posted on November 16, 2000 09:40:30 PM new
Why are, according to Mr. Bush, et al, manual recounts ("mischief", "chad", and other "ballot irregularities" acceptable, justifiable cause for recounts in Texas, but not in FL? Can anyone explain this one to me, please?
Texas Election Code
§ 127.130. Manual Counting
(a) Electronic system ballots that are not to be counted automatically and the write-in votes not counted at the polling places shall be counted manually at the central counting station.
(b) If the automatic counting of electronic system ballots becomes impracticable for any reason, the manager may direct that the ballots be counted manually at the central counting station.
(c) The procedure for manual counting is the same as that for regular paper ballots to the extent practicable. The manager is responsible for the manual counting of ballots at the central counting
station.
(d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless:
(1) at least two corners of the chad are detached;
(2) light is visible through the hole;
(3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or
(4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.
(e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.
posted on November 16, 2000 10:43:25 PM new
It's simple. Recounts are okay if you're behind, but not if you're ahead.
If the initial returns had come in the other way in Florida, if Gore had been ahead by a thousand or so lead, and then Gore's lead had shrunk to a couple of hundred after the automatic machine recount, Gore and the Democrats would be making the same arguments about the impropriety of recounts as the Republicans are making now. And, the Democrats would be screaming about "the potential for mischief" that Jim Baker harps on now, except that the Democrats' cries would seem less paranoid, because Jeb Bush is the governor.
The Democrats and the Republicans are just like lawyers, they'll each argue, passionately, whichever side of a position they find themselves on.
Gore and the Democrats this time, through no fault of their own, just happened to have landed on the more legitimate side of the issue.
Plenty of people saw the news media say that Bush was president, and that, along with Bush's continued, though shrinking, lead in the Florida vote, put the image in some people's minds that Bush really had won the presidency at that moment, and it's allowed the Republicans to put forth the idea that Gore is trying to steal this election.
Simply put, Gore can't steal what Bush never had. Bush never had it, and, right now, Bush still doesn't have it.
Remember, the media once trumpeted that Dewey beat Truman, and, for a moment in time, millions of people believed that Dewey was the new president. And all we remember of Dewey now is that he was the guy that was mistakenly touted as the winner.
[ edited by donny on Nov 16, 2000 10:45 PM ]
posted on November 17, 2000 01:25:15 AM new
Yes, it's true, Gore does want to keep counting until he finds enough votes to win.
And, Bush wants to stop counting since he has enough votes to win.
That makes sense for both of them, who could fault either of them for having those positions?
Democrats lie when they say that every vote should receive a full, fair, and accuate count. What they mean is that every Democratic vote should receive a full, fair and accurate count.
Republicans lie when they claim that manual vote counting is inherently more subject to error than a machine count. This is just flat out wrong, and every private sector vote machine manufacturer refutes it. Hand counting uses human precision to correct machine imprecision, not the other way around. Machine counting is quicker, but less accurate. Hand counting is more accurate, but slower.
Gore is excerising his rights under the law. The law allows any candidate to request a recount of counties of their choosing. Of course Gore is going to select counties he has reason to believe will give him a favorable result.
Bush, the Republicans, and the Florida Secretary State have been trying to impede Gore's opportunity to make use of the remedy available to him under the law.
That really bothers me. You might think that Gore is being a weasel by trying to use a law in a way that will favor him, and maybe he is. But Bush isn't giving me any confidence that he'd be the right man to be president, a position that will charge him with the duty of upholding our laws. Not even president yet, and Bush is trying to keep another guy from availing himself of a proper legal remedy.
As to the lying, that doesn't bother me in and of itself. Anyone who thinks he doesn't want a president who lies should think again. Lying is sometimes a necessary part of the job.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:38:02 AM new
Ok, split the difference if there is one. Whoever wins the vote in Florida gets to be President of Florida. Whoever wins the popular vote in the US gets to be President of the US.
posted on November 17, 2000 04:38:00 AM new
Um, because Texas makes its own laws and so does Florida? I know, silly idea. Let's do away with state government entirely and make everything a federal case (literally and figuratively).
If you're trying to blame GWB for Texas's laws - last time I checked, the job of a governor was to uphold the law. Enacting the law is the Legislature's job.
posted on November 17, 2000 04:38:54 AM new
I am going to assume you read the statute (code) you posted regarding voting laws (in) Texas. Obviously you are not able to interpret the legal intent of the statute.
If you were to comprehend what you just posted, you would realize the code covers electronic AND manual counting. Voting systems (styles) can differ by county within the same state. Additionally, the Texas code appears to be defined in a manner that appears to be more consistent and comprehensible than the Florida code, and the intent is well defined.
However, Bush is going by the WORD OF THE LAW as defined in Florida, not Texas. Gore is attempting to subvert the Florida law and the U.S. Constitution, and there are Democratic judges enabling him to do so.
There is a dangerous precedent being set that many are failing to see. If Gore wins in the courts, regardless he wins the election, a precedent enabling the overthrow of elections via the courts (government) will be in motion. In other words, it will be the courts and other government entities selecting the President, not the People. Pure socialism, quasi communism.
The matter was quite simple before Gorsky challenged the results. One recount was allowed by Florida law, as is the case in many states. There is no evidence, evidence, evidence, of vote fraud, therefore, 1 recount, 1 recount, 1 recount.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:44:07 AM new
And let us NOT forget that the Governor prior to GW was a female democrat who had the office for a good 15-20 years.
So he inherited a lot of this stuff when he became Govenor.
posted on November 17, 2000 05:34:27 PM new
Huh????
"And let us NOT forget that the Governor prior to GW was a female democrat who had the office for a good 15-20 years."
Ann Richards served one term as Governor, elected in 1990 and voted out in 1994. Prior to Richards, William Clements was Governor of Texas. A simple matter to fact check.
posted on November 17, 2000 06:12:54 PM new
SgtMike, sometime I think you are receiving alien transmissions through your fillings. Have you had your dental checkup this year?
posted on November 17, 2000 08:27:18 PM new
Donny: If the initial returns had come in the other way in Florida, if Gore had been ahead by a thousand or so lead, and then Gore's lead had shrunk to a couple of hundred after the automatic machine recount, Gore and the Democrats would be making the same arguments about the impropriety of recounts as the Republicans are making now.
And they'd be just as wrong, both technically and morally. IF they did do that (and I rather doubt it), I think they'd at least wake up to their error sooner.
Sgtmike: There is a dangerous precedent being set that many are failing to see. If Gore wins in the courts, regardless he wins the election, a precedent enabling the overthrow of elections via the courts (government) will be in motion.
Brace yourself, ole buddy, got a news flash for ya. There've been elections already overturned by the courts. GASP!!! I know, hard to believe, but true.
I don't mean to be offensive here, but I'm always amazed and amused when people toss out descriptions of *the way things not only work but are SUPPOSED to work* and somehow make them sound as if there's a terrible danger there. (Of course, my comment here doesn't address the fact that there's BEEN no election results in FL quite yet -- just premature guesses -- so whatever the FL Supreme Court decides will most definitely not be *overturning an election.*)
Look. Election law is overwhelmingly a state matter (ever heard of state's rights?), yes even when electing Presidents. The state courts get to clarify and interpret state law if there's a contested legal issue in any given election. If a law isn't clear, or circumstances arise that aren't clearly covered in the existing law, the courts are THE constitutional avenue for addressing those issues for the matter(s) at hand. And yes, that means they can -- and have -- overturned elections.
But as I said, that won't be the case with this election.
HCQ: If you're trying to blame GWB for Texas's laws - last time I checked, the job of a governor was to uphold the law. Enacting the law is the Legislature's job.
Ahhh, you're forgetting the signing or vetoing part.
I haven't heard anyone trying to blame Dubya for Texas's laws. I have heard plenty of them point out the irony (if not hypocrisy) of his having signed a law favoring manual recounts while contesting these particular manual recounts.
Speaking of Dubya. Did anyone hear that the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for the latest victim of the Texas criminal legal system? He's got the IQ of about a 6 yr old. Believes in Santa Claus. Spends his time in his cell coloring. Did he do it (whatever *it* was)? Yeah. That's not the issue. Rather reminds me of the saying, "If this is your justice, deliver me from your mercy." But then nobody every accused Dubya of either, near as I can tell.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:12:19 PM new
The law in Texas says nothing about favoring the manual count. It just outlines the procedure for determining when/if a manual count is necessary and then how it is to be implemented. With the possibility of write-in candidates, there has to be some law on the books to account for them.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:19:27 PM new
Funny that the republican party brought suit in federal court while the democratic party filed only in state courts.
posted on November 18, 2000 12:25:49 PM new
CleverGirl:
I am well aware of courts, in certain cases, ruling on issues that affected the outcome or resulted in the reversal of certain elections. I said, "..a precedent enabling the overthrow of elections by the court."
Can you say that all court rulings were and are always appropriate and that "new law" is never legislated from the bench in any of the cases or that personal bias by the sitting judge(s) never occurs? You are speaking in a "black and white" manner, I am speaking in an A to Z manner i.e., chance of escalation of inappropriate actions by the court.
All issues are not always appropriate for (certain) courts to hear and to rule on and should be rejected or remanded. However, the attorneys, from both sides know that judges are human and are often surreptitiously personally biased in their rulings. That is why attorneys try to select particular judges to present their arguments to. How non-biased can a judge be in political cases when the judge(s) claim political preference and affiliation with a particular political party?
The Florida code governing the election process and recounting of ballots appears to have been long-standing, clear in its (code) meaning, and never challenged in the past presidential elections. Of course, the Democrats usually won the electoral. However, The "Gore gang" found a judge willing to rule in favor of Gore by legislating an addendum to the Florida election code, from the bench. Obviously, someone clued the judge in and she covertly reversed he decision.
There are many U. S. Supreme Court rulings on the books regarding issue pertaining to elections and election processes. The rulings seem to have a general theme regardless of the case, the era, and regardless of who the sitting judges were
U.S. Supreme Court
"The initiative gives the people of a state no power to adopt a constitutional amendment that violates the Federal Constitution. Amendment No. 7 is not valid just because the people voted for it. [But] the traditional and recognized criteria of equal protection are arbitrariness, discrimination, and lack of rationality.
"The actions of the electorate are material to the application of the criteria. The contention that the voters have discriminated against themselves appalls rather than convinces. Difficult as it may be at times to understand mass behavior of human beings, a proper recognition of the judicial function precludes a court from holding that the free choice of the voters between two conflicting theories of apportionment is irrational or the result arbitrary."
"The electorate of every county from which the plaintiffs come preferred Amendment No. 7. In the circumstances it is difficult to comprehend how the plaintiffs can sue to vindicate a public right. At the most they present a political issue which they lost. On the questions before us we shall not substitute any views which we may have for the decision of the electorate. [W]e decline to act as a superelectorate to weigh the rationality of a method of legislative apportionment adopted by a decisive vote of the people.""
"The people are free, within the framework of the Federal Constitution, to establish the governmental forms which they desire and when they have acted the courts should not enter the political wars to determine the rationality of such action."
Does the above mean that Florida has the right to legislate and follow (their) election laws, and as long as there is no evidence of wrongdoing the courts should not interfere? If I remember correctly, the Florida election law required a recount, which was done, and required all counties to have their ballots counted and filed by a deadline.
krs
The Gore camp most likely and intentionally used a (State) Democratic judge to obstruct the action of the Secretary of State and the intent and lawful application of the Florida Code governing the election process
The Bush camp challenging the actions initiated by the Goreskys in the Federal Court was an appropriate recourse. Probably under the umbrella of equal protection.
posted on November 18, 2000 12:58:35 PM newI am well aware of courts, in certain cases, ruling on issues that affected the outcome or resulted in the reversal of certain elections. I said, "..a precedent enabling the overthrow of elections by the court."
You know, Mike, I simply can't *get it* what you're trying to say. What sort of precedent would enable the future overthrow of elections by the court? Give me an concrete *for instance.*
Can you say that all court rulings were and are always appropriate and that "new law" is never legislated from the bench
I can say that I think the charge (so popular among some mindsets) of "legislating from the bench" is one I find patently ridiculous. It is the JOB of the courts to explain, clarify, elaborate, apply, and at times expand existing law. I repeat: that's their job. That's also why we have the term "case law" in our legal lexicon. This job of the courts is provided for in our Constitution, and is part and parcel of the system of checks and balances provided for by the Constitution.
Again, why don't you give me a nice, clear, concrete example of where you think there was any "legislation from the bench." Any court, your choice.
or that personal bias by the sitting judge(s) never occurs?
I think by and large any kneejerk charge of unfairness or partiality due to personal bias based on political affiliation (or the party affiliation of whoever appointed them) is not only inappropriate and inaccurate but dangerous. I am appalled and disgusted by the media over the last two days repeatedly pointing out that the FL Supreme Court were mostly appointed by a Democratic governor -- only partly because the overwhelming reputation of this particular Court IS that it's fair and unbiased. The other reason is more generic -- the JOB of judges (esp. at this level) is to be impartial and fair to the best of their ability, and I think it's inapprpriate and dangerous to besmirch the legitimacy of the Court (any court) without evidence to the contrary.
Personal bias? Welllllll, they ARE called judges, aren't they? They're supposed to exercise their JUDGMENT, in accordance with the laws of the state they're in. You can see very clearly that MY judgment is different from yours -- but that doesn't mean that either of us would, ipso facto, be bad judges. If you're looking for robotlike, black and white *perfection,* you're not going to find it among human beings. IOW, I don't worry a great deal about the personal bias of our courts, not until there's been some pretty darned overwhelming evidence about it.
posted on November 18, 2000 01:07:00 PM new
FULL COURT PRESS. I am thoroughly disgusted by what I'm seeing today in the news. The Republicans (the Bush camp, let me be clear) are taking every opportunity to wage a war against the validity of the recounts. Their purpose? To try to sway the FL Supreme Court by Monday, and of course the court of public opinion as well.
Just saw an interview with Judge Burton, who I'm pretty sure is the sitting Republican on the Palm Beach County canvassing board. (It's either him or Carol Roberts, since we know Theresa LePore is a Democrat. So I imagine it's the Judge.) He was pretty clear that there's no where near the type of *fraud* and *chicanery* and *manipulation* going on during the recount -- again and again his comment has been that it would be pretty hard with all those Democrat and Republican observers right there -- AND that the number of ballots that are actually challenged amount to just a handful.
This latest PR campaign by the Bush team (which also includes some horrid rhetoric about the overseas ballots found invalid because they didn't comply with FL law) may be a good LEGAL strategy prior to pressing their case before the Court, but it's a horrible thing to do to the everyday people involved in doing the recounts, and an unforgiveable thing to do to the country.
posted on November 18, 2000 01:14:28 PM new
In fact -- here's proof. Mark Savage of CNN was just reporting that Judge Burton is hearing NONE of these objections and criticisms and charges inside the room that are being made by Bush campaign spokespeople outside that room. AND that Judge BUrton is being "caught off guard" when asked about these charges.
FURTHER, that a number of Republican observers have come out and said there were no problems whatsoever, that everything was going smoothly.
Susan Candiotti in Broward just reported that she had personally seen none of these types of problems on those occasions she was in the Broward County facility where the votes were being counted.
1. "Responding to the annual "State of the Judiciary" address by Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Matthews, Senator Loren Leman (R-Anchorage) stated in remarks on the Senate floor that the Alaska court has so often "missed the mark" on major decisions that legislative involvement in the judicial appointment process is warranted. "It’s no small wonder the people have lost confidence in the judiciary when the courts go beyond merely interpreting laws and actually begin legislating from the bench," Leman commented. "I have great respect for the court as an institution. But the Alaska Supreme Court has undermined self-governance by expanding into policy areas that are the proper domain of the legislature."
2. Concerning "activist" judges who legislate from the bench: " Grassroots Americans are increasingly concerned about an activist federal judiciary. President Clinton has already appointed 202 activist judges, which is over 25% of the entire federal bench. Some 300 grassroots organizations signed a letter to the White House and the Senate expressing their commitment to see a more restrained judiciary. This was only the beginning!
3. When the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a major vehicle insurance case a couple of years ago, the ruling set aside previous decisions the court had made in more than 30 cases. This practice is referred to as policy-based law, or as retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Craig Wright calls it, the practice of judges legislating from the bench. [I] "Many judges are all too willing to make it up as they go along," he said. There exists in this country a considerable number of judges who firmly believe that the American public expects the judiciary through its decisions to become deeply involved in the management of society," Wright said. "This tendency toward judicial activism is rooted in the feeling that society has suffered deeply from the failures of the executive and legislative branch, and that judges must single-handedly make things right." Stability is important in the law, Wright said.
4. For years federal judges have used their powerful positions to dictate public policy. Their decisions have often disregarded the will of the people. And Congress has not lived up to its responsibility to oversee these judges. That's why the latest Congressional initiative against activist judges is so encouraging. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay has announced that Congress will soon begin to introduce articles of impeachment against judges who legislate from the bench instead of interpret the law. It's about time. All over America we live under the tyranny of judges who put criminals back on the street, try to abolish any public expression of our religious heritage and overturn the will of voters. Out of control judicial activism is one of the greatest threats to the American experiment in freedom and self-governance. My hat's off to Congressional leaders who have taken the offensive in the fight against judicial tyranny. In the weeks and months ahead I'm going to fight to make sure that Congress keeps the pressure on activist judges. Now that we have them on the run, it's no time to back down.
Etc.,
Table the interdicting rhetoric and answering with questions. In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court, does it (ruling) appear to indicate that Florida has the right to legislate and process their election laws absent of Constitutional errors or violations?
As for your interpretation of a judge's rights and the processes he or she uses, your interpretation and personal beliefs are so far out in left field it would take the entire forum to (try) to, first, simplify and clarify what you are saying, consolidate the repetitiveness that is disguised under varying forms, and then attempt to rebut what is ridiculous.
posted on November 18, 2000 02:46:04 PM newPattaylor
Reread. I did not say that CleverGirl was in "left field," I said (the) interpretations and personal beliefs are.
The term, "left field" is a very commmon, long time used, cliché to expeditiously indicate a belief that something said or done is erroneous or incorrect.
As not to be repetitive, I also used the word "ridiculous" to indicate my same belief. Do also you want to add "ridiculous" to your list?
posted on November 18, 2000 02:48:47 PM newCleverGirl
Regarding your statement:
"IOW, I don't worry a great deal about the personal bias of our courts, not until there's been some pretty darned overwhelming evidence about it.
THE GENERAL STATE OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE REPORT
The preceding sections of this Report, which summarize issues brought to the Commission's attention, raise a number of concerns about the current state of judicial independence and accountability. Some of these concerns are legitimate, serious, and deserving of prompt attention. Notwithstanding these concerns, which are addressed below, the Commission finds that the state of judicial independence and accountability is essentially sound.
1. Several Recent Events Pose a Potential Threat to Federal Judicial Independence
In the recent past, there have been a number of departures from the "spirit of restraint" that should dominate the interbranch relationship. These departures have given rise to three potentially serious problems.
First, individual judges have been subjected to demagogic attacks and threats of impeachment from representatives of both political branches in both political parties. In the course of such criticism, accusations of "judicial activism" and "soft on crime" have been wielded as political weapons against judges who have overturned statutes and initiatives, or made rulings in favor of criminal defendants on constitutional grounds. These developments have a potentially deleterious effect on the courts' decision-making independence.
Second, the cooperative, mutually deferential relationship between the federal courts and Congress on matters of statutory reform affecting the judiciary has become increasingly strained. Congress has shown the judiciary less deference than in the past, in the course of overseeing and reforming the courts' jurisdiction, practice, procedure, administration, and budget. Judges, on the other hand, have not always responded constructively to such initiatives, sometimes accusing Congress of "micromanaging" the courts or of threatening judicial independence. That, in turn, has served only to deepen Congress' resolve to look at the courts even more closely, which may ultimately inure to the detriment of the courts' institutional independence.
The third problem is related to the first two: if Congress and the courts do not cooperate in a constructive and restrained manner, public confidence in the judiciary will be adversely affected. When judges are publicly accused of committing impeachable offenses or engaging in illegitimate criminal coddling or "activist" decision-making, it diminishes public faith in the judicial system as a whole.
Although targeted, rational criticism can result in improvements, the increasingly contentious relationship between courts and Congress and the atmosphere of skepticism that has begun to work its way into congressional oversight of the judiciary, manifests shrinking confidence in the judiciary's capacity or willingness to regulate itself, and further fuels public disenchantment with the courts.
Public support for the judicial system is currently at its lowest point in recent memory. If confidence in the courts is not restored, real threats to judicial independence are sure to follow. In a representative democracy, the judiciary will remain independent only as long as the people trust it to be so. When the public loses faith in its judges, threats to judicial independence, in the form of amendments to Article III of the Constitution, are a logical next step.
posted on November 18, 2000 02:51:53 PM new
CleverGirl, I saw the press conference too. It didn't make me angry, as much as it scared me. I used to be scared of what might happen if Bush was elected president. Now I'm beginning to be scared too of what might happen if he's not elected president.
You quoted what I'd said about my belief that if the initial count had gone the other way, the Democrats' and Republicans' arguments would be reversed. That's politics. I don't have any illusions about the the truthfulness of Democratic spin doctors vs. the truthfulness of Republican spin doctors. I see both sides lying, making attempts at emotionally persuasive arguments that fly in the face of facts. That doesn't surprise me one bit.
I also said that, through no fault of their own, the Democrats just happened to have landed on the correct side of the dispute. Let me make it clear I mean the correct side of the law. Ethically, it could be said that both the Republicans and Democrats have a duty to fight as hard as they can for their guys. Remember, this isn't just the fate of Bush and Gore at stake, but the whole crew of their cronies whom they would appoint to various positions, the voters in each party, etc. etc.
Also, as a side note, I'd like to say that it's not entirely fair to blame Gov. George Bush for the planned execution of the retarded guy that was only stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. As I understand it, the position of governor of Texas is a very weak position, not to say by virtue of the person holding it, but as set out under Texas law. I believe that the governor of Texas only has the authority, under Texas law, to issue a temporary stay of execution, and then, only one. I don't know if Bush had issued the one temporary stay of execution that he could have, but it wouldn't have made much difference, as it turned out, if he had or hadn't.
As to Judge Burton, he's an interesting character. I've heard him labelled as both a Republican and a Democrat by various news commentators. At first I thought he was a Republican, because of his earlier disagreements with Carol Roberts, as well as that suit he always wears. I think I learned that he's actually a Democrat, but I can't put my finger on where I found that information at. I do know that he was appointed to his judgeship by Gov. Jeb Bush, in May of this year.
I wonder now if Jeb is sorry that he appointed him. Of course, Burton isn't acting in his capacity as a judge now, but only in his capacity as a memeber of the Palm Beach County canvassing board.
Burton seems increasingly riled by the Secretary of State's attempts to limit the power of the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. It's my completely personal opinion that his growing agitation is more a product of his own pomposity than of any ideological or political stance.
posted on November 18, 2000 03:42:34 PM new
And the Bush petition was immediately tossed from the federal courtroom without being heard.
Old time Republican dogma is not logic nor is it supportable as truth in all cases. There have been republican complaints about judicial involvement if life issues since there has been a republican party, or rather, since that party became aware of their frustrations upon having their viewpoints quashed by the reasoning of courts.
Fascinating to note that when Senator Hatch submitted his petition for legislative review of the judiciary in troublesome (to republicans) decisions there was perhaps only one signator, aside himself of course.
Oddly, though, that republican party is unfailingly quiet whenever a court case is decided by an appearance of republican sympathy in the judiciary.
Biased argument always is selective of fact. That's all that has been said here, and it meets with approval, I'm sure, in the coffee shops and barbershops in republican middling America as it no doubt would right about now at revival gatherings run by Jerry Fallwell. (however his name is spelled).
No doubt an unlimited amount of cheap rhetoric can be endlessly brought to bear here, but there's really no use in it, is there? It's only the same old tripe heard plenty of times before.
posted on November 18, 2000 04:46:26 PM newTable the interdicting rhetoric and answering with questions. In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court, does it (ruling) appear to indicate that Florida has the right to legislate and process their election laws absent of Constitutional errors or violations?
Oh, goodness, Mike. How very tedious this is.
If you think I was *answering with questions,* I'm afraid you're simply wrong. Despite my better judgment (which I wish I'd followed), I was trying to actually have a dialog with you. Those were earnest questions.
You see, there's no way I can answer your SPECIFIC question above because what you posted was gobblydegook to me, pure and simple.
What am I to make of 4 separate paragraphs hanging in mid-air without any supporting information like who, what, when, where, or EVEN if they're from a single ruling or 4 different ones? In any case, call me dense or stupid if you like, but there's nothing there from which I can even begin to make an assessment in order to answer your (now somewhat peevish) question.
Nor did you, I might point out, answer MY request for some nice, concrete example of *legislating from the bench.* Instead you offered me political rightwing rhetoric unsupported by anything approaching fact or example. I've heard it all before, believe me. And as you know, I dismiss it as pure folly, tho was interested (for a moment or two) to hear some examples so I might see for myself what the rightwing fuss is all about. You know, get properly educated.
So, having proven to myself that my better judgment was definitive, I'll just consider this conversation officially dropped at this point -- at least for my part, anyway.
posted on November 18, 2000 05:04:18 PM newDonny First, count me as voting "mediocre charisma" too.
I don't have any illusions about the the truthfulness of Democratic spin doctors vs. the truthfulness of Republican spin doctors. I see both sides lying, making attempts at emotionally persuasive arguments that fly in the face of facts. That doesn't surprise me one bit.
How 'bout some specifics of Democrating lying, or emotionally persuasive arguments that fly in the fact of facts?
I also said that, through no fault of their own, the Democrats just happened to have landed on the correct side of the dispute. Let me make it clear I mean the correct side of the law. Ethically, it could be said that both the Republicans and Democrats have a duty to fight as hard as they can for their guys. Remember, this isn't just the fate of Bush and Gore at stake, but the whole crew of their cronies whom they would appoint to various positions, the voters in each party, etc. etc.
I'll bet a lot of Americans would agree with me that ETHICALLY they should fight as hard as they can as long as it isn't UNETHICAL fighting that goes on. I find your remark troubling.
Also, as a side note, I'd like to say that it's not entirely fair to blame Gov. George Bush for the planned execution of the retarded guy that was only stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. As I understand it, the position of governor of Texas is a very weak position, not to say by virtue of the person holding it, but as set out under Texas law. I believe that the governor of Texas only has the authority, under Texas law, to issue a temporary stay of execution, and then, only one. I don't know if Bush had issued the one temporary stay of execution that he could have, but it wouldn't have made much difference, as it turned out, if he had or hadn't.
I rather doubt he did do any temporary stays in this case, but in any case, unless the Governor's position is specifically prevented from trying to influence any legislative efforts, the fact remains that under his 1+ terms in office, the Texas criminal justice system -- esp. where capital cases are concerned -- is a JOKE. I'll also say that I wasn't the only one shocked and a bit dismayed at what certainly looked like a bit too much glee when he talked about the fact that those convicted (actually, I think it was ONE of those convicted) in the grotesque Byrd killing will get the death penalty.
As to Judge Burton, he's an interesting character. I've heard him labelled as both a Republican and a Democrat by various news commentators.
I haven't heard him labeled at all, either way. I have heard that this particular canvassing board is comprised of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. I will say, I also heard him relate (in the same interview I cited earlier) an incident where a Republican observer and a worker were arguing. He went over and asked the Republican if he'd perhaps like to join a different team. The observer shot back that Burton was a biased partisan (or similar gist), which had Burton shaking his head as he related it. I do think Burton is the Republican on the 3-person board.
At first I thought he was a Republican, because of his earlier disagreements with Carol Roberts, as well as that suit he always wears.
Well, just to further confuse you, my thoroughly Democratic husband wears suits too. And I'll just bet that he and Burton aren't the only Democrats in the country who do.
Burton seems increasingly riled by the Secretary of State's attempts to limit the power of the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. It's my completely personal opinion that his growing agitation is more a product of his own pomposity than of any ideological or political stance.
Maybe he thinks the ballots should actually be counted, no matter who it ends up benefitting? I myself think he's enjoying the spotlight, and may be a bit pompous as well. But I also think he's in a tough spot, has been working some darned long, hard hours, and is no doubt doing the best he can under the circumstances. I think they all are, which is one reason it angers me so that there are all these charges of *mischief* in the recounting.
posted on November 18, 2000 05:15:21 PM new
Don't have enough time for a long post! Just want to say: ZERO Charisma for GW. Regan did,at least, have that.
posted on November 18, 2000 05:44:49 PM new
Hi CleverGirl, let me take this one first:
"How 'bout some specifics of Democrating lying, or emotionally persuasive arguments that fly in the fact of facts?"
The oft-repeated Democratic claim that they want a 'full, fair, and accurate' count of the Florida vote is clearly a lie. Here's why:
Under Florida law, within 72 hours, either candidate or party had the option to make requests, of individual county canvassing boards, for a full recount of the votes cast in an individual county. Democrats only asked those counties which had heavily Democratic votes to do a recount.
Democrats do want a "full, fair, and accurate count," but only of Democratic votes. Gore's later press conference offer to Bush to do a full hand count of each Florida county was an emotionally persuasive, but totally empty, gesture. Gore and his handlers would have to have known that, under Florida law, there's no provision for 2 candidates or parties to agree on a state wide recount after the 72 hour window for requests had passed.
Gore and the Democrats' requests, within 72 hours, to the county canvassing boards of Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties were unquestionably legal. "Full and Fair?" Not hardly.
Next:
"I'll bet a lot of Americans would agree with me that ETHICALLY they should fight as hard as they can as long as it isn't UNETHICAL fighting that goes on. I find your remark troubling."
Well, ethics is a slippery animal to grab a hold of, especially so when politics is involved. I could probably word what I think a lot better, maybe put it like this:
I can see where each of the sides has a duty to not only their own candidate, but to their candidate's circle of politicians, as well as to their party members, to fight as fully for their position as they can within the limits of political behavior, which isn't very limiting at all. Politics is a dirty business. Democratic politicking is a nasty business, and so is Republican politicking. Maybe after all of this, Ralph Nader will look a lot better in four years.
Bush and the Texas Executions:
I sure wouldn't argue at all that he opposes it, just that he couldn't do much about it with his limited powers as governor even if he wanted to, so it's not fair to blame him for not performing an action that he's prevented under law from taking.
Burton:
I've looked around some more and still haven't been able to retrace whatever steps I might have taken that led me to think he was a Democrat (and I could be wrong about it.) It wasn't so much the suit that made me think he was a Republican, but the way he wore it, if that makes any sense.
As to GW's "great personal charisma." Okay, you all caught me. I was trying to be nice. I should have learned long ago that never works.
, "chad", and other "ballot irregularities" acceptable, justifiable cause for recounts in Texas, but not in FL? Can anyone explain this one to me, please?
