You are annoying me.
On 1/6/11, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then you admit to lying about your position ie: """""First, Gore did in fact
> win the popular election, he got more votes,
> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won
> the election is quite false"""""
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Markie Mark-
>>
>> I know all about the electoral college, dearie. Thanks anyway.
>>
>> On 1/6/11, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Tommy,
>> >
>> > The President of the USA is NOT selected by popular vote....not now, not
>> > ever in history.
>> >
>> > Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush..... All lost the Popular vote.... Adams
>> lost
>> > by over 10% popular AND 15 electoral college but was LEGALLY elected by
>> > congress.
>> >
>> > Quit whining.... shit happens.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Keith-
>> >>
>> >> This information is from Political Analysis . org, not from Wiki.
>> >>
>> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html
>> >>
>> >> First, Gore did in fact win the popular election, he got more votes,
>> >> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won
>> >> the election is quite false. The Conservative SCOTUS appointed Bush,
>> >> he was not elected. Those are the facts.
>> >>
>> >> There is no "Cherry picking" involved at all.
>> >>
>> >> Here are the statistics again, from the Federal Election Comission.
>> >> Please review them again.
>> >>
>> >> 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
>> >>
>> >> Bush 47.87 % Gore 48.38 %
>> >>
>> >> http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Al Gore won the election.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 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!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > KeithInKöln
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >> >> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <
>> http://www.politicalforum.com/
>> >> ><
>> >> >> 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- 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
>> >> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/><
>> >> >> 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/<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/<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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark M. Kahle H.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark M. Kahle H.
>
> --
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment