If I was pulled over for speeding, and in court I told the judge, "Your honor, you must let me off because I did not understand the speed limit," I would get laughed out of court. Ignorance, I am reminded, is no defense of the law. So why should voting be any different? If I am responsible for knowing the speed limit to exercise my priviledge to drive, I should be just as vigilant with my right to vote.
But I have a solution. I'm thinking of writing the ACLU and asking for their help to get a recent court decision overturned on the grounds that my voting rights have been infringed upon. Just imagine: having the ACLU duke it out in court against the ACLU. Maybe then it would degrade into a fight to the death, and the ACLU, like two circling scorpions, would end up consuming itself. That would be justice for all.
posted by Brian at
7:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home