On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again Tom, you are so stuck on trying to revise American history, and
> attempting to jam down your militant, Marxist inspired far left extremist
> Anti-American agenda down the American public's proverbial throats, that you
> are not even paying close attention to what you write.
>
> You try and argue that Gore won the election, but when confronted with the
> facts, you then revert to, "Gore won the popular vote".
>
> A minor point, but you cite "American Analysis dot org"; which may very
> well be where you got the article that you posted. Nevertheless, American
> Analysis cites the Wiki article that I reference. Biased to say the least.
>
>
> Even FactCheck.org, which has been proven to be a biased, partisan
> organization admmits conclusively that the eight news media organizations
> who ran the "Consortium" and checked the results after the election found
> that President Bush did in fact win Florida.
>
> For you to stand here and make the statement (continuously) that "Gore won
> the election"; or that "Bush stole the electon"; again, confirms that you
> are a Moonbat. Gore didn't. There is nothing that you can do to change
> history, and the proof is positive that such a claim by you (and most every
> one of the small, but very vocal minority of Americans who are Moonbats)
> demonstrates how out of touch with politics, current/national events,
> contemporary history, and life in general, that you and your brethren really
> are.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> KeithInKöln
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM, 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/
>>> >> ><
>>> >> >> 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/><
>>> >> >> 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/><
>>> 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/><
>>> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 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/<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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/<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.
No comments:
Post a Comment