AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Wondering if they'll have to have a US VISA to visit the other 49? LOL

0 Replies

Jag from Chicago is full of **** and again PROVES that he is a charlatan.

He wrote:

The Florida Supreme Court has the final say when it comes to interpreting Florida law, and the recount was purely a state matter.

Now, Jag from Chicago is scared to death of me since I wiped the floor with him several times a couple of years ago, but I invite anyone to read the **** he wrote and then to consider the following:

The Florida SupremeCourt DOES NOT have the final say when it comes to interpreting Florida Law if that interpretation leads to errors which deprive citizens of their right to have their votes counted.

Jag from Chicago has obviously not read the literature on Bush Vs. Gore very carefully. His "recount purely a state matter' does not address the fact that the Florida Supreme Court made repeated errors.
They should not have extended the deadline for hand recounting that had been fixed by the Secretary of State

They should not have reversed Judge Sauls' dismissal of the council proceedings.

They should have not ignored the discretionary authority that the election code gives to state and local election officials.

They should not have authorized relief in a contest proceeding on the basis merely that the election was close.

They should not have credited Gore with the Broward and the partial Maiam-Dade recount results, or ordered a statewide recount of undervotes but not overvotes.

They should not have condoned iconsistent and subjective criteria in hand recounting.

It is clear that in all of these respects, the FSC was flluting the state's election code. Had Gore been declared the winner on the basis of the recount ordered by the FSC on Decemebr 8, he would have owed his victory to LEGAL ERROR.

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

Jag from Chicago does not know this. He gets all his legal opinions from Classic Comics.

0 Replies

The New York Times( certainly not a right wing source) reported on the findings of a consortium that went to Florida and did exhaustive work on the count for the presidential election of 2000.

Jag from Chicago does not know about this.

Note:

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at ? a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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?

I do not think it judicial activism to serve as referee applying strict 'rules of the road' to a a law applicable to an issue in dispute. In my opinion, that is what the Court at any level is supposed to do. The Florida Supreme Court did not do that but presumed to authorize what had not been previously authorized and thereby gave special privileges to a very select group of people. SCOTUS quite properly saw that as an unconstitutional and illegal privilege and stopped it.

Judicial activism is writing into the law what did not previously exist. When the Supreme Court (or any court) does that, in my opinion, it is assuming the prerogative of those bodies the people elect to make their laws and I see that as a dangerous thing.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago, you asked: "Where in the fourteenth amendment does it say anything about equal protection for voting districts?"

Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?

You answer my question first.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not think it judicial activism to serve as referee applying strict 'rules of the road' to a a law applicable to an issue in dispute. In my opinion, that is what the Court at any level is supposed to do.

You'd be satisfied, then, if the supreme court made factual determinations, even though that's the legislature's job?

Foxfyre wrote:

The Florida Supreme Court did not do that but presumed to authorize what had not been previously authorized and thereby gave special privileges to a very select group of people. SCOTUS quite properly saw that as an unconstitutional and illegal privilege and stopped it.

What group of people got special privileges?

Foxfyre wrote:

Judicial activism is writing into the law what did not previously exist. When the Supreme Court (or any court) does that, in my opinion, it is assuming the prerogative of those bodies the people elect to make their laws and I see that as a dangerous thing.

Judges make law all the time. That's the basis of a common law system.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Ican wrote:
joefromchicago, you asked: "Where in the fourteenth amendment does it say anything about equal protection for voting districts?"

Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?

Joefromchicago wrote:
You answer my question first.

Joefromchicago, here's my answer to your question in boldface.

Quote:

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, joefromchicago, please answer my question:
Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

President Obama's articulated criteria for his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is: "We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

I saw a later quote from President Obama where, Re the Supreme Court pick, he opined that his choice would reflect the fact that both intellect and compassion were needed to interpret the law. This time our president has "got it" at least half right -- the intellect part. Compassion, however, should be reserved for the sentencing hearing only and never should enter judicial decisions where guilt or innocence is being considered. That's where lady justice's blindfold is relative. Using compassion and consideration of past life experience of the accused to inform final judicial decisions regarding guilt or innocence carries with it the possibility of inflicting further injustice upon the victims of law breakers.

JM

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joefromchicago, In your response to foxfyre you wrote:
You'd be satisfied, then, if the supreme court made factual determinations, even though that's the legislature's job?

Making factual determinations is in fact the court's job. Courts determine--sometimes with the help of a jury, sometimes without the help of a jury--what's relevant, what's true and what's false, and compare that to the relevant law to determine if what is true and what is false complies with and does not comply with the relevant law.

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JM, Your's is a very narrow interpretation of why a woman jurist is needed to balance the men in the supreme court. As Ginsburg has often opined, she brought to the court necessary aspects of how to look at issues which differ from how men see the same issue.

I believe that is very important for the full functioning of the supreme court.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote"

Quote:

:"So what is the purpose of the Court? Is SCOTUS your god? Infallible? Inerrant? Does it have authority to decide all matters and override whatever Congress or the President or the people decide? Can the Court make whatever law it deems appropriate? If so, how are we not a totalitarian state in effect if not in name?"

No. We have seen the best solution to conflicts such as this in the state of California Re same sex marriage where everybody had their say so via democratic mechanisms and then lived with it. The losers tried, again, to circumvent the wishes of the citizenry via court action with the "arcane reasoning" that the people's Amendment to their constitution was just a revision but the CA SC saw through that. In an issue like this a "final" court decision always leaves a significant portion of the population feeling cheated, thus the conflict. The source of power in our country is in its people. The constitutions are the embodiment of and codification of the peoples wishes. The conflict spawned of Roe vs. Wade is the direct result of the circumvention of the will of a significant portion of our population by a decision from 9 individuals that, somehow, squeezed a "right to privacy" from the law of the land that literally expresses no such thing. If MACs are to put forward a platform this plank should seek to assure its constituents this particular issue be returned to the states.

Quote:

Has the high Court ruled on when a fetus is viable? Or has it simply established a guideline for how abortion can be judged legal or illegal? The lower courts have long since abandoned Roe v Wade anyway and the pro-abortionists demand that abortion on demand be legal at any stage of pregnancy and any baby that survives the abortion can be killed or forced to die. I suppose those who don't believe in sanctity of life woud not have any problem with that, however.

As a scientist I see the foetus as always viable from the moment of conception. There is no new life, only a new individual. Life has been a continuous situation since, well, since it began. The individual foetus only becomes unviable thru natural or unnatural causes. The latter, of course, includes abortion. I have mostly felt for the women but cannot justly dismiss the individual growing inside her. This must be an absolutely terrible decision for some women to make. I just can't decide, fortunately I don't have to.

I have problems making a decision on legalizing drugs, but this one is really mental torture. Given everyone else's passionate opinions I cannot see how, at most, 9 judges of SCOTUS could possibly resolve this issue on their own. The passion from this decision can only be diluted and, perhaps, dissipated by popular (state) legislative actions.

JM

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

ican and okie have made that claim when it comes to "terrorists". Since they aren't citizens or on US soil they have no access to US courts.
If Texas seceded from the Union they would not be on US soil and not be US citizens. They would have the same rights that ican and okie claim terrorists at Gitmo have if they are correct.

There are obvious reasons why prosecuting terrorists captured in various places around the world, such as on the battlefield, does not lend itself to be done efficiently or correctly in a civilian court. Why people like Parados continues to claim this is beyond common sense. It has been explained numerous times, but people like Parados simply cannot understand it I guess?

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JM, Your science is probably not in the life sciences. You seem completely ignorant about the difference between pregnancy, human life, and intrusion into other people's lives.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Ican wrote:
joefromchicago, you asked: "Where in the fourteenth amendment does it say anything about equal protection for voting districts?"

Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?

Joefromchicago wrote:
You answer my question first.

Joefromchicago, here's my answer to your question in boldface.

Quote:
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well, perhaps you may have better vision than mine, but I don't see where voting districts have equal protection rights under the fourteenth amendment. Indeed, there are no provisions in the fourteenth amendment that are devoted to a discussion of voting districts at all. Of course, it would be an enormous error to suggest that voting districts should be treated as "citizens," as that term is used in the fourteenth amendment. States, after all, aren't "persons" for purposes of the fifth amendment, so why should subdivisions of states qualify as "citizens" under the fourteenth amendment? Indeed, it would, in effect, retard our understanding of the constitution to equate "voting districts" with "citizens" in that amendment.

ican711nm wrote:
Now, joefromchicago, please answer my question:
Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?

Nowhere. But then it doesn't say that they have any equal protection interest in a recount. That's something that Scalia and company invented. No, don't bother to copy-and-paste the text of the fourteenth amendment again. I can read it just fine on my own.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Joefromchicago, In your response to foxfyre you wrote:
You'd be satisfied, then, if the supreme court made factual determinations, even though that's the legislature's job?

Making factual determinations is in fact the court's job.

Not for an appellate court.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:"

Quote:

JM, Your science is probably not in the life sciences. You seem completely ignorant about the difference between pregnancy, human life, and intrusion into other people's lives. "

Exactly where and how is my ignorance of pregnancy, human life, and other people's lives manifest in my relatively short post? Perhaps you can start by defining your percieved differences between pregnancy and human life and wrap it up with, say, the irrelavence between pregnancy and other people's lives--or not.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JM wrote:

Quote:

As a scientist I see the foetus as always viable from the moment of conception. There is no new life, only a new individual.

Yes, it is a "life" as apposed to "dead" or not life, whether it comes to term or not.

It continues to have a biological processes until it's ceased or dead.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Ican wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say voters in voting districts are excluded from equal protection of voting laws?
Joefromchicago answered:
Nowhere. But then it doesn't say that they have any equal protection interest in a recount. That's something that Scalia and company invented.

Of course voters in each and every voting district in the USA have an equal protection interest in a recount. Specifically they have an interest in the validity of the recount. They have such an interest because they have such an interest in the validity of the election results. Selective voting district recounts are too easy to corrupt--and in fact were corrupted in Florida as was determined by subsequent total recounts by several independent groups.

You continue to fail to understand the true and full implications of this clause in the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Get that? "Any law!"
Any recount ordered by a state court that is selective of the voting districts to be recounted is a voting law established by the state court. Such law is potentially a corruption of the voters' votes. Such corruption abridges the privilieges of some of the citizens of the United States.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Depending on the nature of the appeal, determining facts of the case can legally be the job of the appellate court. This is especially true when a lower court did not determine all the relevant facts.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Really ican?

And where in the constitution is it listed that voting is a privilege?

Let alone how votes are counted are a privilege.

The problem with your argument ican is that any voting system would violate the 14th amendment since no 2 voting districts ever have the exact same system of counting. Simply having different people in charge makes the system different.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know