Bush won Florida 10 diff ways in 2000

Given that, I need not repeat myself.

You're just reciting the same bit of wingnut wisdom over and over, without any analysis or context. You clearly want a pat on the head from someone. I'm sorry that no one has come through for you.

You've given nothing except a line of text you do not understand.

Then please explain it your way, instead of making these lame posts.

Sigh.

You have repeatedly failed to defend your points. I thusly accept your concession.

Back at ya. You lack the confidence to discuss a subject you introduced, so you try to bait me into saying something first. Fail.
 
You're just reciting the same bit of wingnut wisdom over and over, without any analysis or context. You clearly want a pat on the head from someone. I'm sorry that no one has come through for you.



Then please explain it your way, instead of making these lame posts.

Sigh.

You have repeatedly failed to defend your points. I thusly accept your concession.

Back at ya. You lack the confidence to discuss a subject you introduced, so you try to bait me into saying something first.
You already made a number of points, all of which were debunked, and then abandoned by you when you realized you had no way to defend said points.

Your points have been defeated; while I understand this makes you all kinds of butthurt, there's nothing -I- can do to about that.
 
Last edited:
Learn the difference between you disagreeing with something, and you debunking something.

I'm still waiting for your lecture on what the USC has to say about voting. Anytime now, I will open up the thread and see YOUR thoughts, and not talking points and smirking. Foxfyre isn't the only optimist around here.
 
Give your lecture on what the USC says about voting. I'm asking you to lay down your cards.
 
still not seeing your lecture on the USC and voting rights....but I remain optimistic that it will be here some day
 
still not seeing your lecture on the USC and voting rights....but I remain optimistic that it will be here some day
You've conceded that you were wrong - Nothing else nees be said.

Now, you can sit here and throw whatever sort of tantrum you might like about whatever irrelevant point you can dream of - but nothing you do will ever change the fact that you have, for all intents and purposes, admittied you are wrong.

So, wipe the snot from your nose, the tears from your eyes - and run along.
 
I'm still waiting for that lecture. I'm always interested in what folks say about the USC. After you explain what you meant, you can go on to explain why the courts have repeatedly taken up voting equality, when it's not even in the USC.
 
I'm still waiting for that lecture. I'm always interested in what folks say about the USC. After you explain what you meant, you can go on to explain why the courts have repeatedly taken up voting equality, when it's not even in the USC.
Still whining? Oh well. You'll waste no more of my time.
 
Not whining. Just waiting. I'm very patient. Anytime you want to deliver that lecture on voting and the USC, come on back. I'll stay subscribed.
 
I don't think he "stole" the election-I do think it's bullshit what the U.S. Supreme Court did though.
The court enforced the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in order to protect the rights of the voters in the state of FL.
What's wrong with that?

That was what the court cited, but is that what they actually did?

The dissenters opined: "Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election."[11] The four dissenting justices argued that stopping the recount was an "unwise" violation of "three venerable rules of judicial restraint", namely respecting the opinions of state supreme courts, cautiously exercising jurisdiction when "another branch of the Federal Government" has a large measure of responsibility to resolve the issue, and avoiding making peremptory conclusions on federal constitutional law prior to a full presentation on the issue

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Counting legal votes "cannot constitute irreparable harm". That's the alpha and the omega right there.

The other point that is compelling is bolded, above.

It's an activist judicial decision, one of two extremely significant activist judicial decision consistently applauded by the supposed supporters of judicial restraint.
 
I don't think he "stole" the election-I do think it's bullshit what the U.S. Supreme Court did though.
The court enforced the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in order to protect the rights of the voters in the state of FL.
What's wrong with that?

How did they protect any rights of the voters in FL? They cited it, say the way Florida was recounting the ballots violated it. Fine. But then they ruled that the state of Florida had no other way of recounting their ballots, and stopped them from doing so.

I think Bush had less than 2,000 more votes than Gore after the first count. It was close enough that under Florida law a mandatory recount recount was held.

Without going into every little detail, this is what happened. Katherine Harris said that a few county's recounts would not be included (due to deadlines), even though several counties had to conduct manual recounts, and some have machines. The Florida Supreme Court stepped in and ordered a state-wide manual recount of all counties (because the difference was around 300 votes)-and the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and ruled in unconstitutional, citing the 14th amendment.

So my question is: how would having every county manually recount their votes no "state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

So in a close election (which for the record-I think Bush still would have won), they didn't allow all of the votes in FL to count. That's what is bullshit.
 
I don't think he "stole" the election-I do think it's bullshit what the U.S. Supreme Court did though.
The court enforced the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in order to protect the rights of the voters in the state of FL.
What's wrong with that?
How did they protect any rights of the voters in FL?
By making sure that everyone's ballot was evaluated by the same standard.
As things stood, a given ballot could have been evaluated as a vote for Bush, a vote for Gore, an undervote or an overervote, depending on where it was cast. This, necessarily, means that ballots were evaluated according to different standards, and thus, the law prescribing the standard did not provide equal protection. This decision went 7-2.

They cited it, say the way Florida was recounting the ballots violated it. Fine. But then they ruled that the state of Florida had no other way of recounting their ballots, and stopped them from doing so.
Once it was found that FL election law, as written, did not provide equal protection, the only way to deal with the issue was to stop the counts, as no other standard of evaluation could be put in place.

See, the FL legislature in the only body that can set a standard of evaluation, and the standard cannot change during the election process. As such, the only available standard was one that violated EP; absent a legally defined standard of evaluation, the ballots could not be legally counted.

The EP decision in and of itself necessitated that the had recounts be stopped and the ballots left uncounted; the 5-4 decision that followed was redundant and unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
[Once it was found that FL election law, as written, did not provide equal protection, the only way to deal with the issue was to stop the counts, as no other standard of evaluation could be put in place.

See, the FL legislature in the only body that can set a standard of evaluation, and the standard cannot change during the election process. As such, the only available standard was one that violated EP; absent a legally defined standard of evaluation, the ballots could not be legally counted.

The EP decision in and of itself necessitated that the had recounts be stopped and the ballots left uncounted; the 5-4 decision that followed was redundant and unnecessary.

Such a rationalization.

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the Equal Protection Clause.[23] Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it treated different voters differently would effectively render every state election unconstitutional[24] and that each method has a different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be constitutional.

Other remedies were certainly possible.

However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.[34] The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.[21]
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top