posted on November 22, 2000 05:00:11 PM
So is the Republican disdain for the Court's decision more or less than the disdain held by Bill Clinton for the Courts when he committed perjury?
Yes, I know...changing the subject.
*****************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 05:01:31 PM
I dunno, njrazd. Do statements like What would be wrong with calling out the Texas Rangers? and GORE HAS DECLARED WAR AND WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT BACK conjure up visions of violence?
But you never fully answered my question as to when you think this will end. You did say that the US Supreme Court's ruling on this will be the final say. Will it end it for you, if George Bush refuses to accept the Supreme Courts ruling if it is not the ruling he desires? Would you continue to support Bush should he decide to initiate action to defy such ruling (should it come about)?
posted on November 22, 2000 05:05:06 PM
njrazd, I know you have a "thing" about Clinton and perjury, but may I suggest that this is not about Clinton? Let's not segue off topic, kay?
"donny...I agree that Gore had the RIGHT to ask for hand counts"
How can you reconcile that with your previous query here?
""When the initial recount came back showing Bush still the winner, shouldn't that have been enough?"
I'll throw in an agreeing answer for free. Yes, Bush definately has the right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has that right under the law, no question about it.
***Edited to address this statement of Njazd's which I'd overlooked***
(Bush's) "... right to bring the appeal forward is what is in question in this thread"
This is [/b]not[/b] what's in question in this thread! No one would say that Bush does not have a right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Absolutely, he does, that's the way the legal system works.
What Bush does not have a right to do is to try to subvert the judicial system by orchestating a move by the Florida legislature to overrule the court. That's what's in question in this thread.
posted on November 22, 2000 05:14:46 PM
KatyD...yes, I did respond that if the Supreme Court denies taking the case, or if they rule against him, then that should be the end of Bush's legal options in the courts.
At that point, I don't know what other avenues would be open for him, but I'm sure his legal team does. I'm not privy to that information.
Any idea why the Florida Courts chose Sunday at 5:00 pm? Could it be because they did not want to extend the time into Monday when the Legislature next meets?
And regarding the violence comments, your first one was directed towards me earlier in the thread when I had not expressed any comments that would justify them. And I'm a little busy with the holiday to go stand out on the street with a sign right now. As far as I'm concerned, if Gore wins, it will not be the end of the world as we know it. I voted knowing that my candidate may not win and am fully confident I will be able to carry on if he is not elected. To be honest, even in this heavy conservative area, I don't know a single person that would resort to any uprisings regarding this issue.
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 05:23:33 PM
donny...the topic I got from this thread was "when was enough enough?" KatyD's initial post seemed to call into question the steps Bush was taking to go forward with the appeal.
And I agree Gore's request for a hand count was within his rights. But just because someone has the right to do something, does it help or hinder the process? I have lots of rights, but I consider plenty of other circumstances before using/abusing them.
There's no doubt in my mind that both sides have been abusing the system in Florida. I just get a bit annoyed when people point their fingers at the Republicans for doing what they feel is necessary, while saying the Democrats are well within their rights to whatever legal remedies are necessary.
************************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 05:26:25 PM
KatyD asked:
"but donny, what further rights or appeals does Bush have should the Supreme Court not agree with his position?"
If the U.S. Supreme Court either refuses to hear Bush's appeal, or hears it and rules against him, he has no further opportunity to appeal this *one particular* legal case. Similarly, if the U.S. Supreme Court hears it and rules in Bush's favor, Gore has no opportunity for further review of this particular case. The U.S. Supreme Court is the court of last appeal. That does not mean that Bush can't bring appeals on any other still active legal cases, or file new ones, perhaps challenging recounts on other grounds, and work those up through the court system, just that this particular case that was decided by the Florida Supreme Court only gets one shot at the U.S. Supreme Court and that's it.
What other rights are you asking about? Legal ones? Or illegal ones?
posted on November 22, 2000 05:26:39 PM
njrazd, I did not direct any comments toward you suggesting that you in any way advocated violence. Please reread my earlier post. My comment was in reference to what George Bush would do should he not get the ruling he desires from the US Supreme Court. I believe I posited call out the Texas Rangers?. I'm sorry if you take this remark made in jest as being directed toward you. It was not. As far as not knowing a single person that would resort to any uprisings regarding this issue, until recently I would have agreed with you. With some posts on this message board lately, I have to wonder though.
My whole point in this thread has been about the dangers of bypassing or usurping the powers vested in our Judiciary Branch in order to achieve a desired agenda, not whether or not Bush or Gore have the right to pursue their issue to the Courts. From the Bush comments yesterday and today, I am very uncomfortable with the rhetoric they have been spewing criticizing and deriding the Courts. If they are planning to defy our Court System through legislative maneuvering, they are getting into very dangerous and shaky ground that could well throw this country into a Constitutional Crisis. I believe that if they pursue this road, that they go too far.
posted on November 22, 2000 05:32:46 PM
Here you are, Njazd, you've put your finger right on the meat of the thing, inadvertantly:
"I just get a bit annoyed when people point their fingers at the Republicans for doing what they feel is necessary, while saying the Democrats are well within their rights to whatever legal remedies are necessary."
But you see, Njazd, that's exactly what a sytem of laws, which we have, requires that we all do. It's pretty much the whole basis of the thing, do you realize that?
posted on November 22, 2000 05:33:17 PM
Donny, I believe that the Supreme Court has (and should have) the final word on the matter. Certainly Bush can continue to bring other petitions to the Court, but time is of the essence here, and at any rate, numerous and redundant petitions would probably be rejected once the Court responds to the upcoming appeal. My question is, in relation to what was said today in Florida by Mr. Feeney, would this be an indication of what Bush plans but within the US Congress. In other words, a legislative war against the Judiciary Branch?
posted on November 22, 2000 05:34:15 PM
A snippet:
What can we expect from a media who has given Bush a free
pass from the start? They are deaf, dumb and blind when it
comes to: An illegally obtained new Texas driver's license to
hide his old record; a DUI conviction in Maine; his military
record that seems to show he was AWOL; his record as
Texas governor; his running mate who may have a residency
problem and be ineligible to receive the votes of Texas
electors.
The media have expressed no outrage over Jews being called
stupid; the disenfranchisement of African Americans;
thousands who were denied the right to voted because they
were erroneously identified as felons; Republicans being
handed tens of thousands absentee ballot applications, which
were returned missing voter registration numbers that the law
mandates, which friendly county elections supervisors illegally
fixed and sent out the ballots.
Instead they provide forums for the Republicans to spew
their hateful venom and mess with the minds of the American
people. We can only hope that the GOP's effort to seize
control of the White House is as transparent to the majority
of Americans and especially to the courts that now hold our
fate in their hands. We have no Edward R. Murrow or
Walter Cronkite to expose what is going on for the world to
see.
Not speaking German, yours truly over the years has viewed
hour upon hour of films about Nazi Germany wondering what
it was about Hitler that captivated so many Germans. While
George W. Bush lacks the capacity to be another Hitler, it is
the people behind him that we have to worry about. The
Bush family has a history of Nazi ties.
The right-wingers have long been working toward what they
now hope is their day by ratcheting up the hate against all
who don't share their worldview. Rage is in. Civility and
tolerance are out. Compassion and empathy are no-nos. And
they share the Bushes belief that if you aren't with them, you
are against them.
posted on November 22, 2000 05:50:57 PM
I'm not a subsciber to those ideas; they're out in the media right now. There are many more in like kind which express the counterpoint.
I read your initial post as I think you meant it, and I can tell you, I see what you see, and it scares the hell out of me. And what perhaps scares me more is the immediate acceptance of this by a large body of people.
Yes, the Republicans in the U.S. Congress, presumably with either acceptance from whomever controls Bush, or an instigation by them, has been arming themselves with knowledge as to their power to either reject Democratic delegates sent to the electoral collage from Florida, if sent, or using any other options within their power. It's no secret that the House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, asked the Congressional Research Office (that might not be what it's called exactly) over a week ago to prepare a report for him on the U.S. Congress's power to challenge delegates sent to the elector college.
This type of action, just like a similar action taken that might be taken by the Florida legislature, would precipitate the "Constitutional Crisis," but for real, like the media has been gasping about since the day after election day. The media's constant cries of "Constitutional Crisis" was bull then, just an artifical excitement they created for ratings. But it would become real if Bush doesn't win the election under Florida election law and took it outside of legal channels.
Are you scared yet, KatyD? If not, take a look at the official web page of the House Majority Leader, at http://freedom.house.gov/
posted on November 22, 2000 06:04:23 PM
If both sides are so evil then are the only good people in the world the libertarians?
I guess the only person I can in good conscience talk to now is Toke. I even have to stop talking to myself LOL
Or maybe it's those strange republocrats.
Really the idea that anyone following a particular party are horrible people is ridiculous and scary. I have no problem believing there is corruption from people on both sides but you will find corruption in any group or organization on earth. It isn't limited to politics,race,religion or anything else.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on November 22, 2000 06:05:55 PM
Thanks donny. I am glad to know that I am not the only one who is "seeing things". And yes, I am now officially "scared".
posted on November 22, 2000 07:10:54 PM
donny...sorry, not understanding your last post to me. My concern was over the criticism being laid at the feet of the Republicans, while the Democrats are getting pats on the back for their legal maneuvering. All of it stinks and undermines the basis of the election process.
There is also the question of whether or not the Florida Court should have heard this argument to begin with. Apparently, they took it upon themselves to review this action without being asked by either side. They had told Harris they would not get involved a few days prior and then changed their mind and stepped in. Isn't the court supposed to respond to requests, not make the requests themselves?
krs...I guess the Dems needed to go back more than 24 years to dig up the real dirt, huh? And where were all these allegations when Bush Sr ran for office? Or are the Nazi ties just on GW's side of the family?
***********************
*********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 07:18:33 PM
njrazd, the Florida Supreme Court was petitioned to make a ruling. They would not just make a ruling without being asked. For the record, they were petitioned by Democrats. And this was shortly after the Republicans appeal to the Federal Appeals Court was denied a hearing...which should give one a clue about whether the Federal Courts want to get mixed up in this one.
posted on November 22, 2000 07:21:35 PM
Legal maneuvering not withstanding, njrzad, what are your feelings about the concept of the House of Representatives legislating to overturn High Courts decisions?
posted on November 22, 2000 07:23:47 PMDonny Your posts on this thread are splendid. I applaud them wholeheartedly. If it wasn't clear from my previous post, I'm scared now too, and have been ever since earlier today when I heard all of what I heard (inc. James Baker), and also including a very sobered Frank Sesno (sp?) on CNN talking about the unprecedent anger and outrage here's hearing among Republicans in Washington. Jeff Greenfield, I think it was, early today used the term "going nuclear." Apt, if even scarier. The key feature of "going nuclear," those fomenting it seem to be forgetting, is that NO ONE WINS such a war. No one.
At first I found this whole thing interesting. I've moved more and more to just being scared. When I see someone on this chatboard say that they won't be friends with Democrats, that's creepy. When someone goes on further to say (not an exact quote here), that "Democrats are not like us," that's horrifying. I wonder how many other people in our country feel that way. Once you see a group of people as "not like us," you've taken the same first step that's been taken so many times in man's history and leads to the most terrible of actions.
This is not going to be a popular comment, but I feel it must be made nonetheless. It was the mention of Dick Armey which provoked it, tho it's been running around in my head for a while now.
While I'm sure things were plenty partisan and often bitter before then, the REAL divisiveness and ugliness in this country started with the rise of Newt Gingrich and his ultra-right, ultra-partisan, hate-filled and hatemongering lieutenants. Lieutenants he trained personally, in many cases.
Remember the list of suggested negative terms he circulated to GOPAC candidates to use against their opponents (and if anyone has a copy of that, or a link, I'd love it) -- among them unAmerican and others that slip my mind? Remember his bullying tactics? His effort to bully Clinton into signing legislation Clinton said he would NOT sign by attaching it to spending bills which ultimately caused the government to shut down? Just a few of his fun and games. And Trent Lott, Tom DeLay and Dick Armey are just a few of Gingrich's *gifts* to the nation.
Scorched earth policies aren't new, and they certainly weren't invented by Gingrich. But he took them to a whole new level, and a sustained level at that. Perhaps what we are witnessing now is the logical conclusion to the tactics and politics of divisiveness. (With any luck, it's the logical conclusion to it all.)
SO, we have a whole generation of young people who've grown up under this ugly cloud of ultra-partisanship in Washington who presumably think it's normal and acceptable, if not actually preferable.
There SHOULD be universal outrage all over the country right now about the intemperate and ill-advised comments and rhetoric from Jim Baker and even GOv. Bush today. There isn't so far (at least not that I know of). So far, not really any in the media (they ARE gasping and choking a bit, but they're not outraged). Why? Because too many American including the media either don't know any better (see previous paragraph), OR they have become immune to such idiotic and dangerous practices. Emphasis on DANGEROUS.
It's come to this. My prayer now is that with Miami-Dade shutting down, and Palm Beach apparently shrugging off counting dimpled ballots, and time most certainly running out, that Bush will win and Gore ultimately simply won't have any further recourse. Yes, as a Gore supporter that's exactly what I pray, because obviously God help us if Bush doesn't win. (God help us if this spoiled brat does win, but that's another issue, and another thread I'd do best to stay out of.)
I don't know how old IMLDA is (or whatever her name), but she strikes me as young enough to perhaps be one of those who've grown up simply not knowing any better.
IMO a very, very serious question we must all ask ourselves, especially those of us who actually remember a more civil time: What are we going to do to restore civility and decorum to the discourse and political processes? We must -- or face the precipice again on some other issue, and SOMEday surely risk actually falling off (if we don't this time).
