“A Matter of Logic and Common Sense”: Federal Court Rejects Chemerinsky Theory on the Unconstitutionality of Newsom Recall


18 thoughts on ““A Matter of Logic and Common Sense”: Federal Court Rejects Chemerinsky Theory on the Unconstitutionality of Newsom Recall”

  1. It’s an interesting argument made by the libs and I didn’t dismiss it out of hand. All things considered, both JT and Judge Michael Fitzgerald got it right. The Constitution isn’t a “no” document nor is it a “we can do it better” document. It’s a “freedom” document which should strive always for the most possible freedom and the least (or the most diffuse) government control possible.

  2. Interesting, and bit problematic all this. This is for too many reasons, but one right now:

    I quote the judge:

    “Reading the Reply, one would think that only those voters who voted “Yes” on the first question have the right to vote for a replacement candidate. (Reply at 6 & n.6). That is not correct. All voters have the right to cast a vote on both parts of the
    ballot or just the first part (recall) or just the second part (choosing among the replacement candidates).”

    End of quotation:

    But, there is no point for the one who would vote “no”, to put further choice in the second vote, and choosing another candidate from the list of replacements. Otherwise, why to vote “no”? By voting “no” he has clear intention, not to see the current governor replaced. So, effectively, there is no sense by that proposition that each voter can actually vote twice. And, that is the very issue:

    Whether such result, effective result, violets the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote”.

    What is interesting, is another proposition made by the judge, asserting that, I quote:

    “However, the right to vote inherently has commonsense limitations because every conceivable candidate or issue cannot be presented on every ballot.”

    Yet, and unfortunately so, he didn’t elaborate it further in length.


  3. On to the 9th Circuit, before the election is certified and an appeal becomes moot…

  4. In the rest of the U.S. the governor’s name is new to some. To sum things up he needs to go. If that don’t cure it then cut and mow.
    Not Moe from The Three Stooges. Nor Larry, not Cheese

  5. nor did the judge sanction them for a filing a frivolous legal argument.

    But the Judge can. With immunity.

  6. The plaintiffs made an argument, and the judge didn’t buy it. Notice that Turley did not accuse the plaintiffs of acting in bad faith, nor did the judge sanction them for a filing a frivolous legal argument. Notwithstanding, I expect the Trumpists here will vilify the two liberal academics as Leftist scum. I hope I am wrong.

    1. JOsilv-You continue to describe everyone who disagrees with you as a “Trumpist” or “FoxNews”. It’s like you need a boogeyman to defend your position, “I’ll call them racist, Trumpist, FoxNews so they have to go on the defense”, it worked for awhile. The problem is, in plain english that shyte is old and played out. Maybe you should look to yourself and your whacked out ideas as the problem. Admit that you as Bezmenov calls them “one of the useful idiots”.

      1. I call ‘em as I see ‘em just like an umpire calling balls and strikes.

        1. –only you don’t have the credentials of an umpire. You strike out anyone who calls you out for your pseudo-credentials and uninformed opinions, and your need for validation usurps all other considerations. In the end, you had to resort to a post letting people know you lived in an “affluent” area but would still do your “civic duty” to listen to ” the forgotten man.” I smile. Most of us who live in affluent communities do not feel the need to tell others (in particular, strangers). I can only smile at your striking out at others in defense of your, er…what we might call a “compensatory personailty.”

          1. I’m just being honest like an umpire. You’ll have to explain what is a “compensatory personality,” doctor Linz, assuming you have the credentials to do so. Thanks.

    2. I will merely say that their argument was incoherent. It would be akin to saying that if in the next regular election that if the winning candidate gets less votes than the winner 4 years prior that they are somehow illegitimate.

    3. Jeff, can’t blame them for trying. It was not deemed frivolous so case closed. Surprisingly they didn’t employ go to Leftist Lawrence Tribe.I have to give them credit for that.

      1. Paul,

        There is good faith trying and bad faith trying. Neither the judge nor Turley accused Biden’s lawyers of the former motivation unlike Trump’s Michigan election lawyers who Turley has NOT commented upon much less defended.

    4. I don’t think they’re leftist scum. I think that they’re worried and were trying a Hail Mary (can we still say that?)

      1. Whig,

        A good faith Hail Mary unlike Trump’s lawyers in Michigan who the judge ruled did not act in good faith. Notice that Turley did not defend Trump’s lawyers from being threatened with disbarment presumably because he does not disagree with the judge’s determination that the lawyers lied in their pleadings.

Comments are closed.