Waiting...and holding my breath...CA-50 Hearing

[rumpel]

I am keeping an eye on bradblog and noticed Winter Patriot is posting that Friday's transcript is now available.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3351#more-3351

[Peace Patriot]

1. I've got you bookmarked! Hourly prayers to the Great Spirit would be

in order.

[rumpel]

2. Yes, good energies to the judge and land shark

had my lunch

nail biting - resumes

[rumpel]

3. Here is another article from San Diego Voice re: Friday posted 7 hrs ago

Recount Decision Postponed

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2006/08/28/this_just_in/565recount.txt

(Opposing counsel = King)

"King also questioned why of the hundreds of other candidates and issues on the June ballot, Bilbray was the only one named in the suit.

If there was a genuine concern with the county's vote counting system, why are they singling out the only candidate that can't be heard by this court, King asked. Judge Hoffman asked Lehto a similar question

Lehto responded that Bilbray was named because the June election was close enough that an error in the vote count could have impacted the outcome, some absentee precincts reported turnouts that were thousands of percentage points higher than the total number of registered voters in those precincts and his clients felt the race was the most important on the June ballot."

[kpete]

4. No matter what happens today

Landshark won on Friday when he said “If they can do that, they can do anything.”

[rumpel]

5. Yes

I am reading the transcript...

here is that part:

So this jurisdictional the argument, or what they
18
1 style as a jurisdictional argument, goes way too far.
2 Essentially, what they are saying is in their specific intent,
3 which normally I would hesitate to speculate about because we
4 don't know what goes on inside people's heads, but we do
5 because they signed briefs saying this is what they think the
6 law says, the specific intent of Congress on June 13th was to
7 deprive this court of any jurisdiction to review this election,
8 to put this court in its place, which is to say powerlessness.
9 If they can do that, they can do anything. Why even
10 have an election? They could just swear in whoever they want
11 because the election need not be final. If it appears -- maybe
12 it's an appearance test. If they think -- if it appears
13 somebody won, probably let's swear them in and then that
14 deprives them of jurisdiction.

[kpete]

6. Amazing statements

by a true patriot...

I get goose bumps whenever I read it!

[emlev]

7. No word yet. It'll be up first on BradBlog. EOM

[slackmaster]

16. bradblog updated at 16:37 PDT - Transcript on the way

He's still working on it.

[galloglas]

8. The answer from another thread where SlackMaster posted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1997692&mesg_id=2006311

[rumpel]

9. that's ****! dismissed?

on edit: That was posted yesterday....

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. the ruling linked there was TENTATIVE

subject to oral argument. By this moment, it may be final, but apparently no one on DU has any information on that point.

[rumpel]

11. thanks, I saw that...

I am sure - Paul will point out - the premise is based on "it's members". Bilbray was not a duly elected (by the people) "member".

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. even Paul concedes that the House can't be forced

to remove Bilbray from office. So, in that sense, Bilbray does seem to count among the "members" of the House for purposes of applying that clause, whether he was duly elected or not.

[rumpel]

13. The bad thing is the Tentative Ruling points that out

that there are conflicting requests - so he is probably clarifying the arguments today

btw, even though the court site says rulings of the day will be posted at 4pm - it still has the "tentative" on there. In any event at 5pm it will be done for the day -

what bothers me is that the judge himself is voting in that district according to the transcript - but that may be cause for appeal -

[rumpel]

14. PS btw Judge Hofmann was originally scheduled to be on the June ballot

but that race was cancelled "because there were no contestants in his race -

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sd/race/052/

[slackmaster]

15. Thanks for looking that up

I had been wondering about it.

[emlev]

17. Ruling came down--see new ER thread eom

[rumpel]

18. thanks

[cosmicdot]

19. link here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=447367&mesg_id=447367