Author Topic: Now that Gore let the recount cat out of the bag, elections will never be the same. (Read 1833 times)

BB Gun · « **Reply #45 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:24:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The Fla SC called for a hand count of the undervotes. The US SC denied this based on the 14th Amendment. This is as bogus a ruling as the SC has ever made.

Whether Gore would have won or not is irrelevent. The SC's ruling was still wrong.

The bogus ruling was the coining of the term "undervote" and the decision to count them by the SCOFLA.

BB

midnight Target · « **Reply #46 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:31:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

LOL read the Fla election law. Especially the part about deadlines for recounts. Taramount to treason to uphold the law...yeah..shame on the SC...

It never ceases to amaze me the sort of voulontary amnesia combined with an hysterical distortion of the truth you libs can come up with in situations like these... [/B]

Here is a quote from the SC ruling regarding dates...

"The Secretary(of State) declined to waive the November 14th deadline imposed by statute."

Now you are an attorney Hortlund. They in effect admitted that the deadline was "Waivable".

Now tell me how the Fla. SC ruling was set aside by citing the 14th Amendment... huh?

Your great at the vitriol, but short on substance here.

Kieran · « **Reply #47 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:40:17 PM »

Prove she arbitrarily refused to waive the deadline. If you want to use law as your defense, surely you know she was well within her rights in the law to impose the deadline.

midnight Target · « **Reply #48 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:51:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Prove she arbitrarily refused to waive the deadline. If you want to use law as your defense, surely you know she was well within her rights in the law to impose the deadline.

Who said it was arbitrary? The quote just proves that it was waivable.

And the SC was not using the law properly when it cited the 14th amendment... why do you keep ignoring the facts?

Hortlund · « **Reply #49 on:** October 04, 2003, 01:13:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
"The Secretary(of State) declined to waive the November 14th deadline imposed by statute."

Now you are an attorney Hortlund. They in effect admitted that the deadline was "Waivable".

yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not, and lesson #1 in law school is along the lines of "dont try to use common sense when you are reading rulings from the supreme court". And dont try to read between the lines.

To cut this short, I dont see the SC saying that the deadline was waivable, I just see them saying that she didnt waive the deadline. To you that may seem to be the same thing, to me its not. Higher courts always try to get rid of the case as soon and as easy as possible. This is because they dont really much like to rule over too wide issues because they are aware of the fact that these rulings tend to become law. That means that if they can cut it on "declined to waive the deadline" they do just that, so they can avoid the very much more complicated "is the deadline waiveable"-question.

ANYWAY, I fail to see the reasoning behind your accusations against the SC, though. I dunno, maybe its because you have missunderstood some aspect of the law, maybe its beacuse I dont know enough about US law. I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong.

Kieran · « **Reply #50 on:** October 04, 2003, 03:54:04 PM »

Primarily because I believe they were correct about the 14th Amendment- at least as right as interpretations that protect handicapped, sexual orientation, races, etc.

If the recount could not be conducted in a way that was equal to all voters, it had to end. The damaged ballots were beyond reasonable hand recounts.

strk · « **Reply #51 on:** October 04, 2003, 04:17:39 PM »

IMHO the supremes had a conflict of interest in decideing the case because the person who they chose would be picing the next justice(s) to sit on the bench. O'Connor and Rehnquist both are very near retirement and it is not inconceivable that they would want to be replaced with conservative justices.

It was also disappointing to see the court split on their ruling 5-4 along their respective partisan lines (Bush 1 appointees notwithstanding)

The whole equal protection argument was thin IMHO - the majority opinion seemed to put the rights of a candidate above the rights of the voters to have their votes counted

And iirc the recount would have come out differently depending on the standard used and locality. lets not forget the butterfly ballot and the 3000 jews voting for buchanan

strk

Kieran · « **Reply #52 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:21:56 PM »

I'm pretty sure if I accidentally voted for Gore in Indiana the vote would have counted.

Sandman · « **Reply #53 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:23:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
I'm pretty sure if I accidentally voted for Gore in Indiana the vote would have counted.

I'm pretty sure that if you accidently voted for something other than what you intended, you should have your teaching credentials yanked.

AKIron · « **Reply #54 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:45:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm pretty sure that if you accidently voted for something other than what you intended, you should have your teaching credentials yanked.

And maybe your voting rights as well?

FTndr · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2003, 06:34:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

:::::sniped:::::

I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong. [/B]

This sounds like ELITISM to me.

just my 2 cents......

Sandman · « **Reply #56 on:** October 04, 2003, 06:35:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
And maybe your voting rights as well?

No need... the idiots will cancel each other out.

midnight Target · « **Reply #57 on:** October 04, 2003, 06:37:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Primarily because I believe they were correct about the 14th Amendment- at least as right as interpretations that protect handicapped, sexual orientation, races, etc.

If the recount could not be conducted in a way that was equal to all voters, it had to end. The damaged ballots were beyond reasonable hand recounts.

So how was Bush treated unfairly? How was Bush harmed by the recount of ALL undervotes? I can cite SC rulings that specify that violation of the Equal Protection covered in the 14th Amendment must be PURPOSEFUL.

The only possible problem with a hand recount of the 60,000 undervotes would be that each County might specify different criteria for the recount. This in no way violates the 14th as each person in said County gets the same treatment. No discrimination can occur across Counties. Thus no one is harmed if the recount continues..... except the Republican Party.

Scandalous.

midnight Target · « **Reply #58 on:** October 04, 2003, 06:43:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not, and lesson #1 in law school is along the lines of "dont try to use common sense when you are reading rulings from the supreme court". And dont try to read between the lines.

To cut this short, I dont see the SC saying that the deadline was waivable, I just see them saying that she didnt waive the deadline. To you that may seem to be the same thing, to me its not. Higher courts always try to get rid of the case as soon and as easy as possible. This is because they dont really much like to rule over too wide issues because they are aware of the fact that these rulings tend to become law. That means that if they can cut it on "declined to waive the deadline" they do just that, so they can avoid the very much more complicated "is the deadline waiveable"-question.

ANYWAY, I fail to see the reasoning behind your accusations against the SC, though. I dunno, maybe its because you have missunderstood some aspect of the law, maybe its beacuse I dont know enough about US law. I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong.

The "waivable" issue is taken from book by Vincent Bugliosi entitled the "Betrayal of America". Mr Bugliosi is a former District Attorney for the City of LA, and the prosecutor of the Manson FAmily. He had a conviction record of 120-1 and was 20-0 in capital crime cases. He also wrote a book blasting the Prosecution in the OJ trial. He is hardly a liberal mouthpiece.

So fear not about us mere "normal" people interpreting the law Hortlund.

Thrawn · « **Reply #59 on:** October 04, 2003, 07:14:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not

Yeah, so am I.

It amazes me Hortlund, how for someone who is supposedly an attorney, how really really poorly you argue. And whole whenever a legal arguement is made you sit back and make some generalistic statement that may or may not have any bearing on the specific matter being discussed.