Tom,
I took the time to peruse your articles from Wiki, (the introduction of the Wiki article is not cited).
A couple of questions for you:
First, let's assume that the recount in Florida would have been allowed to have continued. You do understand that the eight news organizations that I have cited did in fact determine that President Bush was the winner in Florida, after polling all 66 counties of Florida? That assuming that Gore had won in court, he would have lost the election?
Second, I refer you to the recent court battle in Minnesota, where Senator Frankin prevailed, after what you are suggesting should have taken place in Florida, took place in Minnesota. What I reference, is that a politically influenced Court, with a politically influenced Supervisor of Elections was allowed to cherry pick different precincts, counties and polling stations, and in essence, threw the election in Senator Frankin's favor. This is not me attempting to sound like sour grapes, it is well documented that the Democratic Party literally stole the senatorial election in Minnesota. This is what you are suggesting that the United States Supreme Court should have allowed in Florida, in the 2000 Presidential election. That then Vice President Gore should have been allowed to have "cherry picked" certain counties and polling stations, that were predominately Democratic in nature, and, using the, "Squeaking wheel gets the most grease" theory, those who cried the loudest, got their votes recounted.
Surely, you don't advocate such a policy? That is in essence, what it sounds as if you are calling for here today. Tell me that you are more astute than this!!!
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Lil' Keithie Keith-
No, the Reich wing SCOTUS got it wrong. Bush versus Gore was decided
on political bias rather than on legal grounds.Empirical Proof and Documentation:
Was the Supreme Court's ruling an example of judicial activism
supporting election fraud? There are numerous cases where the state
courts have supervised recounts, and this should have been another
such case; however, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the
recount, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court's holding
authorizing the recount. Given the diffidence the Republican packed
Supreme Court has shown both to federal and state governments and
their courts since November of 1975, political bias is the only
reasonable conclusion in Bush vs. Gore. Moreover a purported conflict
of the 2 statutes (7 day limit for certifying an election result, and
the 6 days to challenge to call for a recount) is easily resolved by
interpreting as conjunctive, namely that the recount law stays the 7
day limit. The Supreme Court didn't need to overturn the Florida
Supreme Court holding which stayed the time limit and for Florida made
election recounts unlikely. Bush versus Gore was decided on political
rather than legal grounds.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that politics decides law
enforcement. The criminal violation of election laws and civil rights
were ignored by the attorney generals' office (state and federal) and
the legislative bodies. The attorney general's offices were filled
with Republican appointees, and Republicans controlled both federal
and state legislatures. Obviously our country needs an independent
department of the FBI set up just to investigate political crimes. I
would suggest that such a department should be under the supervision
of law professors—jk.
How the courts handled the election issue
From www.wikipedia.org
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a U.S. Supreme Court case heard
on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the
2000 presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven justices
found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties
in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a
consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further
declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to
establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's
deadline for certifying electors.
The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in
Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida
campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as the
winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave
Bush a majority of the electoral college with 272 votes and enabled
him to win the Presidency.
The Presidential election in question took place on November 7, 2000.
Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own
popular election for president, and the winner of each state's
election receives a number of "electoral votes." The winner of a
majority of the electoral college is elected President of the United
States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory.
On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that
Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of victory
was less than 0.5% of the votes cast so an automatic machine recount
was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory
for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but
one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[2]
Florida's election laws[1] allow a candidate to request a county to
conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four
Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. The
four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However,
Florida law also required all counties to certify their election
returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the
election,[2] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts
did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the
statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day
deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their
returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary,
after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had
discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide
certification.[3] Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia
county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5pm,
Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she was
in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm
Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual
recounts.[4]
Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine
whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to
make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a
written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late
filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing the
submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of the
filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the
certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county,
she would certify the results of the presidential election on
Saturday, November 18, 2000.[5]
On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to
accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to
the Florida Supreme Court.[4] On November 17, the Florida Supreme
Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the
election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the
Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris
(Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual recount
certified before November 26 at 5pm.
On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to
the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered its
decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70
(2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida
Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their
ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court was
concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida
constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the
ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ("Each
state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors . . .").
While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county canceled
its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the
recount by November 26.[6] Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to complete
the recount but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida
Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with
2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes, or
about 0.01%.[7]
BACKGROUND
On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of
the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who denied
the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the
Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court issued
its opinion in Gore v. Harris (Harris II). The court ordered a manual
recount of only undervotes,[5] to be conducted by the Leon County
district court, for ballots from the counties and portion of
Miami-Dade county not subject to the previous manual tally. The court
further ordered that the results of the November manual recount, which
was conducted by the various County canvassing boards, for disputed
ballots in three counties and portions of a fourth county, which would
have presumeably included some overvotes, be included in the final
state tally. Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on
December 9, and the Court issued a 5-4 injunction stopping the 64 of
67 county recount pending a final decision. The split on this was the
same as the 5-4 split in the final ruling.
The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on
December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature of
the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours after
hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested
clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while the
U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases were
subsequently combined.
RELEVANT LAW
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1
"No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws."
[edit]
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors...."
[edit]
3 U.S.C. § 5
"If any State shall have provided...for its final determination
of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at
least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors,
such determination...shall be conclusive."
THE ISSUES
The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case.
Who wins on the merits of the case: Bush or Gore? In other words, are
the recounts as they are currently being conducted, constitutional?
If the recounts are unconstitutional, what is the remedy?
The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing: they
thought that there was little chance of the recount being finished by
the December 12 safe harbor deadline.
Bush was essentially making two distinct claims:
[edit]
Equal Protection Claim
Bush argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment because there was no statewide standard
that each county board could use to determine whether a given ballot
was a legal vote. His argument was that since each county used its own
standard to count each vote, some counties would have more liberal
standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have marked
their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one
county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a different
county would be rejected, due to the varying standards.
Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of
the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the
Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence
of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it
treated different voters differently would effectively render every
state election unconstitutional. This is because every state uses
different methods of recording votes in different counties (e.g.,
optical scanners, punch-cards, etc.), and that each method has a
different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card"
county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a
voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every
state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be
constitutional.
Seven justices agreed that Bush won on this claim.
[edit]
Article II Claim
Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Art.
II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state to
appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct." Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's
interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous, that their ruling had
the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been
directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Art. II. Ordinarily,
when a state's highest court interprets state law, that interpretation
is final, and a federal court can't question it. Bush argued, however,
that Art. II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state
election law for itself to ensure that the intent of the state
legislature is followed.
Gore argued that Art. II presupposes judicial review and
interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court
did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory
construction in order to reach its decision.
Only three justices, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and
Justice Thomas, accepted Bush's argument on this issue.
[edit]
The remedy
If the current recount were unconstitutional, the State of Florida
would have to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in the
case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time
available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was
scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven days
away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5
established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its
electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College
would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be
challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12, the
very next day. It is possible that the recount would have been
finished by this non-binding deadline if the Supreme Court had not
stayed the recount on December 9th.
Consequently, the court had to address whether to allow the redo of
the recount that would subsequently be submitted by Florida, but miss
the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and go
with the certified results of November 26.
Five justices decided to stop all recounts.
Bush was represented before the Court by Theodore B. Olson, a
Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore's oral
argument was delivered by attorney David Boies.
[edit]
The decision
A 5–4 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion, which represented the opinions of five justices,
noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being
recounted. It cited, in particular, the use of differing standards;
the combination of full manual recounts for some counties and for
selected precincts within Miami-Dade County with partial recounts for
other counties and for the rest of Miami-Dade; and the perceived
impracticality of the process ordered by the Florida court.
Furthermore, this 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid
recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in statute,
effectively ending the recounts. The opinion stated that the
state-wide standard ("if the voter's intent is clear, the vote should
be counted") could not guarantee that each county would count the
votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution.
The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority
opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more
conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal
justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason
recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages ordered
by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents argued
that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to grant
an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the ruling
based on the possibility of "irreparable harm" to "George Bush's
reputation as the legitimate winner." Injunctions for irreparable harm
cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater harm
to another party (in this case, Al Gore).
The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others including
the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be
interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears the
minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up until
the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The
majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme Court
that the Florida legislature intended to obtain the benefits of
federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. Thus, sending
the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could be
not appropriate under Florida statute. ([8] 4th & 5th paragraphs from
end).
The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh
treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent scathingly
concluded:
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida
election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the
impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the
critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their
position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by
the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical
appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence
in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the
true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to
that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing,
however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete
certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential
election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the
Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule
of law.
I respectfully dissent.
The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in the
majority opinion:
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the
problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents
many complexities.
The court's defenders considered this a reasonable precaution against
the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly, arguing
that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to
attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply
the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence
as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could
not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested
that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was
untenable. It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis
principle.
In brief the breakdown of the decisions were:
The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4. (Kennedy,
O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg,
Souter and Stevens opposed)
The finding that using different standards of counting in different
areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was approved
by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and
Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed)
The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent
of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, Scalia
and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and
Stevens opposed)
ENDNOTES
Facts & Circumstances warranting waiver of statutory deadline
1. Where there is proof of voter fraud that affects the outcome of
the election. In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170, 1172
(Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d
508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
2. Where there has been a substantial noncompliance with statutory
election procedures, and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the
certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v.
Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
3. Where election officials have made a good faith effort to comply
with the statutory deadline and are prevented from timely complying
with their duties as a result of an act of God, or extenuating
circumstances beyond their control, by way of example, an electrical
power outage, a malfunction of the transmitting equipment, or a
mechanical malfunction of the voting tabulation system. McDermott v.
Harris, No. 00-2700 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 14, 2000)
Facts & circumstances Not Warranting waiver of statutory deadline
1. Where there has been substantial compliance with statutory
election procedures and the contested results relate to voter error,
and there exists a reasonable expectation that the certified results
expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County
Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
2. Where there exists a ballot that may be confusing because of the
alignment and location of the candidates' names, but is otherwise in
substantial compliance with the election laws. Nelson v. Robinson, 301
So. 2d 508, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ("[M]ere confusion does not amount
to an impediment to the voters' free choice if reasonable time and
study will sort it out.").
3. Where there is nothing "more than a mere possibility that the
outcome of the election would have been effected." Broward County
Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
More:
http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html
>> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>On 1/5/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> And once again, Tommy forgets that Knight Ridder, Hearst, CBS, and five
> other news organizations collectively recounted all 66 Florida counties'
> votes. It was conclusive that George Bush won Florida, which was the
> determinative State during the 2000 election. Again, Moonbat's with hate,
> lies and smear, who would love to do nothing less than revise history.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM, GregfromBoston
> <greg.vincent@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> No, they got it right. State courts have no say in elector selection
>> rules. NONE. Its that friggin simple Tommy.
>>
>> And by the way, the SCOTUS death blow, was 9-0
>>
>> Cumulative score, 21-6, with all 3 UBER liberal circuit courts in
>> agreement. Gore was never in the ballpark. Had he gone to the
>> legislature, he'd have had standing. He didn't, and didn't.
>>
>> Most learned that lesson. See Article II, Section 1.
>>
>> On Jan 5, 10:36 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The Conservative, biased SCOTUS got it wrong. Gore won the election.
>> >
>> > Appointing BUSH was a grave and costly mistake.
>> >
>> > On 1/4/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Al Gore won the election in 2000
>> > > The truth conservatives COULDN'T spin in 2001
>> > >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > > LOL!
>> >
>> > > Damn shame 3 circuit courts, the Constitution and the Supreme Court
>> > > think you're wrong.
>> >
>> > > Gore sought relief in the wrong room, and got dope slapped.
>> >
>> > > Now, maybe he didn't know the state court was irrelevant, but that
>> > > would make him the dumbest VPOTUS in history.
>> >
>> > > Scary dumb.
>> >
>> > > I don't believe that.
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >
>> > > * Visit our other community
>> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> > Have a great day,
>> > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
> --> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.--
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.--
Have a great day,
Tommy
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment