Give me

[10Bears]

But to the point... you do or don't feel like hypocrite given that you'd cheerfully accept the results if Gore won in exactly the opposite circumstances?[/b]

sigh Toad... And the bottom line is----

As part of the 'war on terrorism, Ashcroft & Co. have indited an attorney defending an muslim clergyman, on the grounds that answering questions from the press constituted communicating terrorist information (and virtually guaranteeing that the next hundred defendants, foreign or domestic, accused to terrorism or other anti-government activities will be unable to secure competent defense counsel). They have demanded the "right" to bug all communications between (certain) defendants and their attorneys. They have broken into offices and searched them, with no notice, under "secret" warrants.

It is now time to fly.. and that is all I have to say

[Kieran]

All I can tell you guys is that next time I'm voting against Hillary, and I don't care who the opposition is.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Kieran
All I can tell you guys is that next time I'm voting against Hillary, and I don't care who the opposition is.

What if the opposition was Bill?

[Kieran]

Can't happen. Bill can't pass as a Republican or Libertarian, and Hillary will probably get the ticket for the Democrats. Indeed it would be a nightmarish scenario, enough to make me vote "Nader".

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Then ya hold up this Republican dominated Supreme Court's decision that placed said President in office... as if the courts were acting objectively or impartialy... as if it were a simple matter of law that placed Bush in the white house.

Two points here, I think.

First of all, none of these justices were appointed by George Jr.

Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon.

Stevens by Ford

O'Connor, Scalia, & Kennedy by Reagan

Souter and Thomas by Bush Sr.

Ginsberg and Breyer by Clinton.

So, remember that of the 9, 7 were appointed by Republicans.

Now:

U.S. Supreme Court rules manual vote recounts unconstitutional

"Seven justices of this Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court," according to a 7-2 "per curiam," or unsigned, opinion in Bush v. Gore. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy."

"...Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stevens wrote dissents to parts of or the entire unsigned opinion, forming the four-justice minority."


We might carefully assume that the dissent on the 7-2 opinion was by Breyer (he actually wrote the dissent so he's a given) and probably Ginsburg. Both Clinton appointees.

If one were to take the "They just voted their party line" comment as an indictment, then aren't the Democrat-nominated Justices just as guilty of voting the "party line" as the Republicans?

What difference would there be? Would it be honorable for the Dems to vote "party line" but dishonorable for Reps to do so?

However, I don't believe "party line" was the case. Obviously, in the 5-4 decision, two Republican appointed Justices voted with two Democrat appointed Justices to form the minority.

I choose to believe that the Supreme Court is reliable, is trustworthy and will decide on merit before the law rather than politics.

I realize that there are those that will disagree with me and think me crazy.

However, if it isn't like that, all is indeed lost and those of you calling for an armed revolution might as well get started.

Ya gotta believe in something. I don't believe in Congress. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron. There aren't any "honest politicians" in Congress.. they're on weekly sale to the highest bidder. IMO, of course.

I don't believe in the Presidents. For the same reason.. they won't stay bought.

I do choose to believe that the 9 Justices nominated by Presidents and examined and confirmed by the Congresses are my best hope at living out my life under the Constitution as the Framer's intended life in this country to be.

YMMV.

[Toad]

Originally posted by 10Bears


sigh Toad... And the bottom line is----

LOL! Now a sidestep to Ashcroft?

Ashcroft will be dealt with and most probably by the Supreme Court. That's EXACTLY why they're there and that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

But, THAT'S not the bottom line at all.

The bottom line is this:

In my opinion, you don't give a hoot about HOW your guys wins just as long as YOUR GUY wins.

In my opinion, you don't give a hoot about what lies he tells or what dishonesty he's involved in as long as he's YOUR GUY.

You've pretty much said this stuff over and over again in various threads.

If Bush wagged his finger at me on TV and tried to give us all a new definition of "is" I'd be calling for his head just as I called for Clinton's.

If Gore had won the election following the exact same route that put Bush in the White House, I'd still be saying "Gore won the Electoral" and "the Supreme Court ruled in his favor". "It's done. It's done as well as the system could do it. I'm over it."

THAT is the bottom line; that's the DIFFERENCE. IMO.

[lord dolf vader]

man you are the king of circular reasoning . you present your argument as the opositions (wich it is not) and then say they are no better than you and the system that is perverted by political appointees voting their party affiliation. the same system will reign in political nuts that were appointed by the guy who was put in office by corrupted political appointees in the first place.yea shure


you are well spoken but dead wrong they stole the highest office in the country aginst the will of the majority of the people in the us and the state of florida. wrong is wrong. saying the other guy could and should do the same is a jail house argument at best.

[Rude]

10Bears.....

If you believe that GW has turned the world against us, then you are more naive than I first thought.....our allies have always loved us haven't they?

The fact of this matter is that no one man will solve any of these issues....what we all should be tiring of is the fact that our government can't work towards the good of the American people, but rather play politics at our expense.

I understand the pleasure you derive from blaming Bush for all of our woes...it's a simple, comfortable and easy place from which to throw stones.

Have fun.

[Toad]

Sorry Towd. Can't really decipher that first part.

If you are saying that I think the Supreme Court simply voted by political affilation in the Bush/Gore case, you misinterpreted it.

Obviously, they did not because two of the Republican appointees were in the dissent.

OTOH, if they did vote by political affliation (which I don't believe) then only Democrats voted as a "bloc"; the Republicans split 5-2. So if voting by party affiliation is evil, then who is the "evilest"? I like to think they all voted on the merits of the case as they saw it.

Basically, I feel/felt Bush is more likely to appoint "strict constructionist" Judges that don't try to read more into the Constitution than is there. It's written in pretty simple language, not that hard to understand.

I prefer the "strict constructionist" approach. I also, perhaps foolishly, believe that Supreme Court Judges are our best hope of living our lives under the Constitution as the Founding Father's actually intended. The various Congresses and the various Presidents don't impress me much.

I think those Founding Father guys were pretty smart and created a fine system. I don't really want a lot of tinkering by inventive/creative Judges.

Don't know if I addressed what you were saying there...

***

Steal the office?

No, I don't think so. You may, but that's your opinion.

Popular vote means nothing. See the Electoral College. Popular vote is just "sour grapes". Continued "popular vote" complaints displays either an inability to accept the facts or an inability to understand the US Electoral College.

The Florida vote was a mess. That's the entire source of the dispute. However, look at the root cause. That mess started with the infamous Palm Beach Ballot. Who was the Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach? There was no secret conspiracy or plot; there was a screw-up.

It ended up being a totally Fubar situation; not suprising it ended up in the Courts. BOTH sides were appealing to courts, as you will recall.

The courts settled it. Best way, IMO. You may not like the result but at least there was no bloodshed.

Beyond that and despite the recent spin, the Herald/USAToday reviews of ballots still showed Bush the winner.

Time to get over it, I'd say.

As you pointed out, 2002 isn't that far off. In fact, we'll all probably be sick of the campaigning before you know it.

I hope all you folks channel that anger. Go volunteer to work for the candidate of your choice.