posted on December 9, 2000 03:10:24 PM
Did you know that Justice Rehnquist was very active in Arizona during the 1964 election? Yep, he spent his time doing whatever he could to keep minorities from voting for LBJ.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:13:12 PM"I will *not* accept Bush if he *wins* this way.
barbarake, please explain how you intend to put this into action.
Will you refuse to abide by any act of Congress that Mr. Bush signs into law? Will you use some other title than "President" for him? (Careful - remember how desperate it sounds to refer to ebay as "egreed".)
Just curious.
On another note - any comments from the class as to the emergency motion currently being heard regarding the judge's (Terry Nichols?) order last night that neither party release any vote tally counts to the press, which Gore's attorneys did this afternoon? Are Boies et al. justified in arguing that the counts they noted are "unofficial" counts? Any bets as to how the judge will rule?
posted on December 9, 2000 03:16:31 PM
does anyone know whether or not the appeal of the seminole case, if upheld by the florida supreme court , can go to the u.s. supreme court?
posted on December 9, 2000 03:17:21 PMI find it insulting that Bible thumpers can't get past and acknowledge Separation of Church and State.
I agree with you on that one. I don't see what role a preacher has in politics. Rev. Jerry Farwell and Rev. Jessie Jackson need to decide if they are preachers or politicians, but not try and hold both jobs.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:17:57 PM
barbarake - Sorry if I wasn't clear. The way I see what happened is that the election took place, Bush was declared the winner by an extremely small margin. Since that occurred, another recount was done. Bush won that too. So, at that time, I was of the opinion he was our next president.
Then the trouble started. We've all been through that. I started believing things weren't being handled in a way I felt comfortable with.
So, to try and answer your question, when Gore's team started with the legal process...I just figured the court would decide. Then more problems...were the rules being changed? Was Florida law being followed? Did the US Supreme court agree? Questions, questions and more questions. Who to believe. The spins the opposing attorneys didn't sound right to me. I looked/listened to more knowledgable scholars to help explain whether or not the law was/is being followed. Even they couldn't agree with one another. So....off to the US Supreme we go.
Yes, I'd go with the law being followed first, and then if the US Supreme court decides the law was being followed....go with another count.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:21:02 PM
krs~ Guess what, I knew that, in case you think I am some ignorant cracker.....I AIN'T..... however, there has been lots of mention of Mr. Boies dissembling in front of the Florida Supreme Court based on his arguements and the court reporter transcipts.
Don't be so arrogant as to think his *forgetting* to mention this case law will go un~noticed. It DIDN'T/It WON'T. That was my point.
And yes his 'forgotten' case law WAS germane to the issue at hand.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:35:13 PM
networker - You said, "But that language is the law in Florida. I find it ironic that the law was actually changed to that in 1999."
You are right...that is the language. The election was handled under the 'current' laws, IMO.
"Ironic that the law was changed in 1999"? Well, in my eyes that change was made before the election, not a change made after the election.
"So if you buy into the conspiracy theory...." I hope you're not saying you are of the opinion that I think there's a conspiracy. If that is not clear...please understand I do not.
What I believe we have here are two politicians who are fighting tooth and nail for the presidency.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:40:15 PM
Linda_K - Let's keep the chain of events accurate. Bush filed the first suit to stop the manual recounts. The manual recounts were requested by boards where for some strange reason 5% or more of the ballots couldn't be read by the machine.
That in itself requires investigating even it has no bearing on this election. Recent information shows that over 85% of those so called machine unreadable ballots come from predominately African American voting districts. So those votes will be counted regardless of the effect on this election. And the Republican Party better hope that every single last one of them fall into the category of impossible to determine the intent of the voter.
But I guess they think Colin Powell as Secretary of State will make us forget that they disenfranchised a large African American population.
stusi The appeal can go there but if the Florida Supreme turns it down the justices won't hear it. Now if they overturn the decision and rule that the Republican Party should lose the 1200 or so votes. You can bet that Bush will convince the court to hear his appeal of that decision.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:51:01 PM
dejavu,
Save your pap, maybe the party will give you a job.
Did you read all of the briefs submitted before oral arguments? No, of course not. Mentioning what is already submitted in brief is called redundant. With so little time for the oral questioning on points in brief by the justices there's no time for repeating.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:52:19 PM
The point has been made that if the only objection to the hand counts is a lack of standards then why don't we set some standards. Well, late last night Leon County judge Terry Lewis had a hearing on the rules for the hand counts. Despite repeated pleas for him to develop a set of standards he refused. He decided to use the same non-standards set by the Florida Supreme Court.
I find it ironic that the court chooses to trust the judgement of the same canvassing boards that they had ruled had no judgement when it came to deciding the issue of recounts.
When every county uses a different standard, when adjacent counting tables in the same county use different standards, who is to say who a vote was for? Is a vote for Bush in one county a vote for Gore in another or no vote at all in a third?
When we go too far in attempting to devine voter intent from dimples or indentations we are no longer counting votes - we have moved into the realm of casting votes.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:55:26 PMtoke - yeah, I saw your post (with the right judge's name!) after I sent mine.
As to your question - I know the USSC stayed the count. I'm not sure about the gag-order regarding reporting results of that count....but as a hearing on the actions of Boies et al. is occurring as I type, I suspect that part is still in effect. But IANAL either
posted on December 9, 2000 04:11:14 PM
Toke, you said -
"Florida had a mandated recount because of the closeness of the election. Bush won. That should have been that."
I don't understand why you, and, it seems a large number of people, think that 'that should have been that.'
It's always been the case, in Florida, before this election, that there are Florida laws setting out procedures for losing candidates to protest an election and, later, contest an election.
I really don't understand why, when protests and contests are clearly allowed in Florida election you, and others, feel so strongly that "that should have been that."
I'm not trying to provoke you, I just never have understood why Al Gore trying to pursue a remedy allowed under pre-existing Florida law caused the indignation so many people on tv have expressed.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:15:51 PM
HCQ - First and foremost I have never suggested anything that amounts to overthrowing the United States Constitution. Heck my people within the last 40 years have finally gotten an accurate interpretation of the darn thing. So trust me last thing on my mind is getting rid of it.
Second Since you have no firsthand knowledge of face forward racism. You are not in a position to quantify closet racism.
Let's not pretend that the Jim Crow era of the south didn't exist or was that long ago.
Let's not pretend that ebony and ivory have been living in perfect harmony since the existence of this great Nation.
Let's not pretend that the South at one time did not attempt to disenfranchise the Black Vote.
In fact we have a Constitutional Amendment that specifically addresses one of the old tactics. Or have you forgotten about those Poll Taxes. Or should I ask have you ever paid one.
And on those survivalist in Montana, I can actually appreciate them because they are not in the closet. Now their views on the Constitution is where we split.
In conclusion it isn't my fault that the place you call home and its Republican Party is doing everything within jurisprudence to stop those undervotes from being counted. So answer me this do you think if Al Gore agreed to concede as long as Bush agreed to let the votes be counted but not tallied as part of the certified Florida election do you think Bush would accept. I don't think he would because the Florida Republican Party is hiding something in those votes. What it is I can not ascertain, but something is hidden in those votes. I for one just want to see them counted and could careless who gets the White House.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:25:54 PM
The US Supreme Court's interference, which itself was hardly a strong mandate at 5-4, has virtually assured there will be no time for a completed count, IMO.
Democrats ought to focus now on how best to showcase the acts of desperation that kept the American public from knowing who won the vote.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:27:15 PM
I think that when they finally dig to the bottom of those piles of under-votes they will find that this is where the Republican Party has stashed Jimmy Hoffa.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:31:31 PM
O.K., O.K..... It isn't Hoffa. It is Elvis. He's a Republican brownshirt in Miami-Dade County. The secret's out.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:33:43 PM
oh please, krs, I thought you were more intelligent than that? You think this whole scenario has been engineered? Maybe you'd better hang out on the grassy knoll, or the bridge with the Kennedys....or in the blue dress with Monica.....suit you?
Nobody wants to inherit this nightmare. I don't think winning is winning anymore. It might just be losing for a VERY long time. Both presidential candidates are irreparably harmed by this confluence of events.This is SO SCREWY that there is no way on God's green earth that this was engineered. NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE IT. No reasonable human being would believe this embarrasing comedy was scripted except maybe the foolish people who paid $7 PP to see Blair Witch.....
You have average people trying to do their best to do what is *right*, morally & legally. The players are simple human beings. You impugne WAY too much power to any of the players in this melodrama. This is simply the tug, push me~ pull you of opposing powers,laws, wants and needs.
Think this would sell to a TV or movie audience. Sorry, no way. TOO FREAKING BORING unless you are a WANNABE LAWYER.(no names here, please)
The smart candidate will be thinking carefully about how to extricate himself with the least damage, but alas, I believe their testosterone has gotten *up*.
In my opinion Al Gore has to do or die RIGHT NOW because HRH Hillary Clinton is not going to serve six years but will become the Dem presidential candidate in 2004. Al Gore will just be a heavily blushed, rouged, eye made up, Grecian formula, hair transplant wannabe after 2000 is over. Gore is awfully shallow if you aske me. I'll take Bush with his pimple and gray hair over Mr. Max Factor/Clairol anyday.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:37:25 PM
I, like most Republicans, salivate at the thought of Hillary Clinton (The new Duchess of York) being the Democratic candidate for president in 2004. Go ahead, make my day!
posted on December 9, 2000 04:41:01 PM
dejavu,
The supreme court is now positioned to decide this election for everyone. We've seen the two county superior courts cooperate in a decision that each made, and very soon after that the Florida Supreme court made it's decision which stops any further action on the county cases, only to be stopped by the US supreme court, which stops further action in the Florida supreme court unless the case is kicked back to them. The whole thing has happened at unheard of rates of speed, and if you think that the phone lines aren't burning between all of them then you could play ostritch in Robinson Crusoe.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:49:53 PM
Dr. Beetle your day might be made but the Republican Party won't be able to drag up anything we haven't already heard and dismissed as Republican Jealousy. But the Dems in 2004 won't be looking to make history. They'll be looking to retake the White House.
This Florida fiasco has practically guaranteed Congress in 2002.
posted on December 9, 2000 05:06:12 PM
[QUOTE]
The point has been made that if the only objection to the hand counts is a lack of standards then why don't we set some standards. Well, late last night Leon County judge Terry Lewis had a hearing on the rules for the hand counts. Despite repeated pleas for him to develop a set of standards he refused. He decided to use the same non-standards set by the Florida Supreme Court.
[/QUOTE]
You know, conservatives have charged the FL Supreme Court as being "activists" (and far worse, actually) because they DARED take conflicting parts of the FL election statutes and reconcile them, thus moving a date (and so allow one part of the statute to survive), why on earth would conservatives INSIST that the courts set standards for manual recounts which are simply not there in the law?
FL law says, merely, that the local canvassing baords should count a vote if the intent of the voter can be ascertained. Further, it specifically relegates any fine-tuning of the standard-making to the local canvassing boards. It's stupid, we'll all agree, but the courts -- unless they wanted to be really, truly activist -- had no right to fill in the blanks for an obviously inept legislature (which isn't all that unusual to find at the state level, anyway).
After all the horrible, incendiary, court-bashing that has gone on by Republicans, there was no way the FL Supremes would come out "legislating" from the bench. And then conservatives feel they have the right to complain about that? Their hypocrisy's are so multitudinous they start tripping over themselves (and I'm not referring to Dr. Beetle here).
Further, Judge Lewis could hardly go out on a limb and determine any standards -- HIS instructions from the high court were to get those recounts done in a manner not inconsistent with their ruling, which very clearly reiterated that ambiguous part of state law on recounts.
ubb - maybe
[ edited by CleverGirl on Dec 9, 2000 05:24 PM ]
posted on December 9, 2000 05:22:07 PM
clevergirl - That is why the US Supreme will have a difficult time kicking this decision back. They didn't rewrite law they interpreted it. Its not their fault that Florida Statute on recounts pretty much reads. Do what the Freak you please just count them.
Now on the dimple issue, I don't think intent can be captured from an indenture in the card. Unless of course the whole card has been punched that way.
For the Bush team to complain about a lack of a Standard that doesn't exist under the law. IMHO is crazy and besides a Republican Legislature rewrote that law last year. So its a precursor to the type of governing we can expect from the Bush Administration.
