posted on July 23, 2001 09:20:35 AM
That's hogwash. The supreme court affirmed that the florida courts could and should use state law in interpretations, as they did, but stopped the election effectively using the equal protection argument, which, as it turned out, was also hogwash.
posted on July 23, 2001 09:39:16 AM
It would be interesting if all the justices were swept from office only to be replaced by the man the put in - effectivaly negating any advantage to removing them.
posted on July 23, 2001 10:15:06 AM
True, Helen. Most people don't read the Round Table and have may have forgotten to be outraged. They need some kind of jab to get their minds off Condit...
posted on July 23, 2001 01:19:22 PM
I think they must be approved by congress not dumbya. I would keep at it, but really push it once the demos take both houses next year. If our founding fathers could be alive to see how they stole it for dumbya there would be 5 or more ropes hanging at dawn the next day. Back then stealing elections would mean death, but then no judges back then would be stupid enough to try it. In history books years from now students will study how they stole the election so easily.
posted on July 23, 2001 04:09:27 PM
In any case, there is no grounds for impeachment of a supreme court justice based on a supreme court ruling. The list of impeachable offenses doesn't include "voted the wrong way".
I'm more nervous than most regarding the potential aristocracy of the courts, but this isn't the way to seize power back.
posted on July 23, 2001 04:26:16 PMThe supreme court affirmed that the florida courts could and should use state law in interpretations, as they did, but stopped the election effectively using the equal protection argument, which, as it turned out, was also hogwash.
By the constitution, court supervision of elections is very limited. The individual states have their own laws regarding such things as which voting machine to use, and what to do when the vote is close.
The Florida Supreme Court decided that the State of Florida must recount in a way contrary to Florida state law, which limited the time during which such recounts could be done. The Florida Supreme Court ordered the State of Florida to violate state election law. This was the court grab for power in this story, power seized from the elected officials of Florida and seized by the courts.
The US Supreme court basically affirmed that the state of Florida had run a fair, if imperfect election.
It's not at all surprising that the vote was so sharply divided, because the US Supreme Court faced a rare opportunity to increase its own power. If it allowd the Florida Supreme Court to pick the winner in Florida, it would, by implication, have acquired the right to pick election winners when it chose. The various state supreme courts operate directly under the supervision of the US Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court had in effect said "keep counting until Gore wins", and there was no shortage of controversial local situtions which could have been ruled on by the Florida Supreme Court such that Gore would have eventually won. Then we would have faced a true constitutional crisis. The courts would have successfully seized the power of elections from the State of Florida.
It's a danger in our current system. Hopefully, it's an unlikely scenario, but we came disappointingly close to such a disaster.
posted on July 23, 2001 04:56:28 PM
Well, not wanting to rehash what has been thoroughly hashed here in the past, and especially hoping that this discussion doesn't kick in Donny's propensity for some of the longest most officious posting ever seen anywhere anytime, I'll just give you a bit of the relevant law that the Florida Supreme court endeavored before the interruption of the US superemecourt to assure was being applied in the case of the florida voting in the presidential election.
I thought that that was well controlled after seeing "The Florida Supreme Court had in effect said "keep counting until Gore wins",
which is possibly the most ridiculous statement ever made here concerning the fiasco. No, the Florida Supreme Court said "keep counting until the vote is counted, Bush wet his pants, and the Supreme Court saved him by saying "NOT". It was a last desperate appeal, oddly similar to those that Bush had denied so many times in death penalty cases in Texas, and because Bush hired the sons of Scalia, because of the political and self serving wishes of four others, he was reprieved. Even dissenting members of the court call it shameful and scandalous and they ought to know better than any of us do.
posted on July 23, 2001 11:46:45 PM
Well, well, well. We may get our revolt after all! And without bloodshed too! I'm impressed all to hell.
As far as everyone arguing about what may be legal and I not legal in any pursuit of this action on the Supreme Court, Justice and Law really didn't matter during the Clinton Impeachment -- smearing is all that was required.
If nothing else, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor had family working on the Gore and Bush legal teams in Florida and that it was a breech of ethics for them to continue voting on the ballot recount issue. It is on these grounds alone that they can be impeached.
As far as Dubya getting his mitts on new selectees, reccall that this thing can easily drag out for as long as necessary to ensure replacements by a Democratic or, hopefully, Independant President. In the meantime, I hope that this thing get sooo nasty that no Supreme Court Justice will be willing to go through this again and will next time, appropriately excuse themselves when ethics calls for it.
posted on July 24, 2001 04:25:16 AM
Yes that would probably work. In fact after what Clinton went through I am amazed anyone is willing to accept that office. Maybe it would add to the effect of having people exaimine themselves before exposing themselves to such scrutiny.
The question is - does anyone get to the point of being a nominee for justice or president without being a slimeball as a qualification? I won't ask about congress.
They are the biggest identifiable group of criminals in the country.
posted on July 24, 2001 06:04:28 AMIn any case, there is no grounds for impeachment of a supreme court justice based on a supreme court ruling. The list of impeachable offenses doesn't include "voted the wrong way".
2 of those Justices have since had family members appointed to high positions. If a deal was made, it is most certainly is an "impeachable offense". At the very least there should be investigations.
This election belonged in the House of Representives. That would have been interesting, but it didn't happen. There was so much hanky panky no one can say for sure who won in Florida
The Republicain Party is going to pay for this election. In Spades.
posted on July 24, 2001 08:23:17 AMNo, the Florida Supreme Court said "keep counting until the vote is counted
The votes had all been counted, at least twice, and in most cases three times.
What was needed for Gore to win was inaccuracy and human judgement, which are far more likely with a hand count than a machine count.
Go ahead and explain, krs. I'd like to know a theory which suggests that the election would become more fair if we had done a hand count of all those ballots? The only theory which makes sense is "our guy lost, and we're going to give him another chance".
posted on July 24, 2001 08:30:42 AM
krs, I looked at your references. All I can say is that if you see where any of my claims are contradicted by Florida statute, feel free to point that out. Pointing to some broad reference with the suggestion that it would or might do so is not engaging the debate.
posted on July 24, 2001 08:33:12 AM
Details, details, details. As we all learned from the Clinton Hounding and Impeachment Trial, charges for an Impeachment Trial do not need legal standing or to pass anyone's litmus test of legality! Merely to be accused by a body with the authority and the agenda to do so is enough to go through with it. And this time, theree's going to be a LOT of popular support for this one -- the American people are mad as hell about having their rights stomped all over by this rogue Supreme Court and then by Bush's war against Americans and America. Let's all support this effort to rake the Supremem Court over the coals as harshly and as prolonged as possible in order to pull the court backto its proper perspective - non-partisanship as it should be.
posted on July 24, 2001 09:20:54 AMOne thing we can say for sure, we know who won in Florida.
Statisticly it was a tie. Way closer than the "margin of error". Add to that, Republicains altering applications for absentie ballots, Democrats trying to count even the slightest impression on a ballot, Republicans insisting on counting even "spoiled ballots" from military people, etc, etc.... Who won in Florida is beyond anyone saying for sure.
Our Constitution has a way to deal with a presidential election when no one can say for sure who won. It is supposed to go to the House of rep. It wasn't used, and a US Supreme Court (who, at this moment, is Republican) chose to give the election to Baby Bush under a "so called" equal protection statute.
If that "equal protection" statute ment anything, since we did't all use an universal ballot, the whole election would have been thrown out, but it wasn't.
Now the president has been set to send disputed Federal Elections to the US Supreme court. One of these days, that court will be Democrat, and what goes around, comes around.
Edited to add:
support this effort to rake the Supremem Court over the coals as harshly and as prolonged as possible in order to pull the court backto its proper perspective - non-partisanship as it should be.
At the very least we should have Senate Hearings, and these Justices should have their statements taken under oath, and anything they say could and should be used against them.
Hammer them about their kids getting Jobs from the man they put in the White House. (That's the part that is totaly repugnaunt, Baby Bush getting in office by a ruling from the Supreme Court, and within a very shot time, two of their Kids get high paying Jobs.
Who Need's a stink'n Sig. File?
[ edited by Microbes on Jul 24, 2001 09:27 AM ]
posted on July 24, 2001 11:48:07 AM
One thing we can say for sure, we know who won in Florida.
Actually nobody won Florida, and according to the constitution we have no president. A persident must be elected by the people of the USA, not 5 republican judges. Now who benifits from it? Well short term the republicans have since they hold the oval office, but long term the democrats will have the advantage in the 2002, and 2004 elections. Democrats are to expected to win more seats in the senate and house, and more democrat governors. I know my state of Pennsylvania will have another democrat, and it looks like if Janet Reno runs in Florida she will win. 2002 should be a VERY interesting year.
posted on July 24, 2001 01:19:52 PM
Oh gee sorry, roofguy, I didn't realize that you would have so much trouble navigating about in actual law where you would see that the Florida Supreme Court did nothing but attempt to apply that law as written and you would have seen just how inaccurate the repug dogma which you rely on for your odd expulsuions of foolishness.
And you complain (which is how I know you must not read) that "krs, I looked at your references. All I can say is that if you see where any of my claims are contradicted by Florida statute, feel free to point that
out. Pointing to some broad reference with the suggestion that it would or might do so is not engaging the debate".
But you see, I don't find anything to debate with you. You trot out your learned responses much as the dogs of pavlov rang their bells and think that what you say is something worthy of attention, much more exploration with you? Maybe you do, but I don't.
I will however send you back with a more defined direction so that perhaps you will be able to see a bit of what there is wrong with what you claim:
Now, you say that:
"The votes had all been counted, at least twice, and in most cases three times".
This is patently untrue and you couldn't prove it if you knew where to look. The actions of the US court in setting dates and timetables for Florida which coincided with those advantageous to Bush set by the darling Harris stopped, or enjoined that ballots NOT be counted. Remember? Florida Court said count this many. US court said go back, don't count those last couple of hundred and like that. The whole of the vote cast was never counted in it's entirety.
You go on to say:
"If what you mean by "hanky panky" is election fraud, no one has shown any at all"
You're wrong again. Plenty of election fraud has been shown, some proven but none charged as yet. Does that help you? There are active investigations even now. There was a push the other day to charge Harris with election malfeasance and I posted that here. Haven't you been paying attention? Oh. I forgot, Rush probably told you not to listen to such information.
posted on July 24, 2001 01:24:01 PM
Oh, I heard this morning on the car radio that another dog (you know, a canine?) has been found to have voted for Bush in Florida. That makes three that I know of.
Is it "Register, and make your woof count in Florida?
posted on July 24, 2001 06:06:17 PM
krs, if you have a reference which shows any of my claims to be false, go ahead and cite the reference and explain how it shows me wrong.
posted on July 24, 2001 06:11:31 PMStatisticly it was a tie. Way closer than the "margin of error".
Agreed.
What we need to understand that it is dead wrong to grant authority over such auctions to the judiciary.
IF the courts can first order manual recounts, and then pass judgement on the inevitable list of issues which arise, the cours can move a huge number of votes, way more than what decided Florida.
posted on July 24, 2001 06:14:36 PM
I don't see how anybody, even Dumbya and his staunchest supporters, could possibly believe that the Supreme Court decision was based on law rather than the justice's political preferences.
