Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
See:
<http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2741810,00.html>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Published: Thursday, March 03, 2005
Recall vote OK'd for Estes official refusing Pledge
By Monte Whaley
Denver Post Staff Writer
Voters in Estes Park will decide whether they want their town board to
include a man who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance before meetings.
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruled Wednesday that a recall
election to decide whether to unseat David Habecker can be held.
"Citizens have the right to disagree with him, and they have the right to
petition against him," the judge said.
Another entry from Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary: "Correct
decision -- any decision by a judge that Ted happens to agree with, no
matter what the actual law is."
No, Ken. A "correct" decision is one that upholds or comports with the law.
By that definition, his summary decision in Smith v. Mullarkey was an
incorrect decision, because it failed to comport with the law -- as was
demonstrated beyond a peradventure of a doubt by the Tenth Circuit (but
as you hate me too much to even admit the obvious, I know you will fail
to concede this point)`.
That the Tenth Circuit decided not to follow SCOTUS precedent right
on point is hardly unusual, as evidenced by the Roper v. Simmons
abortion. The Missouri Supreme Court didn't just overlook Stanford,
they dismissed it out of hand! It's why Bork calls it a judicial coup
d'etat -- courts no longer bother paying lip service to the law.
And of course, Judge Arnold ("the Terminator") got it right in the
Cam Brown case.... :)
Personally, I prefer to READ decisions before I give an opinion as to
whether they are right or wrong.
You also prefer to employ sophistry, to try and justify a predetermined
conclusion, regardless of what the actual law says.
Really? You seemed eminently pleased with my analysis of Hurtado....
It's another Ward Churchill situation: People seem to think that they have
the right to punish other people for expressing minority religious or
political views.
Right bollocks. It isn't a matter of "punishing" someone. The voters of
Estes Park have the right to recall a public official if they so desire, for
WHATEVER reason.
I don't know for certain that they do. It's unconstitutional in CO
to impose a religious test upon public office-holders, and a recall on
that ground might be problematic under both federal and state law. I'd
have to review the briefs and opinion; I really don't trust Nottingham
to do an honest job.
And that is what Judge Nottingham affirmed. You have a
problem with that? Tough noogies. You don't live in Estes Park, and this
doesn't concern you.
The hell it doesn't! It's in my jurisdiction, both federal and state.
Still, all the guy has to do is file an appeal and ask for a stay; he will
probably get it,
On what basis? The law says they can recall him if they wish. They don't
need to specify a reason. (And the atheists can go scratch.)
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I'd have to review the applicable
statutes and law.
and the Tenth Circuit will take a year to decide it. :)
Why? Is that how long it took for them to decide your case (before they gave
you a right hiding)?
Briefing takes about five months, on average. A published decision
takes a lot longer to issue than an unpublished one, and this one would
probably be published.
.
