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

A. Brain wrote:
"The Weasel" <theoneandonlysuperweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149615777.853424.8770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

_______________________________________________________

As the article from "Reason" magazine showed, the final
decision was a 5-4 decision. I have yet to hear any
credible legal scholar suggest that it was anything other
than 5-4.

As I pointed out, the remedy was 5-4.

Every first year law student learns in a few weeks to differentiate
between the "holding" of the decision and what are called "obiter
dictum" or "dicta" or "judicial dictum" or "dicta". Because the remarks
of Breyer and Souter do not support the holding--dispositive opinion
of the court--but are more than "passing remarks" they are closer to
judicial dicta. So they arguably have some precedential value--
except that the opinion expressly states that it has no precedential
value, as if that settles it. So Breyer's and Souter's observations
about how the recount--that ought to proceed but does not under
the Court's decision--are "academic" at best.

But I don't think that the majority's decision is without precedential
value. If there is another really close election of whatever kind and
there are different types of ballots, machines, etc. that might be a
basis
for a contest as a violation of "equal protection" there could be
similar types of problems where there are differences between and among
polling places and any number of other variables--no doubt the
"reason" the majority tried to confine this decision's effect.


Breyer and Souter disagreed with the "safe harbor" trap
by which the majority tricked the Florida Supreme Court,
so it can hardly be contended that their agreement about
"equal protection" concerns amounts to a 7-2 majority
decision on those grounds. They expressly rejected such
grounds.

Correct, as I pointed out, the remedy was 5-4.

And besides that, it was the initial 5-4 decision to issue
the stay that was the critical decision that set the trap.

There was no trap.

Beware of weaselly arguments.

You agree with my points, and then claim they are "weaselly"
arguments??

____________________________________________________

[Weasel]

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.

[bogus point about there not being a U.S. Senator to challenge
the electors snipped]

Of course, you can ignore history, but the facts still show that Gore
ruled a challenge to Bush's Florida electors our of order because there
was not a single Senator that would sign on as required by 3 U.S.C.
section 15.

This is an actual event that took place in our country. Real events are
not bogus.

_______________________________________________________

Once again, "Weasel" begs the question. Had the Florida Supreme
Court not been outmaneuvered by the "Gang of Five" (and
you can bet that Kennedy wishes he hadn't joined that dastardly
group now), the dispute would have been resolved by the Florida
Supreme Court. "Weasel" obviously has not read any of the
scholarship on the subject; he/she/it is posting canned "talking
points" from some right wing group.

When did such outlets such as the Village Voice or the San Francisco
Chronicle become a "right wing group"? They were making the same
argument BEFORE the USSC took up or decided the case.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Gore faces endgames in hostile arenas, including the
Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and the U.S. House of
Representatives. They have ultimate authority the Constitution over
picking a president when an election is in dispute, scholars say,
although the rules along the way are sometimes nebulous and untested.

"It's very difficult to construct a scenario by which Gore wins," said
Marshall Wittman, a congressional analyst with the Washington,
D.C.-based Hudson Institute. "The clear backup for Bush is both his
brother (Florida's governor), the Republican Legislature and the
Republican Congress. I think if you gave Democrats sodium pentothal
right now, they would say it's probably over for Gore."

For the confused average citizen, it's probably good to divide the
situation into the legislative and judicial branches of government.
Start with the legislative, where the rules are slightly more
predictable:

The biggest problem for Gore is the 12th Amendment of the Constitution,
which gives the U.S. House -- not the Senate -- authority to "choose
immediately, by ballot, the president" when no candidate gets a
majority of Electoral College votes.

Republicans control the House, and are likely to elect Bush.

But it gets complicated, of course. After the new Congress is sworn in
Jan. 3, the Senate will be controlled by Democrats for 17 days. Gore
would, for that brief period of time, have the tie-breaking vote as
president of the Senate, because he doesn't leave office until Jan. 20.

Which sets up this scenario:

If the Florida courts consistently rule in Gore's favor, which legal
scholars say is a difficult proposition, two sets of presidential
electors could meet in Tallahassee on Dec. 18.

One set of electors could be ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to
vote for Gore, after another recount showed him the winner before Dec.
12. The other would be under orders from the Republican-controlled
Florida Legislature, which is already preparing to support Bush.

Here, too, Bush has an advantage. He already has been certified the
winner by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Scholars also
believe the state Legislature has higher authority than the state
courts and even Congress over picking electors."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/03/MN135017.DTL&type=election

From the Village Voice:

"On November 26, Jeb Bush signed the certificate naming a roster of 25
electors pledged to support his brother George W.

The certification is on file at the National Archives, along with
certifications from the other states. If the Florida legislature
decides to name its own slate of George W. Bush electors, that would
only add emphasis to Jeb Bush's earlier action, but wouldn't settle the
question of how Florida's vote should be decided.

The continued standoff between the judicial, legislative, and
administrative branches threatens to tumble into Congress, where both
the House and the Senate would have to decide which of two slates of
electors is valid. If the chambers vote along current party lines, the
House would pick the slate supporting Shrub; in the Senate, the
tie-breaking vote would be cast by Gore himself and result in a
decision for a Democratic slate.

If the chambers do in fact disagree, then the Electoral Count Act
specifies that the electors chosen by the governor-Jeb Bush-shall
be accpetd."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0049,elect5,20581,6.html

As both of these left wing sources point out, no matter what happens in
the courts, for Gore to win he must face congress.

So much for your "canned talking points from some right wing group"
argument.

There was no credible challenge to the Florida electors
BECAUSE of the Supreme Court decision.

False. Gore didn't rule the challenge out of order because of the
Supreme Court, he ruled it out of order because of a lack of support
from the Senate.

So-called "points" made by "Weasel" have no merit.

If it wasn't for the fact that they are backed with fact, you would be
correct.

What's more, he/she/it has no interest in classical music.
His posts here are ONLY on "off-topic" threads.

And since he has no interest in classical music, he is
ipso facto a person of low taste.

Thanks for admitting you arrorgance.

____________________________________________________

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.

____________________________________________________

[Weasel]

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.

_______________________________________________________

Begging the question again, as usual. The Florida Supreme
Court had the power, under the Florida Constitution and
under federal jurisprudence that prohibited the federal
courts from interfering with state election law, to determine
the appropriate remedies for the problem of election results
that were in doubt.

The USSC decision was not based in state election law, it was based on
the US Constitution.

"Weasel" wants the state legislatures to have the power
to nullify election results, I guess. That's what Katherine
Harris was trying to do.

"This week we will learn if the Florida legislature possesses the
courage to live up to Madison's expectations. In an unprecedented
special session, lawmakers will consider whether to end the election
crisis by directly appointing the state's 25 presidential electors.
They will undergo a hailstorm of criticism from the Gore campaign, the
media, and liberal academics, who will argue that such intervention
would bypass the democratic process.

Florida's legislators have a constitutional duty to ensure their state
appoints electors. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says that
"each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a number of Electors." Despite the Florida Supreme Court's
free-wheeling approach to statutory interpretation, the Constitution's
use of the word "shall" requires the legislature to ensure
participation in the Electoral College.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the exclusive right of state
legislatures to appoint electors. In McPherson v. Blackmer, in 1892,
the Court declared that "the appointment of these electors is thus
placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several
states." No other branch of state government can interfere with the
power and duty of the legislature to fulfill the Constitution's
command. As the court said, "this power is conferred upon the
legislatures of the States by the Constitution of the United States and
cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions."

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/professional/writings/Fla%20Leg.htm

Note that Palm Beach v. Harris was a 9-0 decision of the US Supreme
Court.

"As the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Palm Beach County v.
Harris made clear, the U.S. Constitution vests absolute, plenary power
in state legislatures to appoint electors. Further, this power may be
exercised at any time, before or after any popular election.

Gore supporters have argued that in Article II, Section 1 of the
Constitution, the term "state legislature" should be read to mean the
broader state government, including the judiciary. Wrong. Under the
Constitution, only state legislatures - not judges - are textually
authorized to appoint electors. (That is just one reason why it was
wrong for the Florida Supreme Court to rewrite the legislature's
election laws.)

Thus, a decision by the Florida legislature to ratify the certified
vote by appointing Bush electors would be easily within the
legislature's power, and would be immune from judicial review. The
United States Congress, similarly, would have plenary power to accept
Florida's slate of electors, ratifying the certified vote, and again,
judicial review would be unavailable."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001211_williams.html

The Florida Legislature had the right to declare the process "broken"
and to send their own electors to the Electoral College. In fact, they
were in the process of doing so when Bush v. Gore was decided.

"MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bobbie, the House just voted
79-41 to name its own slate of electors. This came after 5 1/2 hours of
debate. Let's listen into Speaker Tom Feeney. The vote just occurred a
minute ago. And he is thanking the members and reflecting on this
historic debate."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/12/se.03.html

As for the alleged "deadline" of December 12, this
so-called "deadline" was invented by the U.S. Supreme
Court, not mandated by Florida law.

Yet the Florida Supreme Court made reference to this "invented"
deadline twice before the USSC took the case, and three times overall.

Chief Justice Wells writting:

"The safe harbor deadline day is December 12, 2000. Today is Friday,
December 8, 2000. Thus, under the majority's time line, all manual
recounts must be completed in five days, assuming the counting begins
today."

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

You can also find what the Democrat majority said on safe harbor here:

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

The "safe
harbor" provision is by its very nature not some
kind of mandate. And even with the GOP house
as partisan as it was in 2000, I doubt that it would
favor electors chosen by the Florida legislature
for Bush over an alternative set based on
the recounts' results that almost certainly would
have shown Gore the winner.

Again, you are ignoring history. The PARTISAN GOP protested the
counting of dimpled chads in Miami-Dade County, Florida, but now you
expect us to believe that the same PARTISANS are now going to accept
results with more dimpled chads?? REALLY?????

By the way, reports by the "liberal media" that
suggested that Bush would have won the recount
are a bit of mythology as well. The NORC study
found, under each of several different standards
for evaluation of ballots, that Gore had won.

The NORC study was incomplete, thus do not "prove" who would have
"won".

"NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely
every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten
and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine
about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver
as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators."

and

"NORC used experienced staff researchers to supervise and train a
larger pool of investigators, who then fanned out across Florida and
personally examined 175,010 ballots provided by local election
officials. The investigators recorded exactly what they saw on each
ballot but made no attempt to determine whether the vote should have
been counted."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

CNN was a member of the consortium that hired the NORC. CNN CLAIMS that
the NORC did not check all of the ballots because they could not gain
access to some 2,200 ballots. The Orlando Sentinel says that there were
as many as 179,855 "spoiled" ballots.

http://www.leonfl.org/elect/ElectionsAndResults/2000Elections/blanksp...

If you actually the report, you will find that they said they did not
identify a winner, yet you claim that they found that Gore won.

"Third, the project does not identify "winners." Its goal is to assess
the reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest
standards of scientific accuracy and reliability. "

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp

The media's report that Bush would have won
was based on speculation that the recounts
would have been done in a particular way,
with no basis in fact or law. See Toobin,
TOO CLOSE TO CALL, p. 278ff.

As you can see for yourself below, Breyer's
opinion clearly stated that the Florida courts could
determine if there was enough time to do the recount.
Both he and Souter stated that the recounts could have been done
if the 5-4 stay had not been granted earlier.

How "Weasel" could possibly conclude that the
Breyer opinion--found below--supports
his claims, is beyond me.

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

It is beyond you because you fail to understand how the Electoral
College System works. As I pointed out, if the US Supreme Court had
stayed out of the issue, and Gore would have "won" the standardless
partial recount of disputed ballots, he has to face Congress to win the
white house.

Justice Breyer lays out the process in his dissent. I suggest that you
actually read his opinion. Pay close attention to what he says happens
if there are more than one slate of electors sent (which would more
than likely been 3 slates according to those left wing cites that I
provided).

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

And the fact is, if Gore was to win the white house, he had to face
Congress as soon as Bush was certified on 11/26/2000. It doesn't matter
what the courts rule, can't win any other way.

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?

_________________________________________________


[Weasel]


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.

___________________________________________________

The U.S Supreme Court, by granting injunctive relief to Bush,
in the most "judicially active" decision in history, stopped the
recounts in Florida and usurped the Florida court's jurisdiction.
As explained by many legal scholars, not just Dershowitz,
this set the trap whereby any standard adopted by the
Florida Court could be attacked on a variety of grounds, including
that it was too late. It was that sneaky. The FIX was in.

What FIX was that? How did the USSC stop Gore from using 3 U.S.C.
section 15??

___________________________________________________

[Weasel]

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

___________________________________________________

Four U.S Supreme Court justices disagreed with this. And
since when do you go along with the Florida Supremes when
you like what they say, but call them irresponsible when they
tried to resolve the difficulties with the recount in the first place?

Why do you believe that a standardless partial recount of disputed
ballots would resolve the matter?? What makes you think that the
Republicans would roll over and accept a count with dimpled chads
(ballots that were never legal in Florida until Gore needed them)?

Obviously "Weasel" either did not read the "Reason" articles or
did not understand them. By stopping the recounts,
the U.S. Supreme Court made it impossible for the
Florida Supremes to come up with satisfactory standards
in time for the recount to occur before the "safe harbor".

False. The FSC was required to uphold the existing standards that were
in place before the electon. One line in the opinion would have taken
care of the problem. They should have did the same in Palm Beach v.
Harris.

And it's not as if the "safe harbor" was sacroscanct--the
"Supremos" had already trampled over every legal precedent.
Breyer's opinion, as stated above, would leave it up to
the state courts, as the whole thing should have been
treated, and probably would have been treated, were
it not for Scalia's and Rehnquist's bullying.

Breyer's opinion went on to say that Congress would have the final
word.

See what "Weasel" is up to? On the one hand, he claims
that the "safe harbor" deadline was mandatory under the
Florida Supreme Court's rulings; on the other, he
approves of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings that
the Florida court was way out of line and then
he claims that Gore could have challenged the
Bush electors, nothwithstanding the "safe harbor".

Gore could claim that the electors sent under the ruling of Palm Beach
County Canvassing Board did not mean the requirements of "safe harbor"
under 3 U.S.C. section 5. Hold on, that ACTUALLY happened on 1/6/2000.

It should be kept in mind that of the majority of five
in the 5-4 decision that in fact decided the election,
two are honest.

False. Congress decided the election.

One is ethical. And he made a colossal mistake.
For his opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence
v. Texas, Anthony Kennedy is the new "Earl
Warren" for the radical so-called "conservatives".

Both Rehnquist and Thomas lied under oath in
their confirmation hearings and had clear political
agendas from way back. Rehnquist lied under oath
in two different confirmation hearings before Congress,
and his lies were not about immaterial things.

Scalia is a special case. He has a lot of pizzazz and charm.
Unfortunately, he seems to have no sense of ethics.
Even without Bush v. Gore, he is likely to go down as one
of the worst Supreme Court justices in history. He
had two sons employed by law firms working for
Bush in this controversy.

And O'Connor had stated her views favoring
Bush on election night. She was heard making
remarks that the Gore campaign had cheated
in Florida, with no basis in fact.

Scalia and O'Connor should have recused themselves.

And the court could have stayed out of the issue and Gore still loses.

_____________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________

[Weasel]

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?

________________________________________________

As pointed out by Boies in the Supreme Court arguments,
the differences between and among machines and other
mechanisms, and ballots from county to county in the whole state were
greater than the alleged differing standards for evaluating the intent
of the voters when the machines or mechanisms were comparable.

The standard was "intent of the voter" and that
necessarily has some subjective aspects when ballots
are inspected. It's not like "errors" are uniform from one
county to another.

Really, only Palm Beach County had dimpled chads? Only Miami-Dade had
hanging chads? Of course not.

And Souter's and Breyer's opinions simply state
concerns; they do not support the holding of the case.

Just as the majority, they agreed that there was an equal protection
problem, they disagreed on the remedy.

_________________________________________________

[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.

_________________________________________________________


More B.S. from "Weasel".

If the Florida Supreme Court had been allowed to do its work, it
would have been binding--or arguably binding on the Florida
legislature. And the electors certified would have been those based on
the recounts.

How do you get past Article II of the US Constitution (this should be
good)?

________________________________________________________

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
_______________________________________________________

[Weasel]

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.

_______________________________________________________

More utter crap from "Weasel".

The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recounts. If the
recounts, as seemed likely, had shown Gore to be the
winner in Florida, the Florida courts would have determined
that Gore was the winner and the certification would have
been different, or there would have been an alternative.

Now you are starting to get it. It is not that the certification would
have been different, there would have been 3 slates of electors. The
certified set for Bush from 11/26, the slate from the Florida Supreme
Court, and the slate from the Florida Legislature.

It takes the US House to get Gore in office. How was Gore going to get
the PARTISAN Republicans to support his dimpled chad count?

Further, as history has shown us, Gore doesn't need a recount to make a
challenge, all he needs is the support of his party in Congress and
enough Republicans in the House.

The same argument applies with, or without, a recount. The
certification does not show the will of Florida. If Gore has this kind
of support in Congress, then he wins.

Like, why else would Breyer and Souter be saying that
the Florida courts should be allowed to consider whether
to do the recounts under uniform standards?

______________________________________________________


[Weasel]


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?
____________________________________________________
[Weasel]

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

____________________________________________________

No court takes a case for such an academic purpose. There
has to be a "case or controversy".

________________________________________________________


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.


[Weasel]

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.

_____________________________________________________


I don't disagree with that, but given the developments.
there was no way for it to happen.

There was no valid basis for a slate of electors for Gore,
and no basis for challenging the Florida electors,
as a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court's meddling.

Once again, you analysis fails to consider how the U.S. Supreme
Court usurped the powers of the Florida Supreme Court to deal
with the situation where Florida law mandated that the intent of
the voter standard controls the results and the certification.

A recount with dimpled chads does not give a valid basis for Congress
to throw out Bush's electors. What is your point?


Like, why do you think the U.S. Supreme Court was within
its authority to enjoin the Florida recount, but the Florida
Supreme Court could not enjoin Katherine Harris from her
mischief?

________________________________________________________


"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.

______________________________________________________
[Weasel]


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.

_________________________________________________________

So not only is "Weasel" a weasel. Now that we know his gender--and
it's not Ann Coulter, not that her gender has been conclusively
determined--we know that he is a pompous jerk as well.

What a great argument. You should teach a debate class.

And did I mention that he has no interest in classical music?

Nice of you to make that assumption.



--
A. Brain


Remove NOSPAM for email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Head JEW in Connecticut-done on Tuesday.......
    ... Supreme Court really didn't steal the election for Bush? ... How does Gore win the white house in Congress? ... They would have had no choice if the recount ordered by the Florida ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Head JEW in Connecticut-done on Tuesday.......
    ... Supreme Court really didn't steal the election for Bush? ... They would have had no choice if the recount ordered by the Florida ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Head JEW in Connecticut-done on Tuesday.......
    ... Supreme Court really didn't steal the election for Bush? ... certified the winner of Florida, and there was nothing the courts could ... and held the US House is not backed by the law. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Barack is not my President
    ... "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last ... won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide ... did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been ... won by Mr. Gore. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Barack is not my President
    ... "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last ... won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide ... did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been ... won by Mr. Gore. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)