The US, UN & Iraq III

Just for the sake of accuracy, I am sure they voted 7 to 2 in the decision that ended the recounts.

And they did so only because they were forced to correct the error of the FLSC, who attempted to replace the existing law with their personal interpretation of what outcome was intended from said law. This effectively changed the rules under which the election was held, after the election, and this is expressly forbidden by the federal law governing federal elections.

This thread is so far off its origin, WTF.

Scrat, you've got your facts, and I've got mine:

A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.
Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.
Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.
Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Q: What complexities?
A: They don't say.
Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?
A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"
Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.
Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.
A: Right. Next question.
Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.
Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.
Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
A: Nope.
Q: Why not?
A: No time.
Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.
Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.
Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
A: Nothing.
Q: But I thought ---
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.
A: Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.
Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.
Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.
Q: Tell me this, Florida's laws are unconstitutional?
A: Yes.
Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because -um- the Supreme Court doesn't say so
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)
Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state? count under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.
Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf (December 9 stay stopping the recount) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf (December 12 opinion)
Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.

Cite the law, PD, not one man's opinion. (In other words, your "facts"--as is so often the case--are not facts, at all.)

You might want to read the book I've quoted from in my current signature. (Sowell's point in it is that--contrary to the viewpoint of folks like you--reality is NOT optional.)

Scrat -- Levine's analysis seems to be flawless. Instead of dumping on it, could you please be specific about where you think it goes wrong?

Mark H. Levine Attorney at Law,
[email protected] (with permission, via CronusConnection.com)

From my previous post (which you didn't take time to read):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf (December 9 stay stopping the recount) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf (December 12 opinion)

Let's establish, Scrat, that interpretation of the law is ALWAYS opinion. A lawyer's, the Supreme Court's, yours, mine...

Just don't presume to call your opinion fact.

Part of a bio page on Sowell, from townhall.com, which publishes newsmax. A conservative viewpoint. To be balanced by others. Have read a number of articles Sowell wrote for townhall. He writes well, and can be interesting, but his slants are definitely conservative.

"Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. "

The problem is that you want to focus on the law after the damage was done, and have selected an opinion that suits your purpose. My focus is the FL law which sets the guidelines for recounts. As I have stated--and shown by citing the exact language of the law--before, the manual recounts Gore's people sought and began were not allowable under the law. PERIOD. Again, I defy you to show it to be otherwise, or to find any wiggle room in the very clear, very concise language the statute uses.

Absent verified MACHINE FAILURE or FRAUD, there is NO legal recourse to manual recounts after the first machine recount failed to show a problem with the original count. It's that simple.

Is that convenient to your desired version of reality? No. Does it give you any room to continue to whine about the election that your party tried to steal? No. Will that reality stop you?

My bet is: No.

"Before this Court stayed the effort (to recount the ballots) the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now."

--Justice Souter

"The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume."

--Justic Breyer

In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impratical is a prophecy the Court's own judgement will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent."

--Justice Ginsberg

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

--GWB

I only wish I'd put some money on that bet. It would have been the easiest money I ever made.

I am well aware that hanging, pregnant, and dimpled chads do not, in the Republican dictionary, meet the definition of MACHINE FAILURE.

I am well aware that the manipulation of the voter rolls by the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, do not, in the Republican dictionary, meet the definition of FRAUD.

Don't think for a minute that your interpretation of the 'facts' ARE the facts.

You would be the one denying reality, in that case.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/12/president.election/

All the information you would ever want to know about the 2000 presedential race.

Now, back to Iraq please.

If you want to continue the 2000 presedential race, start a new thread..

So who died an left you in charge, McG ?

Whoever made such a provisions as that was a full-blown loony . . .

Look at the avatar Setanta - 'nough said!

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

McGentrix,

The topic is 'the US[/u], UN, and Iraq.'

It would be more pleasant to me to discuss the US and the things which happen here, if the Bushes were a quiet family, living back in Kennebunkport, running up and down the 'read my hips' trails- where they likely never will know what hunger, medical needs, financial relief, or threadbare clothing feels like. I have never felt they were leadership material. Always felt Reagan needed a weak 'yes-man' and ran with Pop Bush.
(But I know you believe in them, so, that is your privilege. Grant us ours)

Discussing the MANNER in which we got into this "mess", is IMO very much a part of the thread.

Well said jackie, but revisionist historians will always try to change things. That is the reason real history is not written for at least 50 years and not by the groups who lived it. Must be removed from the "scene" to write with exactitude and be "boring". Passion does not make a good historian.

Beyond that, there are plenty of threads for this but the subject of US, UN & Iraq III has been covered and recovered ad nauseum and digressions are sometimes better. With that said, the appointment of Bush as unPresident has been covered ad nauseum too.

Your so clever aren't you...unPresident, very clever.

McG has sealed its fate with me by pointing to CNN as the last word. The new Fed rate is higher than my opinion of that news source! But I love the idea. Ohmigosh. McG. Wow. Won't grow up to be "presedent", fer sher.

Scrat, here is the information you asked for, no I will not read it to you ..... just list the points you have direct knowledge of and hold in contention...... choose 'The 2000 Presidential Election'


http://www.usccr.gov/

Iraq is getting messier by the day Apparently damn few are willing to come in and invest in what looks like a shaky situation, and - despite what Rumsfeld said - damn few are jumping on our victorious bandwagon. So this glorious war is not resulting in the wonderful liberation it was touted to be. Which, of course, leads to the question of just what the Bush babies really had in mind. The PNAC looms larger and larger.

Reagan never accepted Bush senior. Felt he was forced upon him by the party. And when you look at the people around the Bush baby - they are mostly Reagan people (incuding Rice), without a sign of Bush senior. Not too long ago Baker and Scowcroft and other Bush people were urging caution and thinking in op-ed pieces about rushing into Iraq - and that's the last they were heard from. So questions ar beginning to emerge about Iraq.

It was very important to get george selected, by any means at all. But there's always a price.

Tart - No fear. CNN can't wait to get to the Peterson case. Soon, all those breathless rushed voices, with the never-sleeping Wolf Blitzer, will be covering the maybe murder. Ad nauseum. CNN ceased to be one of those good sources a while back.