This is gonna be an interesting day.

[Nash]

Hang on to yer seats - this one is finally for all the marbles.

[Eagler]

Yes, finally if the SC follows the law, it will be over. And if so, very curious how gore transforms into the gracious loser. His concede speech should be more interesting than Bush's acceptance speech.

strange, strange election...........

then this forum and the media will go back to where they belong, the Middle East   Anyone notice Barak resigned? Small paragraph in local paper for such a huge event... media never ceases to amaze me.

Eagler

[Ripsnort]

Nash, no critisism here, just curious as to what  your thoughts are of the FSC trying to change elections laws on the books (No dimpled chads counting is the law) out of context of the usual means of legislature.

In other words, should the judges of any country be allowed to change the laws during the election so that it may favor one party or another?  Or should this be done during a non-election time?

[Kieren]

I am not looking for a concession speech from anyone.

If Gore wins the decision, the count goes on. Both sides cheat like crazy and Bush wins because there are more Republican counties left to vote. Gore eventually joins lawsuit to throw out ballots in Seminole/Martin.

If Bush wins the decision, Gore openly joins the lawsuits to throw out the absentee ballots in Seminole/Martin.

If the Florida Legislature does not move to preserve safe harbor, Gore wins with a delay tactic. If they do act they suffer the backlash in 2002.

About the only thing that might persuade Gore to concede would be a 9-0 decision in the SCOTUS and the abandonment of the Democratic party. Any dissenting Supreme Court justice will give him all he needs to keep pushing.

[Nash]

Hmm... Nah, I'd wager if he loses this by *any* margin, he'll throw in the towl. I'd be damned suprised if he didn't.

Rip - it's my understanding that the FSC's latest ruling left the discretion on how to count the ballots up to the individual election boards. Do I have that wrong or did they actually mandate how the ballots should be counted? Not sure.

[Ripsnort]

Not sure Nash, I've managed to distance myself from the news as of late, however I'm certain that the florida laws on the books prior to the election basically said that 'Dimpled or Pregnant chads were not considered a vote'...but now it seems as though the FSC is changing this law, or attempting to.

Its all a smokescreen anyway, the Dems have a massive work force of folks attempting to change the Electors POV for who should be president, so I suspect they will be successful in getting 2 or 3 to vote for Gore.  IMO, Gore has won.

[Nash]

Well, now I dunno 'bout that Rip. From what I recall, pregnant, hanging and dimpled chads are countable under Florida law - just as pregnant, hanging and dimpled chads are countable under Texas law. You're making the claim that they aren't, and the FLC is changing the law with regard to that, so *you're* gonna have to do the research I'm afraid, Rip  

Otherwise it's just more speculation just tossed out into the wind - much like the second part of yer post  

[Ripsnort]

Okay, I stand corrected if that is indeed the case, but something the FSC is doing is not in accordance to the constitution, can someone clarify that?

You watch, the second part of my post will come true.

[Nash]

Only the Supreme Court of the US can clarify that for you Rip. They're doing that now.

[Kieren]

The only thing that Florida law specifically says is that "the intent of the voter should be discerned where possible". That is too vague for all the smart people we have running around on both sides trying to interpret it their way.

As far as dimples are concerned PBC has a ten-year-old precedent where dimples were not allowed. It is not law, it is precedent.

Neither the SCOTUS or FSC can really legally set a standard, as it would be changing the law after the fact; this is the rub. Hand recounts, though they are intuitively common-sense, have the real problem of uneven standards that legally cannot be changed. The Democrat call (Gore aside) to count every vote is fair- the Republican call (Bush aside) that it is unfair is also fair. Neither court has the right to legislate from the bench, meaning a recount with standards dictated from the SCOTUS is highly improbable.

[Ripsnort]

Thanks for making that clear, Kieren.