Once again Keith, you are mistaken and annoying. On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > Once again Tom, you are so stuck on trying to revise American history, and > attempting to jam down your militant, Marxist inspired far left extremist > Anti-American agenda down the American public's proverbial throats, that you > are not even paying close attention to what you write. > > You try and argue that Gore won the election, but when confronted with the > facts, you then revert to, "Gore won the popular vote". > > A minor point, but you cite "American Analysis dot org"; which may very > well be where you got the article that you posted. Nevertheless, American > Analysis cites the Wiki article that I reference. Biased to say the least. > > > Even FactCheck.org, which has been proven to be a biased, partisan > organization admmits conclusively that the eight news media organizations > who ran the "Consortium" and checked the results after the election found > that President Bush did in fact win Florida. > > For you to stand here and make the statement (continuously) that "Gore won > the election"; or that "Bush stole the electon"; again, confirms that you > are a Moonbat. Gore didn't. There is nothing that you can do to change > history, and the proof is positive that such a claim by you (and most every > one of the small, but very vocal minority of Americans who are Moonbats) > demonstrates how out of touch with politics, current/national events, > contemporary history, and life in general, that you and your brethren really > are. > > Respectfully, > > > KeithInKöln > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Then you admit to lying about your position ie: """""First, Gore did in >> fact win the popular election, he got more votes, >> >> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won >> the election is quite false""""" >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Markie Mark- >>> >>> I know all about the electoral college, dearie. Thanks anyway. >>> >>> On 1/6/11, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Tommy, >>> > >>> > The President of the USA is NOT selected by popular vote....not now, >>> > not >>> > ever in history. >>> > >>> > Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush..... All lost the Popular vote.... Adams >>> lost >>> > by over 10% popular AND 15 electoral college but was LEGALLY elected by >>> > congress. >>> > >>> > Quit whining.... shit happens. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tommy News <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Keith- >>> >> >>> >> This information is from Political Analysis . org, not from Wiki. >>> >> >>> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html >>> >> >>> >> First, Gore did in fact win the popular election, he got more votes, >>> >> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won >>> >> the election is quite false. The Conservative SCOTUS appointed Bush, >>> >> he was not elected. Those are the facts. >>> >> >>> >> There is no "Cherry picking" involved at all. >>> >> >>> >> Here are the statistics again, from the Federal Election Comission. >>> >> Please review them again. >>> >> >>> >> 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS >>> >> >>> >> Bush 47.87 % Gore 48.38 % >>> >> >>> >> http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Al Gore won the election. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > Tom, >>> >> > >>> >> > I took the time to peruse your articles from Wiki, (the >>> >> > introduction >>> of >>> >> the >>> >> > Wiki article is not cited). >>> >> > >>> >> > A couple of questions for you: >>> >> > >>> >> > First, let's assume that the recount in Florida would have been >>> allowed >>> >> to >>> >> > have continued. You do understand that the eight news organizations >>> >> > that >>> >> I >>> >> > have cited did in fact determine that President Bush was the winner >>> in >>> >> > Florida, after polling all 66 counties of Florida? That assuming >>> that >>> >> Gore >>> >> > had won in court, he would have lost the election? >>> >> > >>> >> > Second, I refer you to the recent court battle in Minnesota, where >>> >> Senator >>> >> > Frankin prevailed, after what you are suggesting should have taken >>> place >>> >> in >>> >> > Florida, took place in Minnesota. What I reference, is that a >>> >> politically >>> >> > influenced Court, with a politically influenced Supervisor of >>> Elections >>> >> was >>> >> > allowed to cherry pick different precincts, counties and polling >>> >> stations, >>> >> > and in essence, threw the election in Senator Frankin's favor. >>> >> > This >>> is >>> >> not >>> >> > me attempting to sound like sour grapes, it is well documented that >>> the >>> >> > Democratic Party literally stole the senatorial election in >>> Minnesota. >>> >> > This is what you are suggesting that the United States Supreme Court >>> >> should >>> >> > have allowed in Florida, in the 2000 Presidential election. That >>> then >>> >> Vice >>> >> > President Gore should have been allowed to have "cherry picked" >>> certain >>> >> > counties and polling stations, that were predominately Democratic in >>> >> nature, >>> >> > and, using the, "Squeaking wheel gets the most grease" theory, >>> >> > those >>> >> > who >>> >> > cried the loudest, got their votes recounted. >>> >> > >>> >> > Surely, you don't advocate such a policy? That is in essence, what >>> it >>> >> > sounds as if you are calling for here today. Tell me that you are >>> >> > more >>> >> > astute than this!!! >>> >> > >>> >> > KeithInKöln >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Tommy News <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Lil' Keithie Keith- >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, the Reich wing SCOTUS got it wrong. Bush versus Gore was >>> >> >> decided >>> >> >> on political bias rather than on legal grounds. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Empirical Proof and Documentation: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Was the Supreme Court’s ruling an example of judicial activism >>> >> >> supporting election fraud? There are numerous cases where the >>> >> >> state >>> >> >> courts have supervised recounts, and this should have been another >>> >> >> such case; however, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the >>> >> >> recount, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s holding >>> >> >> authorizing the recount. Given the diffidence the Republican >>> >> >> packed >>> >> >> Supreme Court has shown both to federal and state governments and >>> >> >> their courts since November of 1975, political bias is the only >>> >> >> reasonable conclusion in Bush vs. Gore. Moreover a purported >>> conflict >>> >> >> of the 2 statutes (7 day limit for certifying an election result, >>> and >>> >> >> the 6 days to challenge to call for a recount) is easily resolved >>> >> >> by >>> >> >> interpreting as conjunctive, namely that the recount law stays the >>> >> >> 7 >>> >> >> day limit. The Supreme Court didn’t need to overturn the Florida >>> >> >> Supreme Court holding which stayed the time limit and for Florida >>> made >>> >> >> election recounts unlikely. Bush versus Gore was decided on >>> political >>> >> >> rather than legal grounds. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Even more disconcerting is the fact that politics decides law >>> >> >> enforcement. The criminal violation of election laws and civil >>> rights >>> >> >> were ignored by the attorney generals’ office (state and federal) >>> and >>> >> >> the legislative bodies. The attorney general’s offices were filled >>> >> >> with Republican appointees, and Republicans controlled both federal >>> >> >> and state legislatures. Obviously our country needs an independent >>> >> >> department of the FBI set up just to investigate political crimes. >>> I >>> >> >> would suggest that such a department should be under the >>> >> >> supervision >>> >> >> of law professors—jk. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> How the courts handled the election issue >>> >> >> >>> >> >> From www.wikipedia.org >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a U.S. Supreme Court case >>> heard >>> >> >> on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the >>> >> >> 2000 presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven >>> justices >>> >> >> found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain >>> >> >> counties >>> >> >> in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a >>> >> >> consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further >>> >> >> declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time >>> >> >> to >>> >> >> establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's >>> >> >> deadline for certifying electors. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in >>> >> >> Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida >>> >> >> campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes >>> gave >>> >> >> Bush a majority of the electoral college with 272 votes and enabled >>> >> >> him to win the Presidency. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The Presidential election in question took place on November 7, >>> 2000. >>> >> >> Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own >>> >> >> popular election for president, and the winner of each state's >>> >> >> election receives a number of "electoral votes." The winner of a >>> >> >> majority of the electoral college is elected President of the >>> >> >> United >>> >> >> States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported >>> >> >> that >>> >> >> Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of >>> victory >>> >> >> was less than 0.5% of the votes cast so an automatic machine >>> >> >> recount >>> >> >> was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of >>> >> >> victory >>> >> >> for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all >>> but >>> >> >> one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[2] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Florida's election laws[1] allow a candidate to request a county to >>> >> >> conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in >>> >> >> four >>> >> >> Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. The >>> >> >> four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. >>> However, >>> >> >> Florida law also required all counties to certify their election >>> >> >> returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the >>> >> >> election,[2] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts >>> >> >> did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the >>> >> >> statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day >>> >> >> deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their >>> >> >> returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, >>> >> >> after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had >>> >> >> discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide >>> >> >> certification.[3] Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia >>> >> >> county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At >>> 5pm, >>> >> >> Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she >>> >> >> was >>> >> >> in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while >>> >> >> Palm >>> >> >> Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting >>> >> >> manual >>> >> >> recounts.[4] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine >>> >> >> whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking >>> to >>> >> >> make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a >>> >> >> written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the >>> >> >> late >>> >> >> filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of >>> the >>> >> >> filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the >>> >> >> certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each >>> >> >> county, >>> >> >> she would certify the results of the presidential election on >>> >> >> Saturday, November 18, 2000.[5] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to >>> >> >> accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to >>> >> >> the Florida Supreme Court.[4] On November 17, the Florida Supreme >>> >> >> Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the >>> >> >> election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the >>> >> >> Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. >>> Harris >>> >> >> (Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual >>> recount >>> >> >> certified before November 26 at 5pm. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to >>> >> >> the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered >>> its >>> >> >> decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 >>> >> >> (2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida >>> >> >> Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their >>> >> >> ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court >>> was >>> >> >> concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida >>> >> >> constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the >>> >> >> ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ("Each >>> >> >> state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may >>> >> >> direct, a number of electors . . ."). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county >>> canceled >>> >> >> its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the >>> >> >> recount by November 26.[6] Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to >>> complete >>> >> >> the recount but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida >>> >> >> Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with >>> >> >> 2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes, >>> or >>> >> >> about 0.01%.[7] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> BACKGROUND >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of >>> >> >> the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who >>> denied >>> >> >> the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the >>> >> >> Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court >>> issued >>> >> >> its opinion in Gore v. Harris (Harris II). The court ordered a >>> manual >>> >> >> recount of only undervotes,[5] to be conducted by the Leon County >>> >> >> district court, for ballots from the counties and portion of >>> >> >> Miami-Dade county not subject to the previous manual tally. The >>> court >>> >> >> further ordered that the results of the November manual recount, >>> which >>> >> >> was conducted by the various County canvassing boards, for disputed >>> >> >> ballots in three counties and portions of a fourth county, which >>> would >>> >> >> have presumeably included some overvotes, be included in the final >>> >> >> state tally. Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court >>> >> >> on >>> >> >> December 9, and the Court issued a 5-4 injunction stopping the 64 >>> >> >> of >>> >> >> 67 county recount pending a final decision. The split on this was >>> the >>> >> >> same as the 5-4 split in the final ruling. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on >>> >> >> December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature >>> >> >> of >>> >> >> the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours >>> after >>> >> >> hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested >>> >> >> clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while >>> the >>> >> >> U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases >>> >> >> were >>> >> >> subsequently combined. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> RELEVANT LAW >>> >> >> >>> >> >> U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 >>> >> >> "No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the >>> >> laws." >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 >>> >> >> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature >>> >> >> thereof >>> >> >> may direct, a Number of Electors...." >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 3 U.S.C. § 5 >>> >> >> "If any State shall have provided...for its final determination >>> >> >> of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such >>> State...at >>> >> >> least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the >>> electors, >>> >> >> such determination...shall be conclusive." >>> >> >> >>> >> >> THE ISSUES >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve >>> the >>> >> >> case. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Who wins on the merits of the case: Bush or Gore? In other words, >>> are >>> >> >> the recounts as they are currently being conducted, constitutional? >>> >> >> If the recounts are unconstitutional, what is the remedy? >>> >> >> The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing: >>> they >>> >> >> thought that there was little chance of the recount being finished >>> by >>> >> >> the December 12 safe harbor deadline. >>> >> >> Bush was essentially making two distinct claims: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Equal Protection Claim >>> >> >> Bush argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal >>> Protection >>> >> >> Clause of the 14th Amendment because there was no statewide >>> >> >> standard >>> >> >> that each county board could use to determine whether a given >>> >> >> ballot >>> >> >> was a legal vote. His argument was that since each county used its >>> own >>> >> >> standard to count each vote, some counties would have more liberal >>> >> >> standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have >>> marked >>> >> >> their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one >>> >> >> county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a >>> different >>> >> >> county would be rejected, due to the varying standards. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent >>> of >>> >> >> the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, Gore argued that the >>> consequence >>> >> >> of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it >>> >> >> treated different voters differently would effectively render every >>> >> >> state election unconstitutional. This is because every state uses >>> >> >> different methods of recording votes in different counties (e.g., >>> >> >> optical scanners, punch-cards, etc.), and that each method has a >>> >> >> different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a >>> >> >> "punch-card" >>> >> >> county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a >>> >> >> voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, >>> every >>> >> >> state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to >>> be >>> >> >> constitutional. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Seven justices agreed that Bush won on this claim. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Article II Claim >>> >> >> Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated >>> Art. >>> >> >> II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state >>> to >>> >> >> appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may >>> >> >> direct." Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's >>> >> >> interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous, that their ruling >>> had >>> >> >> the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been >>> >> >> directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Art. II. >>> Ordinarily, >>> >> >> when a state's highest court interprets state law, that >>> interpretation >>> >> >> is final, and a federal court can't question it. Bush argued, >>> however, >>> >> >> that Art. II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret >>> state >>> >> >> election law for itself to ensure that the intent of the state >>> >> >> legislature is followed. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Gore argued that Art. II presupposes judicial review and >>> >> >> interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme >>> >> >> Court >>> >> >> did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory >>> >> >> construction in order to reach its decision. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Only three justices, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and >>> >> >> Justice Thomas, accepted Bush's argument on this issue. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The remedy >>> >> >> If the current recount were unconstitutional, the State of Florida >>> >> >> would have to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time >>> >> >> available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was >>> >> >> scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven >>> days >>> >> >> away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5 >>> >> >> established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its >>> >> >> electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College >>> >> >> would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be >>> >> >> challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12, >>> the >>> >> >> very next day. It is possible that the recount would have been >>> >> >> finished by this non-binding deadline if the Supreme Court had not >>> >> >> stayed the recount on December 9th. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Consequently, the court had to address whether to allow the redo of >>> >> >> the recount that would subsequently be submitted by Florida, but >>> miss >>> >> >> the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and >>> go >>> >> >> with the certified results of November 26. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Five justices decided to stop all recounts. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Bush was represented before the Court by Theodore B. Olson, a >>> >> >> Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore's oral >>> >> >> argument was delivered by attorney David Boies. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [edit] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The decision >>> >> >> A 5–4 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. >>> >> >> The majority opinion, which represented the opinions of five >>> justices, >>> >> >> noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being >>> >> >> recounted. It cited, in particular, the use of differing standards; >>> >> >> the combination of full manual recounts for some counties and for >>> >> >> selected precincts within Miami-Dade County with partial recounts >>> for >>> >> >> other counties and for the rest of Miami-Dade; and the perceived >>> >> >> impracticality of the process ordered by the Florida court. >>> >> >> Furthermore, this 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid >>> >> >> recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in >>> statute, >>> >> >> effectively ending the recounts. The opinion stated that the >>> >> >> state-wide standard ("if the voter's intent is clear, the vote >>> should >>> >> >> be counted") could not guarantee that each county would count the >>> >> >> votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal >>> >> >> Protection >>> >> >> Clause of the United States Constitution. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority >>> >> >> opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more >>> >> >> conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal >>> >> >> justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason >>> >> >> recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages >>> >> >> ordered >>> >> >> by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents >>> argued >>> >> >> that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to >>> grant >>> >> >> an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the >>> ruling >>> >> >> based on the possibility of "irreparable harm" to "George Bush's >>> >> >> reputation as the legitimate winner." Injunctions for irreparable >>> harm >>> >> >> cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater >>> >> >> harm >>> >> >> to another party (in this case, Al Gore). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others >>> including >>> >> >> the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be >>> >> >> interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up >>> >> >> until >>> >> >> the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The >>> >> >> majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme >>> >> >> Court >>> >> >> that the Florida legislature intended to obtain the benefits of >>> >> >> federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. Thus, >>> sending >>> >> >> the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could >>> be >>> >> >> not appropriate under Florida statute. ([8] 4th & 5th paragraphs >>> from >>> >> >> end). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh >>> >> >> treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent scathingly >>> >> >> concluded: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the >>> Florida >>> >> >> election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the >>> >> >> impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the >>> >> >> critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, >>> their >>> >> >> position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position >>> by >>> >> >> the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most >>> cynical >>> >> >> appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is >>> confidence >>> >> >> in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the >>> >> >> true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound >>> to >>> >> >> that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One >>> thing, >>> >> >> however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete >>> >> >> certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential >>> >> >> election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the >>> >> >> Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the >>> rule >>> >> >> of law. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I respectfully dissent. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> majority opinion: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the >>> >> >> problem of equal protection in election processes generally >>> >> >> presents >>> >> >> many complexities. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The court's defenders considered this a reasonable precaution >>> against >>> >> >> the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly, >>> >> >> arguing >>> >> >> that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to >>> >> >> attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to >>> apply >>> >> >> the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the >>> sentence >>> >> >> as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could >>> >> >> not be used to justify any future court decision, and some >>> >> >> suggested >>> >> >> that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was >>> >> >> untenable. It was seen by many as a departure from the stare >>> >> >> decisis >>> >> >> principle. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In brief the breakdown of the decisions were: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4. >>> >> >> (Kennedy, >>> >> >> O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, >>> >> >> Ginsburg, >>> >> >> Souter and Stevens opposed) >>> >> >> The finding that using different standards of counting in different >>> >> >> areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was >>> approved >>> >> >> by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter >>> >> >> and >>> >> >> Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed) >>> >> >> The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the >>> >> >> intent >>> >> >> of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, >>> Scalia >>> >> >> and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter >>> and >>> >> >> Stevens opposed) >>> >> >> ENDNOTES >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Facts & Circumstances warranting waiver of statutory deadline >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. Where there is proof of voter fraud that affects the outcome of >>> >> >> the election. In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170, >>> 1172 >>> >> >> (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. >>> 2d >>> >> >> 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2. Where there has been a substantial noncompliance with statutory >>> >> >> election procedures, and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the >>> >> >> certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. >>> >> >> Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 3. Where election officials have made a good faith effort to >>> >> >> comply >>> >> >> with the statutory deadline and are prevented from timely complying >>> >> >> with their duties as a result of an act of God, or extenuating >>> >> >> circumstances beyond their control, by way of example, an >>> >> >> electrical >>> >> >> power outage, a malfunction of the transmitting equipment, or a >>> >> >> mechanical malfunction of the voting tabulation system. McDermott >>> >> >> v. >>> >> >> Harris, No. 00-2700 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 14, 2000) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Facts & circumstances Not Warranting waiver of statutory deadline >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. Where there has been substantial compliance with statutory >>> >> >> election procedures and the contested results relate to voter >>> >> >> error, >>> >> >> and there exists a reasonable expectation that the certified >>> >> >> results >>> >> >> expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County >>> >> >> Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2. Where there exists a ballot that may be confusing because of >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> alignment and location of the candidates’ names, but is otherwise >>> >> >> in >>> >> >> substantial compliance with the election laws. Nelson v. Robinson, >>> 301 >>> >> >> So. 2d 508, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (“[M]ere confusion does not >>> amount >>> >> >> to an impediment to the voters’ free choice if reasonable time and >>> >> >> study will sort it out.”). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 3. Where there is nothing “more than a mere possibility that the >>> >> >> outcome of the election would have been effected.” Broward County >>> >> >> Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> More: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 1/5/11, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> > And once again, Tommy forgets that Knight Ridder, Hearst, CBS, >>> >> >> > and >>> >> five >>> >> >> > other news organizations collectively recounted all 66 Florida >>> >> counties' >>> >> >> > votes. It was conclusive that George Bush won Florida, which >>> >> >> > was >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > determinative State during the 2000 election. Again, Moonbat's >>> >> >> > with >>> >> >> hate, >>> >> >> > lies and smear, who would love to do nothing less than revise >>> >> >> > history. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM, GregfromBoston >>> >> >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> No, they got it right. State courts have no say in elector >>> >> >> >> selection >>> >> >> >> rules. NONE. Its that friggin simple Tommy. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> And by the way, the SCOTUS death blow, was 9-0 >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Cumulative score, 21-6, with all 3 UBER liberal circuit courts >>> >> >> >> in >>> >> >> >> agreement. Gore was never in the ballpark. Had he gone to the >>> >> >> >> legislature, he'd have had standing. He didn't, and didn't. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Most learned that lesson. See Article II, Section 1. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Jan 5, 10:36 am, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > The Conservative, biased SCOTUS got it wrong. Gore won the >>> >> election. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Appointing BUSH was a grave and costly mistake. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > On 1/4/11, GregfromBoston <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > Al Gore won the election in 2000 >>> >> >> >> > > The truth conservatives COULDN'T spin in 2001 >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > LOL! >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > Damn shame 3 circuit courts, the Constitution and the >>> >> >> >> > > Supreme >>> >> Court >>> >> >> >> > > think you're wrong. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > Gore sought relief in the wrong room, and got dope slapped. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > Now, maybe he didn't know the state court was irrelevant, >>> >> >> >> > > but >>> >> that >>> >> >> >> > > would make him the dumbest VPOTUS in history. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > Scary dumb. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > I don't believe that. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > -- >>> >> >> >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> >> >> > > For options & help seehttp:// >>> >> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > > * Visit our other community >>> >> >> >> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >>> http://www.politicalforum.com/ >>> >> >< >>> >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> >> >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> >> >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> >> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>> >> >> >> > Have a great day, >>> >> >> >> > Tommy- Hide quoted text - >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> >> >> For options & help see >>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> * Visit our other community at >>> >> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >>> http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >>> >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> >> > For options & help see >>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > * Visit our other community at >>> >> >> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >>> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>> >> >> Have a great day, >>> >> >> Tommy >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> >> For options & help see >>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >> >>> >> >> * Visit our other community at >>> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >>> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> > >>> >> > * Visit our other community at >>> >> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>> >> Have a great day, >>> >> Tommy >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >>> >> * Visit our other community at >>> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Mark M. Kahle H. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> > >>> > * Visit our other community at >>> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>> Have a great day, >>> Tommy >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at >>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle H. >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. Have a great day, Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
