AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

In those instances where the US Supreme Court is confronted with state law, it is absolutely bound by state court precedent, and does not have the option of ignoring the rule of stare decisis.

What Florida "state court precedent" justified the Florida Supreme Court requiring some recounts of votes in a federal presidential election following a preceding legal Florida recount of all votes in the same federal presidential election?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

You had better shout, you senile old bastard. Havent you heard, carnal relations with an animal causes nerve damage which causes deafness.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

What Florida "state court precedent" justified the Florida Supreme Court requiring some recounts of votes in a federal presidential election following a preceding legal Florida recount of all votes in the same federal presidential election?

I don't know, but then I don't much care. The Florida Supreme Court has the final say when it comes to interpreting Florida law, and the recount was purely a state matter. Whether it was following state precedent or making it up as it went along, that was the Florida court's business and no one else's. The fact that the US Supreme Court stepped in and told Florida how to conduct its own recount is something that should also be troubling for conservatives who believe in federalism, but then I suppose conservatives have never been too troubled with supreme court decisions that are legally wrong but politically right.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
In those instances where the US Supreme Court is confronted with state law, it is absolutely bound by state court precedent, and does not have the option of ignoring the rule of stare decisis.

What Florida "state court precedent" justified the Florida Supreme Court requiring some recounts of votes in a federal presidential election following a preceding legal Florida recount of all votes in the same federal presidential election?

If stare decisis binds any court to decisions of a lower court, then why appeal to a higher court at all? For that matter, if the state Supreme Courts are the final word for anything, there would be no need for a federal court system or SCOTUS. And how could the SCOTUS overturn itself which it has more than once.

I would think that custom and precedent is a whole different animal than the actual law or power given to the Court.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If stare decisis binds any court to decisions of a lower court, then why appeal to a higher court at all? For that matter, if the state Supreme Courts are the final word for anything, there would be no need for a SCOTUS. And how could the SCOTUS overturn itself which it has more than once.

I am constantly amazed at the amount of misinformation that you can pack into such a relatively small space. To address these items in order:

Foxfyre wrote:

If stare decisis binds any court to decisions of a lower court, then why appeal to a higher court at all?

The rule of stare decisis binds all lower courts, but then sometimes courts get it wrong. In those instances, there's an incentive to appeal to a higher court, in the hopes that that court will get it right.

Foxfyre wrote:

For that matter, if the state Supreme Courts are the final word for anything, there would be no need for a SCOTUS.

State supreme courts are the final arbiters of state law. The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of federal law. The US Supreme Court cannot overturn a state court's precedent on substantive state law, no more than a state supreme court can overturn a US Supreme Court decision on federal law. If you don't understand the distinction between state and federal law or the US system of federalism, then I suggest you search the web for guidance. I think there might have been a Schoolhouse Rock episode on one of those topics.

Foxfyre wrote:

And how could the SCOTUS overturn itself which it has more than once.

As I mentioned in response to Cycloptichorn, the supreme court is not constrained by the rule of stare decisis in the same way that lower courts are bound by it. The supreme court is free to overturn its earlier decisions whenever it feels like it.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

As I mentioned in response to Cycloptichorn, the supreme court is not constrained by the rule of stare decisis in the same way that lower courts are bound by it. The supreme court is free to overturn its earlier decisions whenever it feels like it.

Which is what I originally meant - I should have been more accurate in my use of language.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe From Chicago is either a fraud( masquerading as a lawyer) or a barely marginal graduate of a TTT. His knowledge of law is miniscule at best.

What Joe From Chicago has obviously never read the Gore Vs. Bush.

I don't think he is capable of understanding it completely.

Five Justices in Bush vs. Gore sensed that the Florida Appelate Court was embarked on a path that IMPAIRED rather than promoted constitutional values.

What you do not seem to understand, Jag from Chicago, is that the PROBLEM with the Florida Supreme Court's decision was the STANDARDLESS CHARACTER OF THE RECOUNT THAT IT ORDERED.
THE LEGAL REMEDY WAS TO DIRECT THAT COURT TO ADOPT STANDARDS.

If, under Florida law time did not permit this, the Florida Court was expected to dismiss the suit.

I am sure that Jag from Chicago thinks that Bush vs. Gore was not adjudicated properly. That is because he is a sophomoric left wing dabbler.

He would critique Bush vs, Gore which, for anyone that really studies and knows the case, has CONSTITUTIONAL reasoning behind it, but he would leave abominations like Roe Vs. Wade go. Yes, Baby killers like Jag from Chicago would puncture their skulls and kill them based on?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I THINK ICAN IS HARD OF SEEING.

THANKS, JOE. I WOULDN'T WANT IT SAID THAT I WERE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS DISABILITIES, RATHER THAN OFFERING MY VIEWS ON THEIR OWN MERITS. YOU CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL THESE DAYS.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

What are your disabilities, you senile old fart? Don't you know that beastiality is forbidden and is against the law?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
What Florida "state court precedent" justified the Florida Supreme Court requiring some recounts of votes in a federal presidential election following a preceding legal Florida recount of all votes in the same federal presidential election?

I don't know, but then I don't much care. The Florida Supreme Court has the final say when it comes to interpreting Florida law, and the recount was purely a state matter. Whether it was following state precedent or making it up as it went along, that was the Florida court's business and no one else's. The fact that the US Supreme Court stepped in and told Florida how to conduct its own recount is something that should also be troubling for conservatives who believe in federalism, but then I suppose conservatives have never been too troubled with supreme court decisions that are legally wrong but politically right.

The recount was NOT purely a state matter if it disenfranchised any voters, rigged the vote to favor a particular candidate, or was otherwise devised to deny the rightful outcome of a federal election. Such are Constitutional matters and SCOTUS was absolutely within its prerogative to overturn the Florida Court on those grounds. I will concede that purely state matters should be solely the prerogative of the state and outside SCOTUS jurisdiction, if you will concede that any State Court judged to have violated any person's constitutional rights can be overturned by the higher Court.

I would think even liberals would not want a state to be able to sway a federal election by a selective counting of votes in a way that would likely favor one candidate over another.

2 Replies

Jag from Chicago critiques Bush vs. Gore and upholds Roe vs. Wade. I am sure that he is ideologically blind.

Bush vs. Gore is based on clear Constitutional Principles--article II.

Roe vs. Wade, as anyone familiar with law knows, finds its roots in Justice Blackmun's alleged right to privacy.

Blackmun wrote:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Belief about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state"

Antonin Scalia wrote( and stuck it in Blackmun's ear)

"I have never heard of a lway that attempted to restict one's "right to define" certain concepts"; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self defined "CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE" ETC. IT IS THE PASSAGE THAT A T E T H E R U L E O F
L A W.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The recount was NOT purely a state matter if it disenfranchised any voters, rigged the vote to favor a particular candidate, or was otherwise devised to deny the rightful outcome of a federal election. Such are Constitutional matters and SCOTUS was absolutely within its prerogative to overturn the Florida Court on those grounds. I will concede that purely state matters should be solely the prerogative of the state and outside SCOTUS jurisdiction, if you will concede that any State Court judged to have violated any person's constitutional rights can be overturned by the higher Court.

I would think even liberals would not want a state to be able to sway a federal election by a selective counting of votes in a way that would likely favor one candidate over another.

end of quote

Most people except ideological SOCIALISTS and members of Moveon.org know that SCOTUS can indeed overturn State Courts which violate the Constitutional Rights of citizens.

Anyone who reads the case is able to see that the Florida Court ordered a recount that had no STANDARDS. THAT IS WHY THE FLORIDA COURT WAS OVERTURNED.

0 Replies

Ican- Don't let the bullies scare you. Keep posting your ideas. The left wing thinks they can intimdate you. Don't let them do it. If they put you on ignore, keep posting anyway. There are at least a score of people who will read your posts.

Your Ideas on the alleged "global warming" are especially helpful!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The recount was NOT purely a state matter if it disenfranchised any voters, rigged the vote to favor a particular candidate, or was otherwise devised to deny the rightful outcome of a federal election.

Except that the supreme court never made those findings. Indeed, it couldn't have made those findings, since it's not a trial court. But then making findings of fact when there are insufficient facts is one of the hallmarks of judicial activism -- and surely you're not suggesting that the supreme court should have engaged in judicial activism in order to reach the result that it did, are you?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The recount was NOT purely a state matter if it disenfranchised any voters, rigged the vote to favor a particular candidate, or was otherwise devised to deny the rightful outcome of a federal election. Such are Constitutional matters and SCOTUS was absolutely within its prerogative to overturn the Florida Court on those grounds.

The Supremes did not rely upon such grounds. And the election certainly is purely a state matter.

The first paragraph of Article I (which regards the Congress), Section Four reads:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

The second paragraph of Article II (which regards the Executive), Section One reads:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And, finally, the Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I see no reason that anyone can construe from that that the Supremes have any business to interfere in the manner in which a state conducts an election of Federal officers, including the President and Vice President.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe, the federal government does indeed have some "final say" regarding votes in federal elections. Here in the following are several examples.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Amendment XV (1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XIX (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV (1964)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI (July 1, 1971)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

All of the above are examples of where the federal courts can over ride state courts. In particular, look at the 24th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote for electors for President shall not be denied or abridged. Recounting some but not all votes is a clear abridgment of the rights of those voters whose votes are not recounted. Consequently, no state supreme court can lawfully arbitrarily limit which votes can be recounted and which ones cannot be recounted, when the federal supreme court objects.

3 Replies

You should have addressed your post to the Senile Setanta also, Ican. He does not agree that the federal government can override the states( only in Roe vs. Wade)

1 Reply

Ican wrote:

What Florida "state court precedent" justified the Florida Supreme Court requiring some recounts of votes in a federal presidential election following a preceding legal Florida recount of all votes in the same federal presidential election?
*************************************
NONE

Jag from Chicago is unaware that a majority of the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES decided that the criteria( or rather the lack of criteria) for the recount prescribed by the Florida State Supreme Court WERE SO ARBITRARY that the recount would deny the voters of Florida the equal protection of the law.

*****************************************************************

You already posted it, Ican--Amendment XIV.

************************************************************

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

In summary,
(1) each citizen shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states;
(2) every state is guaranteed a republican form of government;
(3) no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizens;
(4) the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay a tax, or 18 years or older.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ican, why don't you write out the whole amendment?

Quote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote for electors for President shall not be denied or abridged -

by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Recounting votes has nothing to do with a poll tax.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know