posted 12-12- 10:11 AM               

I agreed with the first US Supreme Court case - that Florida Supreme Court needed to have its power checked. The US Supreme Court did the right thing, firing a shot over the bow of the Florida Supreme Court just to remind them that they could not legisate from the bench.

Well then the Florida Supreme Court said, basicaly, that they understand the concearn - but with all do respect, we are only interpeting our own (messed up) Florida law.

Bush should have conceeded Florida Supreme Court's decision in honor of fair state's rights. You MUST trust the Florida Supreme Court to rule over Florida law!!! Only in cases of extreme national interest issues (like abortion/human rights/taxes, and many more) should the Federal Court intervene.

Choosing Flrida's electors is Florida's business - even though it is a federal election. If Florida picks the electors based on chance, so be it!

Bush and the US Supreme Court are doing great damage to this country and the credibility of the US Supreme Court. This is, indeed, much worse than 10 years of Gore as president.

I hope the US Supreme Court finds for Gore, that is our last hope - I can no longer support Bush's cause.

I only hope that Bush is as upset as me, and that maybe he is being pushed hard to follow through with this... it is not becoming of his views and goals as a political leader.

posted 12-12- 12:53 PM            

This is what the Supreme Court is looking at. It is highly likely that the issue would have been reviewed by the court whether Bush had appealed or not.

Had the Florida court ruled consitently with regard to their owne Constitution and the Federal one this likely would not have occured. As it is I do not think the court has damaged itself in any way...if anything they have granted the general populace a far greater understanding of what they do and how truly thorough they are in the work.

Also, choosing Florida's electors is not just Florida's business. If that were the case then none of this would matter. Every state would have it's own method for choosing electors, but the fact of it is that the highest document of law in this land specifies how the electors are to be chosen. If a state appears that it may not adhere to those rules then it is indeed in the best interest of the nation as a whole for the Federal Courts to make absolutly certain that things are being done the appropriate way. Without the Federal Constitution being held to there would be no individual rights, no civil liberties, no guarantee that citizens of one state would be allowed travel through another. The country would be nothing more tnan a loosely affiliated set of city-states. This country cannot exist without every state adhereing to the law set out by the constitution. It is what has made this country strong and continues to do so.

Now, that having been said (I seem to say that alot around here) I think it is possible that the Federal Court will come back with a ruling the requires the Florida court to do one of two things... leave off or order a complete recount of the state - every vote in every county. Unfortunantly, there is almost certainly not enough time for this to occur so the only real option left would be to set the ruling aside and let the Legislature of Florida take it's normal actions. I think the only real flaw is here is that the legal issues took too long to come to a head and there is no longer enough time to complete the appropraite remedy. Perhaps, the election should happen a month earlier to prevent this sort of thing in the future... that and there should be a federal line item in the budget for matching funds to every state/county in the country to purchase voting equipment and a single uniform specification of voting equipment.

Alot of people would probably scream "big-brother" if anybody actually tried to do this, but I think that voting should be elctronic and verified with thumb and retinal prints. A secure data network that is nation wide is already in place and would capable of handling this task with ease - it's the banking network used for all ATM machines. With the right equipment voter fraud could be cut immensly and voter stupidity eliminated.

Example of potential vote verification prompts (these all follow one another after making a vote selection) "Are you really sure you want to vote for Pat Buchanan?" "Really really sure?" "You didn't 'accidently' push his button did you?" "No?" "Your positive you didn't mean to vote for Gore?" "Do you live in Palm Beach County?" "You do? Well you must have meant to vote for Gore...is this correct?" "No? You really want to vote for Buchanan huh?" "OK, you have just voted for Al Gore because we all know that's what you really meant when you pushed Buchanan, have a nice day..."

Err... well... maybe not.

posted 12-12- 02:11 PM               

The final court of appeal in this country is the court of opinion - not mostly of the people, but of their elected officials. In this case, so many of these represenatives believe that any US Supreme Court intervention here would be contrary to the court's long standing take on state's rights and would do the court great harm in terms of credibility.

posted 12-12- 10:08 PM               

If Gore really wanted a "fair" count, he could have gotton it - but he hedged his bets and got a recount that was not going his way - the Florida law is there to stop people from recounting a zillion ways until they get ahead.

Also the squishy Florida law about the "intent of the voter" is a great example of crappy legislation - you gotta have rules - not just nice warm fuzzy prose about fairness. Fairnes is about following the rules and punching the damn chads out all the way. If you think those dimpled ballots are legal votes, then you admit that Florida's voting machines are illegal as they are not designed to count such votes. How can you condone a voting machine that clearly makes no attempt to count certain legal votes?

Manual recounting should be an outdated notion like dueling at 10 paces - it is an old gentlemanly notion and causes confusion when requested. Why would you not request a manual recount? Who knows what will happen, it may go your way. We need to just trust the machines - unless there are major technical blunders or voter fraud - that is what the contest laws are meant for, not close races.

When it is this close you can never really get a real fair count, statistics say so. Maybe there should be a law that requires a coin toss if the vote differnce is less than the margin of error - but than again, who ever happened to win all ready one that coin toss IMO...

BTW, I am also against the law Bush passed to count dimnples in TX, crazy stuff! I wonder what else was tied to it...

posted 12-12- 11:59 PM               

Also I found it neat that one of the dessenting justices (the chick I think) used an argument I used today. Someone questioned me about why Florida Supreme Court did not come up with fair standards to measure the ballots. I said, "Because of the first US Supreme Court ruling, the Florida Supreme Court was gun shy about creating too much legislation from the bench, so they stayed away from composing standards, i.e. legislation."

posted 12-13- 02:27 PM            

THE GOOD GUYS WON!

For a change.

Thank God!

Prop out

posted 12-13- 02:49 PM               

Well, there's the other side for ya.

Good guys... bad guys. Tell me, Propwash... what is it like to see the world in only black and white? It must be a very easy way to go through life.

By the way, congratulations on making a post that doesn't contain numerous misspellings! Some of those words were toughies too! I'm impressed!

posted 12-13- 03:34 PM               

Stark, I can see it now.

"Is that your FINAL answer?"

LOL

posted 12-13- 03:46 PM            

Like it or not, there is rite and wrong and not much in between.

It is only people who search for gray areas that have a complicated life.

Truth and law is only way to live for most people. Thats just the way it is and always will be no matter how much it inconveniences you.

You are welcome to join us.

And thank you for the spelling compliment you pompous ass.

Prop out!

posted 12-13- 04:06 PM               

Um... the word is "right", not "rite".

As a member of the Right Wing, not the Rite Wing, you ought to know that.

Also, as someone who believes that things are either right or wrong with no in-between, I think you'll appreciate my pointing out that you spelled the word "right" completely wrong.

posted 12-13- 04:32 PM               

I predict that Will Farrell's "Dubya" will surpass even Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford as the funniest presidential impersonation ever.

I'm also looking forward to following this presidency, and seeing how the 'ol boy handles hisself.

Good luck George. I really hope you know what you're doing. Here's hoping this leads to four years of Puritanical Proseperity, and brings back the honor and integrity to the White House that so many feel was tainted by numerous Republican witch-hunts, I mean...by Bill Clinton getting a hummer in the oval office.

All kidding aside, I think this is probably the most important Republican presidency since Nixon in '68.

On Dubya's shoulders alone rests the mantle of responsibility, that of showing the people of the United States and abroad that Republican policies and ideals are better for the overall well-being of the country than their Democratic counterparts.

For all of you conservative folks out there with so much riding on his term in office, I really hope he doesn't blow it for you.

If he does well in office, it could really turn the tide for the Republican party. They've been whipped like yard dogs for the last 8 years running, smacked down like step children at every turn. Sometimes watching the goings-on in Washington was like watching old re-runs of "F Troop."

If he proves his critics wrong, he might actually be re-elected in '04, and enjoy the faith and confidence in the party that has been missing since Reagan.

On the other hand, if he doesn't, after all of this hoopla, it will probably sound the death knell for the Republicans.

For a long, long time.

Interesting times gentlemen. More than anything, sincerely, I am excited to have been able to witness one of the most stirring events in American politics to date.

To really win our hearts, I suggest one of Dubya's first official acts should be to load up every Vote-O-Matic voting machine on a C-5A Galaxy, and drop them into an active volcano somewhere.

I think that would make us ALL feel a little better, and begin the healing process...

posted 12-13- 05:24 PM            

Have fun playing Mr spell check.

You can't refute the points or you would.

posted 12-13- 05:32 PM               

Points? What points? If you had them, you would make them... but you don't got no stinkin' points.

All you bring to the table is platitudes, insults, and gross generalizations.

posted 12-13- 09:53 PM               

I am indeed nervous - but I have much more faith in G.W. than you - though I admit the challenge is large... and maybe impossible for anyone in 4 years with limited power.

He will never shake the press image he was cast with, no matter how good of a job he does - but that is not what being president is about. It is about leading the country, and I think many will find G.W. to be a great leader if not flawless speaker.

posted 12-14- 01:33 PM               

If it were only that...

Clinton used his power as president to take advantage of an intern - this is very wrong, at least in America. When you give someone power, the have a responsibility not to abuse it. Also Clinton did bad while leading the nation (and disgraced all of us), Bush did bad long before there was even a chance he might be running this country.

Smokey,
Your lack of faith in the supreme court is upsetting - if they really are partisan than you're fucked all ready and we live in a lawless land.

I guess you are one of the saps that actually believes that all Gore wanted was a fair and accurate count. If he was ahead, would he have been so into this manual re-count crap?

I agree that the US supreme court should not have trampled state's rights, but like I said before, the manual recount was unfair and best and clearly unconstitutional.

posted 12-14- 02:18 PM               

"Your lack of faith in the supreme court is upsetting - if they really are partisan than you're fucked all ready and we live in a lawless land."

If you had of asked me about the supreme court
last week I would have said that they didn't owe
anybody anything. That they were more conscerned
about law and how history would look at their
rulings than any partisan feelings they might have. You're right about one thing, we
now do live in a lawless land. After this
decision I don't think the law much matters
any more. It's get your boy in no matter what
the cost. The Hell with accurately counting
the votes. Suppose the election in 2004 is
the same as this. Bush will have a couple
more republicans on the court by then. Not
hard to figure which party is going to hold
the white house, is it?

Now I'm afraid everything has changed. They
have appointed a person to be president who
is of the same party as the majority on the
court. They did this after stalling all week-
end and until 10:00 pm Monday night. They said
you can set fair standards and count but you
only have 2 hours to do it because we impose
Tuesday as a deadline. If this isn't partisan
I don't know what is.

"I guess you are one of the saps that actually believes that all Gore wanted was a fair and accurate count. If he was ahead, would he have been so into this manual re-count crap?"

It never fails to amaze me when sombody disagrees
with one of you republicans you start the name
calling. You can call me a sap and Jerry can
call me a communist, which he probably will,
but it still doesn't change the fact that
people went to the polls in Florida and a lot
of other places in this country to try to make
their desire for president known. In some cases
this was not accomplished. How would it have
been if it was your vote that was not counted
Sv? Would that have made a difference? In
answer to your question Gore wanted to win the
election. He knew if he could get an accurate
count he probably would. BTW what was Bush's
problem with a hand count? He knew if there was
one he would probably lose.

"I agree that the US supreme court should not have trampled state's rights, but like I said before, the manual recount was unfair and best and clearly unconstitutional."

The US supreme court trampling states rights
is what made George Bush president elect. If
you disagree with that then you agree that
Bush is an illegitement president. It's all
tied together. You can't just pick and choose
the parts you like and ignore the rest. In
order for elections to be valid they have to
be perfect or as close as perfect as you can
possibly make them. If you look at one part
of the election process and can say "This is
wrong." and that wrong would affect the outcome
of the election then the election is invalid
and the winner is illegitement.

What was unfair about it? The recounting was
done under the observation of republican and
democrat representatives and also the news
media. Do you think if votes were manufactured
that it wouldn't get out? I find this very
hard to believe. When you want a true count
hand counting is the most accurate. Even the
republican's own witness said that in one of
the absentee ballot trials. This guy was the
inventor of the punch card machines.

"So you did not believe in the US Supreme Court before this anyway, did you? You feel that just because judges are appointed by partisans, that they are partisans? That very notion is unconstitutional - because it was the US Constitution that set up the system this way - and it was not by accident that it is this way."

See above, I now belive they are partisan and
what they did is probably unconstitutional.
However there is no body who can overule them.

posted 12-14- 02:21 PM            

He didn't get a BJ in his house, he got one in our house.

While on the job, talking on the phone and who knows what else. Most people would get fired that alone.

posted 12-14- 02:57 PM               

Yes, but when the OIC was set up to investigate Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater Land Deals, were they not investivating something from "long before there was even a chance" Clinton might be running the country?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I wonder if there are any Whitewaters in Mr. Dubya's past.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Unless your guy Mr. Dubya is pure as the driven snow, do you think Democrats will hesitate for even a second before they open up an OIC to investigate Mr. Dubya?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Makes me wonder if Mr. Dubya might find it in his heart-- you know, the one he speaks of ad nauseum-- to pardon Clinton.

posted 12-14- 03:03 PM               

This is the flame wars area, and that is the only reason that some un-needed name calling is tossed in - just to liven things up - do not expect to be called names outside of the flame wars forum.

First off, you are out of control. You really think that the judges will give Bush the election if he clearly loses next time? Why did they not help Bush Sr. when he lost? Where were they when Dole lost? Clearly enough votes were heard to make the system very close to perfect - just becuase it was so close this time that the inaccuracies of the systems came into play does not mean all is lost - are you really that desperate? As far as I read your post, you are honestly expecting the country to come to an end - where there is no law and no constitution.

Don't foget that those on my side we feel just the way you do in reverese - we just have different ideas about what the law was here - and this should be no suprise - even the honrable judges had disagreements!

Smokey, did you read the entire US Supreme Court opinion and all the concurrences and dissents? If so, can you really say that my side has no argument at all in law?

My vote may have not been counted - someone might have got the math wrong by 1 vote up here in NH, I can deal with that - I know that there has to be reason applied in the voting system, it is a very big task. To expect a perfect count is immature and unreasonable. If you design things like ballots or computer systems used by other people you would understand what I am saying. I have made systems where huge amounts of money are sent around with no chance for error - and even our very careful work is not perfect - mistakes will always happen - it is amazing how few poeple can follow directions! Now matter how simple you make it!

quote:

---

Do you think if votes were manufactured
that it wouldn't get out?

---

If you read the majority court opinion Smokey, you will catch some unfair aspects of the recount. Here is just one example:

1. There is a punch for Bush and a punch for the write in, and the voter has writen in "G W Bush". This would be tossed out as an over-vote and so never be counted in Gore's recount scheme.

Also there are other odd issues, such as what do you do when there is a punch for Gore and a dimple for Bush? It is an over-vote, or a Gore vote? Or maybe dimples are more an intent than a puch

So should I take from your last statement that you now want to change the constitution so that Judges not be appointed as they are now?

Now the one thing you did not answer, in your view, how where the Florida Supreme Court judges not acting partisan just like the US Supreme court? They were democrats who over turned another democrat judge's ruling on the matter - they were the only court in Florida to find for Gore... so even if Gore won this way, are we all still not lost in a lawless partisan land?

posted 12-14- 03:12 PM               

I said if the election in 2004 was like this
one. Meaning as close. Suppose their are
challanges and suppose the end up in the
US supreme court. More republican judges =
republican president. This court has set the
example. It's a no brainer.

Maybe you can deal with your vote not counting
but I can't. Not your vote, my vote or any-
body elses. Some of us have went through some
pretty trying times for our country, our
democracy and yes your right to vote and have
it counted. Too many people, including a high
school buddy of mine, have made the ultimate
sacrifice so you can go down and drop that
little piece of paper in the ballot box. When
five republicans take it out of the hands of
the people and give it to who they want to,
it doesn't set very well.

posted 12-14- 03:23 PM               

To take it one step further, once it becomes common knowlege that a manager is having sex with subordinates and the company takes no action to stop it, another employee can file a "hostile work environment" law suit...saying that the company encourages and condones managers trying to obtain sexual favors from employees.

Besides, the Lewinsky affair itself, while receiving all the attention, was not the thing that caused Clinton the most grief, legally. While he was being sued for sexual harassment by an Arkansas state employee who he harassed while he was Governor, he "lied" under oath about the Lewinsky affair. Most decent people felt that the chief law enforcer of the United States should obey the laws and tell the truth while under oath in a court of law. This is why the State of Arkansas is moving to disbar him. IMO if he is not qualified to practice law in the State of Arkansas because of his ilegal activity, why should he be allowed to practice law for the whole damn country?

If any other man broke the laws that Clinton has broken he would be out of a job and probably in jail. This used to be a "Nation of Laws". Clinton and Gore have shown us that it is not. It is a nation of arbitrarily chosen values which happen to appear "fair" at the moment to the people with the most clout. And this scares a lot of us. The supreme authority of the law, which has protected our freedom for over 200 years, is being eroded by a liberal "tolerance" of behavior as long as there is a good "excuse".

posted 12-14- 03:38 PM               

They appear partisan to you because they are Conservative. It is not their party allegience but their basic philosophy of the law which directs their decisions. How do you explain the two Republican nominated Judges who sided with the two Democrats?

And don't forget that seven of nine justices agreed that there were constitutional problems with the way the counts were being done. It was only on the remedy that the vote was 5-4.

Dosvedonya

posted 12-14- 03:50 PM               

Just so you know... Clinton was the defendant in the Paula Jones case, not the lawyer. No lawyer has EVER been disbarred for telling lies while in the role of defendant in a case.