Author Topic: Ethics Question (Read 402 times)

midnight Target · « **on:** October 02, 2003, 04:18:55 PM »

If the Supreme Court had no right to stop the recount in Florida in 2000, does it matter what the final outcome would have been?

or...... Would you be outraged at the political decision made by the court?

Mark Luper · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2003, 04:52:01 PM »

MT,
I read that three or four times. Could you reword it so this dumb Texican can understand it?

kesolei · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:21:03 PM »

I just have to say.. the first thing that ran through my mind when I saw "Ethics Question" as the subject of a post in the o'club was, "Okay, what poor fool is asking these guys for help with ethics?"

midnight Target · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:39:03 PM »

OK Mark...

Is a favorable result stemming from a criminal act OK or not.

For example...

A sniper draws a bead on the President, he hiccups at the last second and accidently shoots the guy behind the President holding a handgun.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:43:17 PM »

If it was illegal of course it was bad, duh.
Of course nobody has demonstrated this.
Furthermore nobody has demonstrated that the DNC's multiple recounts were legal. Which is why the Supremes ruled as they did.

Martlet · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:44:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Mark...

Is a favorable result stemming from a criminal act OK or not.

For example...

A sniper draws a bead on the President, he hiccups at the last second and accidently shoots the guy behind the President holding a handgun.

A favorable result stemming from a criminal act is not ok, IMO.

Dang, these are easy once you understand what gramps is saying.
Next question?

midnight Target · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:51:17 PM »

I just started reading a book on the subject by Vincent Bugliosi. (Former LA prosecutor and the author of Helter Skelter)
He makes some very compelling arguments that kinda flow like this...

1. The equal protection argument by the Bush side was incredibly bad law. How could Bush be harmed by a recount? He couldn't. The only people harmed were the uncounted voters of Florida.

2. Bush didn't meet the "Standing to Sue" requirement. In essence, he had no right to bring a case since he wasn't wronged.

3. Gore's attorneys were lame idiots. They missed completely the opening s above and never really contested the Bush sides 14th amendment argument.

4. The decision was so "political" (5-4) as to be the worst since Dred Scott. (OK that was opinion, but I felt like I needed a #4).

Dune · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2003, 05:58:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Mark...

Is a favorable result stemming from a criminal act OK or not.

For example...

A sniper draws a bead on the President, he hiccups at the last second and accidently shoots the guy behind the President holding a handgun.

He is still guilty of attempted murder on the president, regardless of the outcome.

Quote

A.R.S. 13-1001. Attempt; classifications

A. A person commits attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of an offense, such person:

1. Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute an offense if the attendant circumstances were as such person believes them to be; or

2. Intentionally does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as such person believes them to be, is any step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in commission of an offense; or

3. Engages in conduct intended to aid another to commit an offense, although the offense is not committed or attempted by the other person, provided his conduct would establish his complicity under chapter 3 if the offense were committed or attempted by the other person.

B. It is no defense that it was impossible for the person to aid the other party's commission of the offense, provided such person could have done so had the circumstances been as he believed them to be.

Martlet · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2003, 06:06:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I just started reading a book on the subject by Vincent Bugliosi. (Former LA prosecutor and the author of Helter Skelter)
He makes some very compelling arguments that kinda flow like this...

1. The equal protection argument by the Bush side was incredibly bad law. How could Bush be harmed by a recount? He couldn't. The only people harmed were the uncounted voters of Florida.

2. Bush didn't meet the "Standing to Sue" requirement. In essence, he had no right to bring a case since he wasn't wronged.

3. Gore's attorneys were lame idiots. They missed completely the opening s above and never really contested the Bush sides 14th amendment argument.

4. The decision was so "political" (5-4) as to be the worst since Dred Scott. (OK that was opinion, but I felt like I needed a #4).

When you're trolling, you should just get right down to it. Instead of making a cryptic, post like your initial one, just jump right in instead. You always get there eventually anyway.

What you fail to mention is Gore attempted recounts in zones with a Demoratic majority. If you are going to do a recount, then recount them all.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2003, 07:38:48 PM »

was just going to say the same thing....as I recall bush wanted a recount of ALL of florida...not just the democratically poplulated counties.

This to me seems more ethical to recount the entire state rather than just pick and choose wich counties would give one party the most votes

john9001 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2003, 08:03:02 PM »

florida 'recount " was not stoped,there were 3 or 4 "recounts" all that gore lost, the LAW said the votes had to be turned by a certain date, the date had passed and gore wanted more recounts, the florida SC said keep on counting dimpled chads,they were trying to determin the "intent" of the voters, the US SC said enough BS ,obay the LAW and count the votes that you have.

the neo-liberals will never say bush won.

ra · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2003, 08:46:04 PM »

Heh heh "neo-liberals", I love it.

Yah all those dangling chads waiting for weeks to be 'recounted' were making me nervous. Gore is the world's biggest dork.
He lost with the minumum grace humanly possible. That should be his epitaph.

ra