Sec of state upheld

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

The difference between Secretary of state Harris being On the George DoubleYa election committee and the Florida Supreme Court being appointed by Democratic Governors is this.

1. Polaticians are Partisan and Justice is blind.

That is a very clear distinction between the various branches of Government. The court has to act within guild lines of the legal system, ie. legal precedence. Where as the Secretary of State has no such restriction since she is a partisan politician. Why don't you just ask Jeb Bush who should be president. After all he was elected Governor. He should be able to determine "The will of the people" right?

BTW, the Texas voting Machines are brand new with optical sensors and still there is a hand count provision, why? Because machines malfunction and ultimately it is up to people to decide elections. If Hand counts are fraudulent then they are fraudulent in Texas as well. George W. however thinks they are good enough for his state but not others?

Also I would be in favor of a State wide recount or a revote. I would be in favor of a celebrity death match at this point.

Later
F4UDOA

[Toad]

Please, let's all be careful in our arguments.

The "Texas Recount" law has been repeatedly used in attempts to show a contradiction in the Bush/Republican position on recounts in Florida.

In this age of the Internet, there's no need to guess about the Texas law. Here's the address for the Texas Secretary of State's page on recounts:
 http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/recounts.shtml


It's short enough to read in a few minutes. Here's key clips that show that the Texas law would not allow what is going on in Florida:

Recount procedures are used only to recount the votes in a particular race, office or measure. The recounting of a particular race does not:

B. Delay canvassing (but the canvassing authority must make a note on the canvass that a recount has been requested) [Sec. 212.033];

D.  Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted once) [Sec. 212.005].

V. Petition (Application) Contents. [Sec. 212.001]

4. If requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots, specify manual or electronic recount.

If more than one petition for recount is filed and more than one method of counting is requested, a manual recount takes precedence over an electronic recount. And an electronic recount using a corrected program takes precedence over electronic recount using the same program as the original count;

So, the "Texas Recount Law" is not directly applicable to what's happening in Florida.

Please try to keep these discussions on a level plane. The more I read of this stuff, the more I'm reminded of that old "tell a lie often enough" quote.

The facts are generally available and only a few clicks away.

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

So Texas does or does not have provisions for a hand count?

If they do, how is that hand count any lees valid than a hand count in Florida?

I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.

BTW, does your "not telling the truth is telling a lie" apply to George W. and his Drunk Driving conviction. Remember only applying rules to one side when they suit you is the same as hippocracy.

[LJK Raubvogel]

D. Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted
                   once) [Sec. 212.005].

hmm...seems pretty black and white to me F4U. Methinks some people have selective vision.


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Gunthr]

F4UDOA,
You stated:

 

That is a very clear distinction between the various branches of Government. The court has to act within guild lines of the legal system, ie. legal precedence. Where as the Secretary of State has no such restriction since she is a partisan politician.

I disagree:

1. All the elected and appointed officials under discussion have political affiliations, including the Democratic Supreme Court Justices.

2. Secretary of State Harris is bound by law, as are the Supreme Court Judges. Secretary of State Harris is able to exercise some discretion in certain areas of her job, while the Supreme Court Justices are able to INTERPERET the law.

Something that disturbs me is that Florida Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for life, as are US Supreme Court Justices. When Florida Supreme Court Justices' terms expire, they face "merit retention" in a general election. Therefore, they are somewhat beholden to thier political party if they wish to remain on that bench. When they interpret the law, you can bet that these 7 judges have one eye on the expiration date of thier terms.

<S> Gunthr
 

[F4UDOA]

Gunthr,

The guide lines of the Law are biased on Legal Precedence. In other words the Law is a growing document linked to it's past and is held up to review by higher courts. The Florida Secretary of State has no such guide lines for making decisions or review boards for oversight. That is a pretty significant difference.

The Supreme court of the US is only a lifetime seat based on when the Judge wants to give up his seat. One of the conservative Justices has already commented that they will not step down if Al Gore is elected president. Much like the State supreme courts it has it's roots in Partisan politics.

LJK Raubvogel,

I said
 

I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.

If my vision is selective, you must be blind.

The stated reasons against a hand count by the republican party is the inaccuracy of the hand count, not the right of a state to have a hand count. Florida law already has provisions for hand counting of ballots.
The Hippocracy is that George W. signed a law enabling Hand counts in his state while he opposes the rights of people in other states to do the same.



[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-20-2000).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

F4U, I suggest you scroll up and read Toads post again....real slow this time. You keep throwing that catch phrase hypocrisy around. The Texas law does not allow the garbage that is going on in Floriduh, so where is the hypocrisy?

 

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
 n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies.

         1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

According to the Texas law:
 

A.    Request must include every election precinct in the territory from which
                            the office is elected (unless the ground is counting errors) [Sec. 212.131].

That's not happening in Floriduh, now is it?
 

XIX. Effect on Canvass.

                            A request for a recount does not delay the canvass, but the canvassing
                            authority must make a note on the canvass that a recount has been
                            requested [Sec. 212.033].

Also not happening in Floriduh.
 

The recounting of a particular race does not (Image removed from quote.).  Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted
                            once) [Sec. 212.005].

Strike 3, or do you need me to point out more differences between the Texas law and what is happening in Floriduh?

The point is, if things were being done according to the Texas law, the election would have already been certified....twice!

You might want to choose a better word than hypocrisy, because it doesn't apply here.



------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Rickenbacker]

I just wanted to add that any sane court would in this case have all the lawyers rounded up, taken out back and shot.

 

 

[Mighty1]

F4 the ballots in Texas are different so you can't say that he is being a hypocrite.

But since you are calling Bush a hypocrite how about the Lieberman going on TV telling people that the Repubs are unjustly saying that the Demos officials are throwing out absentee ballots just because they are from the military and that the Repubs should trust them because they are elected officials while the whole time he is saying that secretary of State Harris should NOT be trusted.

On the same line the Demos keep saying that the Repubs should let the canvassing boards do what they feel is right but when Broward and Miami-Dade counties decided not to do a manual re-re-count the Demos threatened to sue them.

Talk about hypocrites! YEESH!

[F4UDOA]

LJK Raubvogel,

You either don't want to listen or your just not reading my post.

I don't care if the law is different in Texas than in Florida. They both have provisions for hand counts!!!

The argument from the republicans in front of the Florida supreme court isn't that a hand count is against the Florida election law. They are arguing that all election results have to be in 7 days after the election.

The question I am asking you is why is a hand count in Texas less likely to be "fraught with mischief" according to the Republicans than a Hand recount in Florida.
That is hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.


Mighty1

Why would you question Lieberman for Military absentee ballots that had no Post Mark. The Democrats decided to let those ballots count despite having no post mark or date when they were sent. Did you read that in a Republican comic book or something? At least the Dems let the votes of it's citizens count despite a processing error.
And Mrs.Harris is on the George W. election committee. But I bet you don't care about that do you.

F4UDOA

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
So Texas does or does not have provisions for a hand count?

If they do, how is that hand count any lees valid than a hand count in Florida?

Yes, if you bothered to go to the Texas Sec. of State site, you can see that Texas has a law that allows a manual recount.

Further, as has already been pointed out, that Texas law has procedural qualifications and restrictions on recounts that would not allow the type of recount that is going on in Florida.

Therefore, to say that Bush supports one particular procedure for recounts while not supporting another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT particular procedure for recounts does not make him hypocritical.

I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.

This Florida recount would not be valid in Texas. (I'll wager the Texas-style recount would more than fulfill Florida standards however  (Image removed from quote.))Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges. These two types of manual recounts are NOT the same except in the most superficial respects.

BTW, does your "not telling the truth is telling a lie" apply to George W. and his Drunk Driving conviction. Remember only applying rules to one side when they suit you is the same as hippocracy.

As Reagan used to say "There you go again". Blowing smoke to obscure the present topic.

OK, I'll bite:

Please show me any source that says Bush was ever asked about past DUI arrests. In other words, show me where he was asked about it and then directly anc clearly lied about this incident.

Now, if you can't find that, are you saying that he "lied" by not volunteering his entire life story when asked some general question? If so, show me the politician who is "not guilty" of this "crime"?

Or does it "Depend on what your definition of "IS" is?"

ROTFLMFAO!

[Mighty1]

F4 my point was that the Demos are doing the same thing they are accusing the Repubs of doing.

And please! saying that the Demos are LETTING these people vote is total BS. They were given a 5 page document saying how to disqualify these ballots. CNN reported this.

As for the comic book comment all I can say is if I wanted to see fantasy and or comedy all I need to do is look at the way the Demos are running there lawsuits in Florida.

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

You are an ex-government employee. What is the first thing they ask you before you can get a job? Ever been arrested, ever been convicted of a felony. You can't get a security clearance if you answer yes to those questions. Do you think Bush forgot?
Remember it was the Republicans who spent millions of dollars trying to find out if Clinton was porking his secretary. Now that there is some dirt on Bush you act as if he is a religious icon. Please, he was Alcoholic coke head until his dad got him a couple of jobs. Quid Pro Quo my fellow Americans.

Mighty1,

The Democrats aren't letting anyone vote, they are allowing votes to count that would otherwise be disqualified because of technicalities in the voting process ie. no Post mark.

Oh and by the way, it is the private citizens that are suing in Florida, and the Republican party using the Supreme court of the US to override the States verdict before the recount is even done. Now who's letting who vote????
 

[Mighty1]

Private citizens who are being supported by the Demos with money and lawyers.

The Repubs went to Federal court because they feel that it would end up there anyway so why  go thru all the BS lawsuits that the Demos have going and just go to the court that could have the final say.

[Toad]

Are you now saying Bush filled out a government application for President and lied?

 

Again, YOU are the one trying to make the case that Bush lied about his past. The burden of proof is on you.  

Now, do you have proof he was asked about any DUI incidents and lied?

Apparently you don't or you would not have to take off on a tangent.

Or are you saying he should have given the world his entire life history including all brushes with the law down to and including jaywalking without being asked?

If so, are you going to claim that Gore did that?

I doubt it; I suspect that if you did you'd be wandering in swamp of untruths that would drown your argument.  

You are desperate to trash Bush, apparently.

I guess you hope it will somehow make Gore look better in comparison.

Those of us who really aren't blindly partisan know that there is essentially no difference in Bush and Gore. They are both politicians, in the most demeaning sense of the word. Mere Party Hacks...no difference between Republican or Democrat. NEITHER one of these guys is the leader the US needs right now...in fact, IMHO, neither one of these guys is a leader at all.

We're stuck with one of them for the next 4 years, though. I voted for the one that I believe will appoint Supreme Court justices closer to my view of the Constitution. That's it.

I make no claims for sainthood for Bush. Nor would I for Gore, if I had voted for him.