![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/The-Good-Idea-Fairy-3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Kalifornistan Recall process has been in place for almost a century and has been used once to successfully boot a governor from office. It looks like this may be the second successful use to toss Govno Hair Gel Newsom out on his royal backside. This has some of his most ardent supporters deeply troubled and they are trying to get the election canceled. Here are the details from Politico<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n Two California voters are challenging the legality of the state\u2019s recall system less than a month before the Sept. 14 election, echoing concerns from constitutional scholars as Gov. Gavin Newsom fights for his political life. <\/b><\/p>\n A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California<\/a> argues that the state’s recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom’s name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today. <\/b><\/p>\n This has the smell of someone desperate to keep Govno Numbnuts in office at all costs. That they went straight to the Federal Courts instead of the state courts indicates to me that they are hoping that they get a nice, pliant Obama judge to shut down the election.<\/p>\n Constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, raised that precise scenario in a New York Times op-ed last week arguing California\u2019s recall process is unconstitutional. Chemerinsky and law and economics professor Aaron Edlin argued for altering the rules to allow governors stand as candidates on the second question and advocated for a legal challenge compelling the courts to intervene. <\/b><\/p>\n I looked up this so called \u201cConstitutional Law Expert,\u201d Erwin Chemerinsky<\/a>. A quick look at his Wikipedia page tells me that he is a typical Progressive. He holds the Constitution in contempt. No doubt, this is why he is the dean of UC Berkeley.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court could declare the recall election procedure unconstitutional and leave it to California to devise a constitutional alternative,\u201d Chemerinsky wrote. \u201cOr it could simply add Mr. Newsom\u2019s name on the ballot to the list of those running to replace him. That simple change would treat his supporters equally to others and ensure that if he gets more votes than any other candidate, he will stay in office.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n Actually, no. This system, as I mentioned, has been in place for almost a century and has been used once before. For the federal courts to shut down the election would spit in the face of the democratic process. Of course, being the Progressive Liberal Moonbat you are, I\u2019m sure that he thinks elections are fine as long as the voters do as they\u2019re told and vote the way he wants them to.<\/p>\n Chemerinsky and law and economics professor Aaron Edlin argued for altering the rules to allow governors stand as candidates on the second question and advocated for a legal challenge compelling the courts to intervene. <\/b><\/p>\n The whole point of a recall election is to recall and remove the sitting governor. There are two choices on the ballot. The first deals with the actual recall. If more then 50% of the people chose to keep Govno Numbnuts Hair gel, then he stays and the second part of the recall process doesn\u2019t happen. If he is voted out then the second part kicks in. Obviously, you are one of Govno Hair Gel\u2019s sycophants and are totally supportive of the tyrannical actions he\u2019s taken over the lat 18 months.<\/p>\n Rex Julian Beaber, a Los Angeles attorney and clinical psychologist, would not say in an interview if he’s a Democrat. <\/b><\/p>\n “I would prefer not to say, simply because I think it’s irrelevant,” he said Monday. “To me it would be unfortunate if party politics was the driving force behind the consideration of this lawsuit. This lawsuit seeks on its face to declare a current California remedy as unconstitutional and it would apply regardless of whether it was a Democrat or a Republican already in office.” <\/b><\/p>\n In other words, he is a Democrat, or as the party is known these days, a Communazi.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n