We live in a Kakistocracy

[Annie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

It was SCOTUS who made that decision.

They did not want the standard applied to any other case.

wether it be Florida or any other state

and here is the problem regarding 'applicability', cited by the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore:

...The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied...

 

[Truthmatters]

It is bullshit that is how all elections are done.

Just utter bullshit to give the election to a conservitive

 

[Annie]

It is bullshi* that is how all elections are done.

Just utter bullshi* to give the election to a conservitive

LOL! It should all be the way YOU want it? Wah, wah!

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore


The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages ordered by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents argued[28] that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to grant an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the ruling based on the possibility of "irreparable harm"[29] to Bush by "casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."[29] Injunctions for irreparable harm cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater harm to another party (in this case, Al Gore). Critics also argued that Court's decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend[28] and contrary to the political question doctrine.[30]

The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh treatment of the majority. Justice Ginsberg concluded her dissenting opinion with "I dissent"[31] rather than the traditional "I respectfully dissent" which was widely viewed as a rebuke of the decision. Justice Stevens' dissent concluded[32]:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
I respectfully dissent.
This widely quoted excerpt from Justice Stevens' dissent was criticized by the decision's defenders as lacking substantial legal insight and relying instead on rhetoric.[33] The decision itself was widely criticized[34] for the following sentence in the majority opinion:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.[35]
The court's defenders argued that this a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly,[36] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[37] It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle.

 

[Gunny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

It was SCOTUS who made that decision.

They did not want the standard applied to any other case.

wether it be Florida or any other state

So? Since it applied specifically to then-current events in FL, why should it?

 

[Annie]

TM, what do you not understand about the SCOTUS? The minority? The dissent? What?

 

[Gunny]

It is bullshit that is how all elections are done.

Just utter bullshit to give the election to a conservitive

And finally the veneer comes off and the truth comes out. Your boy couldn't steal the election so it's bullshit.

It's utter bullshit that ANYONE who claims to think votes for Democrats period.

So where exactly does that leave is besides you standing in the ruins of shady argument based on sour grapes?

 

[Truthmatters]

Its was a bullshit decision made on the premise thqat aBush may be harmed.

WHAT ABOUT THE HARM TO GORE!


No one KNEW who the people wanted elcted at that point.

And if the election had been CLEAN and without phoney Felons lists and butterfly ballots GORE was who the people wanted and it would have been crystal clear.

The wrong man became president because more people wanted and tried to vote for Gore and then the scotus ignored the harm to Gore.

Why did they only consider the Harm to Bush and not the Harm to Gore?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did a conservitive court only consider the harm to Bush and NOT the harm to Gore?

You cant answer that can you?

 

[Annie]

Its was a bullshi* decision made on the premise thqat aBush may be harmed.

WHAT ABOUT THE HARM TO GORE!


No one KNEW who the people wanted elcted at that point.

And if the election had been CLEAN and without phoney Felons lists and butterfly ballots GORE was who the people wanted and it would have been crystal clear.

The wrong man became president because more people wanted and tried to vote for Gore and then the scotus ignored the harm to Gore.

Why did they only consider the Harm to Bush and not the Harm to Gore?

Either you willfully misunderstand what you read or you are unwilling to play nice within the system we live under. In either case, two days of trying to converse with you have proven impossible.

 

[Truthmatters]

No Kathy you have not read what was offered again.

Read the dissenting opinions in the case.

Realise they had to couch their decision in such a manner as to not allow it to make presidence.

They didnt want their descision apllied to any ohter case.

How often does that happen in the SCOTUS?

Its their JOB to set percidence

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No Kathy you have not read what was offered again.

Read the dissenting opinions in the case.

Realise they had to couch their decision in such a manner as to not allow it to make presidence.

They didnt want their descision apllied to any ohter case.

How often does that happen in the SCOTUS?

Its their JOB to set percidence

No it is NOT their JOB to set precedent. Be so kind as to provide ANY statement that proves this claim.

 

[Truthmatters]

They are the final arbitor of how a case is seen throught the lens of the constitution.

Yeap they are the final arbitor of what is precident setting cases.

Why dont you know that already?

 

[Diuretic]

No it is NOT their JOB to set precedent. Be so kind as to provide ANY statement that proves this claim.

Common sense and a bit of legal knowledge would suggest that any country's supreme court makes precedent. In fact most suprerior courts do it.

This is from a book review:

The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court offers an insightful and provocative analysis of the Supreme Court's most important task--shaping the law. Thomas Hansford and James Spriggs analyze a key aspect of legal change: the Court's interpretation or treatment of the precedents it has set in the past. Court decisions do not just resolve immediate disputes; they also set broader precedent. The meaning and scope of a precedent, however, can change significantly as the Court revisits it in future cases. The authors contend that these interpretations are driven by an interaction between policy goals and variations in the legal authoritativeness of precedent. From this premise, they build an explanation of the legal interpretation of precedent that yields novel predictions about the nature and timing of legal change.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8204.html

 

[Annie]

Common sense and a bit of legal knowledge would suggest that any country's supreme court makes precedent. In fact most suprerior courts do it.

This is from a book review:



http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8204.html

But not most of the time and not in this case.

 

[Gunny]

They are the final arbitor of how a case is seen throught the lens of the constitution.

Yeap they are the final arbitor of what is precident setting cases.

Why dont you know that already?

It is NOT the Supreme Court's job to set precedent. The fact that lower courts use higher court rulings as precedent is not dictated by law, or any other written rule.

Why don't YOU know THAT?

 

[CSM]

It is NOT the Supreme Court's job to set precedent. The fact that lower courts use higher court rulings as precedent is not dictated by law, or any other written rule.

Why don't YOU know THAT?

because he is a lawyer and it is irrelevant?

 

[Truthmatters]

But not most of the time and not in this case.

and unless challenged they do.

When that precedent is challenged they take it to a higer court.

Have you ever heard the phrase" Im going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court"

Their is a reason why you hear it.

 

[Gunny]

and unless challenged they do.

When that precedent is challenged they take it to a higer court.

Have you ever heard the phrase" Im going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court"

Their is a reason why you hear it.

A precedent is not challenged. A RULING is.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now will anyone offer an answer to me question of Why the court only considered the damage to Bush but not to Gore?

where was the equal protection under the law?

This and the fact they did not want the dicision to go beyond this one case pretty much says it all.