Re: OT: Stolen Election? (Rolling Stone Article)

A. Brain wrote:
"The Weasel" <theoneandonlysuperweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149519963.976542.228440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A. Brain wrote:
"The Weasel" <theoneandonlysuperweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149432464.384902.175350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A. Brain wrote:
Contrary to the "liberal media's" accounts of the recount,
Gore would have won in 2000 had the vote counting not been
stopped by the "Supremos".

7-2? Total mythology.
______________________________________________________

[Weasel]


You have just proven that you have not read the full case. I suggest
that you go deeper than the Per Curiam, i.e. read the dissent in the
case. Pay close attention to what Breyer and Souter have to say.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

_________________________________________________________


No, you have just shown that you do not understand the
decision. Just because two justices found equal protection
concerns does not mean that they agreed with the remedy,
i.e. stopping the recounts and ending the dispute.

First, I never made that argument on the remedy, you are trying to put
words in my mouth. I responded to your "equal protection" point, which
I showed was not a 5-4 decision, but a 7-2.

Second, the order from the US Supreme Court did not end the dispute.
The Democrats proved this point with their challenge under 3 U.S.C.
section 15.

http://www.mediasense.com/itsnotover/congressbrief/congressbrief.htm

IF the US Supreme ended the dispute, the Democrat would NOT have been
able to file this challenge under Electoral Count Act of 1887. Are you
going to deny this actually happened? Did you miss Al Gore himself
ruling this challenge out of order because no Democrat (or Republican)
in the Senate would sign on?? Are you going to deny that if Gore had
the support that he needed to throw Bush's Florida Electors, that he
would also have the supported needed to win the US House?

"When it came time to count Florida's votes, House Democrats, most of
them members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one by one to
object to the awarding of the state's 25 electors to Bush and his
running mate, Richard B. Cheney. In each case, Gore, standing behind
the speaker's desk, ruled the objection could not be heard because of
an 1877 law that requires any protest of electoral votes to be
accompanied by the signature of a senator. No senator had agreed to
join in the 20 objections raised by the House Democrats."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27270-2001Jan6

Breyer and Souter were among four justices who
agreed that the Court should not have stopped the
recount originally and should never have taken the
case. A point that they emphasized again in the final
decision.

IF it wasn't for the violations of the US Constitution, I would
wholeheartly agree. But clearly, the system was broken. Election Boards
making up new, and changing their, counting standards several times.
That is no way to run an election, and I highly doubt that was what the
legislature had in mind when they passed their election codes.

And the fact remains, Bush was already certified, thus he has nothing
to lose in the courts. The best that Gore could hope for was his own
slate of electors, but then he has two problems.

First, the Florida Legislature was in the process declaring the
election null and void, thus they were sending another slate of Bush
electors.

Second, he has to have a recount that would be universally accepted as
the most fair representation of the votes BEFORE safe harbor. Clearly,
the order of the Florida Supreme Court failed to do so, and the
Democrats on the court had said THEY were not going to allow a recount
to go past that date.

Just because Florida Code says the courts may "fashion such orders as
he...deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is
investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged
wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under the circumstances",
that does not give the Florida Supreme Court the right to violate the
US Constitution as to order a (non-binding) standardless partial
recount of the disputed ballots. They are required to follow all
constitiutional Florida Codes, along with both the Florida and Federal
Constitutions.

The decision was 5-4. 5-4 on whether
to grant the injunctive relief, 5-4 on whether to take the case,
and 5-4 on whether to end the election without a remand.

And most legal scholars
believe it's right down there with Dred Scott and Korematsu
as one of the worst decisions in history.
Some of its very few defenders also defend at least Korematsu.

_________________________________________________

[Weasel]

And what was their bias?

_________________________________________________

Whose bias?

The legal scholars that you mentioned. Are they Boies and Levine
(attorney for Democrats.com)?? Who are they?

Clearly the majority, the 5-4 majority that
stopped the recount originally were biased in favor of
finding some way to put Bush in the White House.

Since the courts can't put any one into the office of President, you
have already lost this "5-4 bias" argument.

Further, that "bias" argument fails when you read Palm Beach County
Canvassing Board v. Harris, the case on remand, and Gore v. Harris II.
The argument that no recount could go past the safe harbor date goes
back the 6 Democrats and 1 Independent on the Florida Supreme Court.
All members of the court ruled on 11/21/2000, the it was proper to
ignore the returns if it kept the state from the protections of "safe
harbor". On 12/8/2000, the same court pointed out that Al Gore himself
agreed that this was the law of the state. And again, on 12/11/2000
EVERY Democrat on the court said that no recount could go past the safe
harbor date.

Where is the bias? Why did Gore agree with this law if it was biased
against him? Why did EVERY Democrat on the court make this ruling? What
makes a ruling that is supported by Al Gore, every Democrat on the
Florida Supreme Court, and 5 members of the US Supreme Court, a biased
decision against Gore?

*****Ruling on 11/21/2000:

"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate
only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their
inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in
either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer
from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section
102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully
in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55)

"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."

The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code (3 U.S.C.section
5).

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

*****Ruling on 12/8/2000, where Al Gore agreed that safe harbor was the
hard deadline:

Gore v. Harris II, Justice Wells, with Justice Shaw concurring, page
67:

"This Court, in its prior opinion, and all of the parties agree that
election controversies and contests must be finally and conclusively
determined by December 12, 2000. See 3 U.S.C. § 5."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

*****Ruling on 12/11/2000, again, the Democrats on the Florida Supreme
Court say the dispute can't go past the safe harbor date:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf

Defenders of the decisions are not terribly convincing,
even though some are respected scholars like Posner.

Conservative/Libertarian darling Richard Epstein,
in "Reason" magazine, not some leftist mag,
does not defend the decision. Describing himself as
a "tepid" Bush supporter, he does a pretty good job
of explaining the struggle, including the FACT that
the decision was 5-4, here:

http://reason.com/0103/fe.re.election.shtml

So much for your mythology about the 7-2 vote.

The fact is the 7 members agreed that the recount as ordered was a
violated the equal protection clause.

Justice Souter: ........"But evidence in the record here suggests that
a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a
voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be
applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of
machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as
"hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g., Tr., at 238-242
(Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to
imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during
precertification manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly
describing varying standards applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of
Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000) (soliciting from county canvassing boards
proposed protocols for determining voters' intent but declining to
provide a precise, uniform standard). I can conceive of no legitimate
state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions
of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly
arbitrary."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

"identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and
exhibiting identical physical characteristics".

Why do you believe that these ballots do not mean the same thing? If a
hanging chad is a vote for Gore, why aren't all hanging chads a vote
for Gore, or Bush, or Nadar, ect?

Do you really support this type of unequal treatment of ballots? Do you
really believe that the Florida Supreme Court should have been allowed
to let this become case law in the state of Florida?

________________________________________________

[Weasel]

"The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida
Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential
election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United
States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and
whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal
protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause."

and

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County
testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county
canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote.
3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed
that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the
counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process
with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached
chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any
light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and
then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court
order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a
process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Second, Bush v. Gore did not put Bush into the white house, Bush was
ALREADY the certified winner of the state. The Constitution does not
allow the courts to remove those electors.

______________________________________________________


You are begging the question addressed by the Florida Supreme
Court. And ignoring the effects of the litigation that Bush started
in Federal Court. The U. S. Supreme Court stopped the recount
on the basis of alleged necessity shown by Bush.

_____________________________________________________

[Weasel]

It doesn't matter if the recount was stopped or not, the courts have no
power to remove Bush's slate of Florida electors. For the court to do
so would be a violation of 12th Amendment of the US Constitution and
the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

If you had actually read the full decision by the USSC in Bush v. Gore,
you would have known this fact.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Further, you claim this decision put Bush into the white house, but
have not explained how. The simple "they stopped the recount" argument
does not cut it because that recount was non-binding upon Congress.


________________________________________________________

Your claim is part of the basis of a discredited position taken only
by the three "hard core" so-called "conservatives" who are among
those responsible for the peak of "judicial activism".

And you still don't get it. You want to disable the state courts of
Florida from interpreting the laws and constitution of that state,
and your argument is thoroughly discredited. For an explanation, try
reading this additional article from a the same conservative Libertarian
magazine:

http://reason.com/0103/fe.mg.election.shtml

You have not even come close to discrediting my argument. We can argue
that Bush v. Gore was a bad decision. Fine, if it makes you feel
better, for this point, I will concede the point they should have
stayed out of the issue. But that does NOT prove your argument. Bush
was already certified, and the only way Gore wins after that
certification date is to win a challenge in Congres. It is that simple.
There ws NO court remedy available to Gore to get him into the white
house. NONE.

In fact, it you read Justice Breyer's dissent, he lays out the exact
process that the Democrats used on 1/6/2001 as to try to have Bush's
Florida Electors disqualified. This was the only way to the white house
for Gore, and had been since 11/26/2000.

"The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the
count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing
so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal
votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there
is no other constitutional tribunal." H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong.,
1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select
Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President)."

and

"The Act goes on to set out rules for the congressional determination
of disputes about those votes. If, for example, a state submits a
single slate of electors, Congress must count those votes unless both
Houses agree that the votes "have not been . . . regularly given."
3 U.S.C. § 15. If, as occurred in 1876, one or more states submits two
sets of electors, then Congress must determine whether a slate has
entered the safe harbor of §5, in which case its votes will have
"conclusive" effect. Ibid. If, as also occurred in 1876, there is
controversy about "which of two or more of such State authorities . .
.. is the lawful tribunal" authorized to appoint electors, then each
House shall determine separately which votes are "supported by the
decision of such State so authorized by its law." Ibid. If the two
Houses of Congress agree, the votes they have approved will be counted.
If they disagree, then "the votes of the electors whose appointment
shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal
thereof, shall be counted." Ibid."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html

_______________________________________________________

[Weasel]
The question that you have to answer to validate your point, is if the
court had stayed out of the case, and Gore would have "won" the
recount, that everybody knew violated 3 U.S.C. section 5 (even Gore's
own Florida Campaign Chair made this argument), what was going to
happen to BOTH slates of Bush Florida Electors. How was Gore going to
get them disqualifed? How was he going to get Congress to accept his
electors?

___________________________________________________

After Bush was certified on 11/26/2000, Gore had to face Congress to
win the election. It doesn't matter what the courts rule, Gore STILL
has have Congress disqualify Bush's Florida Electors.

Gore doesn't need a recount to win, he needed support in the US House.
But since the Republicans in the House believed that Gore tried to
steal the election with standardless recounts in 4 Democrat majority
counties, and with the illegal disqualification of overseas ballots,
they were not about to throw Bush's electors out.
___________________________________________________

Again, begging the question.

______________________________________________________


[Weasel]

Again, ignoring the Constitution and the Laws of the United States.

______________________________________________________

Well, if your view were correct, why did Bush press his case in the
courts? And why was the Bush v. Gore decision necessary?

It wasn't necessary for Bush to win. The decision stops the Florida
Supreme Court from establishing bad case law on the matter.

Only the die-hard three so-called "conservative" advocates of
"judicial restraint"--Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed
with your position, which is a real stretch.

The US Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 supports my
position. History supports my position. Justice Breyer not only
supports my position, but he lays out the process in his dissent. Mark
Levine, attorney for the Democrats.com supports my position. Here is
his brief to congress.

We have established the following facts:

1. Congress has the power and obligation to determine whether Electors
are "regularly chosen" by each State, and to reject slates of Electors
not selected in accordance with the laws of their respective States.
The precise times, dates, standards, procedures and manner of the
determination are set forth by Federal statute, providing a clear
roadmap in law for Congress as to how to proceed.

http://www.mediasense.com/itsnotover/congressbrief/congressbrief.htm

I fail to see how you can argue that this federal code does not exist,
nor that it could have been used to throw out Bush's electors, and
elect Gore as President on 1/6/2001.

_____________________________________________________

By the way, has "The Weasel" ever posted here about anything
involving classical music?

If you don't want off topic post, then YOU should not be a part of
them. It is silly for you to whine about others do the SAME thing that
you are.

_____________________________________________________




A very brief search on Google shows what you are up to.
Tell us, are you on the GOP payroll? Do you know or
care about anything relevant to classical music?

[Weasel]

A brief search on Google reveals your post in such titles:

OT: Stolen Election? (Rolling Stone Article)
OT [New] New US Atrocities in Iraq
Dubya's major crusade
Did Truthout lie again?
OT 'helping' Iraq?
OT: 43 at 41
Repuglicans are disgusting: Special Police Torture Edition
OT - but cause for concern for ALL Americans.

How much are you being by the Democrats paid to post such myths to
these threads? If you want to play this "who is being paid" devision,
go ahead. It shows that you know that your arguments on very thin ice.

____________________________________________________

"The Weasel's" posts on various news groups are all about
politics, so far as I can tell. And he, she, or it is the one
spreading mythology and infiltrating groups for which he,
she, or it has no interest in the subject matter.

The subject of this thread is "OT: Stolen Election? (Rolling Stone
Article)". If you were really out for the truth, you would be open to
such debates. But as soon as you are challenged, you start whining and
crying about "paid shrill". If you can't deal with the facts, then stay
out of these debates. When you have a group that regularly has these
threads, don't cry about who takes part.

What a .....WEASEL.

That would be Mr. Weasel to you.

--
A. Brain


Remove NOSPAM for email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Obama moves to the center
    ... > elections are not won on popular votes, ... BelieveBushwon Florida by a little more ... Supreme Court ordered such a recount. ... Presidential electors, the one possibility that was universally ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: OT: Stolen Election? (Rolling Stone Article)
    ... about people who could not cast their votes, ... rather in the manner of Katherine Harris in Florida ... He wouldn't need to challenge the result in Court, ... Ohio, throw out his electors, and then win the US House. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Al Gore facing Lawsuit for Copyright Theft
    ... It?s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had ... gotten more votes. ... the U.S. Supreme Court. ... A message seeking comment from Current TV on the Cincinnati lawsuit was ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: "Oh Sunni! Oh, Shiite! Lets fight the Jews."
    ... votes, or the acceptance of illegal votes, to change the outcome of an ... or Gore believed there were ... Florida Code doesn't require all legal votes to be counted? ... The first court who heard the case noted that Gore ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Missing Episodes in Zimbabwe ?
    ... votes were for but whether they were valid. ... mandate a recount for votes that close. ... The Supreme Court is then required to rule on whether the Florida ... electors, the '800 votes in favour of Gore' figure has to be ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)