posted on November 22, 2000 01:54:51 PM
If this doesn't take the cake and show just how low George Bush is willing to go, Tom Feeney, Speaker of the Florida House, just gave a statement in which he has threatened to disobey the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. Besides his scathing, and totally unseemly criticism of the Court, implying partisan decision-making on the part of the Justices, he has stated that the Legislature has retained counsel to pursue legal means to defy the Court's rulings. This is beyond unbelievable, and whereas before I was leaning toward letting Crybaby George Bush have his damn toy just to shut him up, now I'm mad. These people will go to any lengths. This is what George Bush has in mind for our country...challenging our COURTS for god's sake. Talk about a constitutional crisis...Bush has absolutely no respect for our separation of powers. This guy is beyond scary.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Nov 22, 2000 02:01 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2000 01:59:02 PM
??
Okay when I first came to this thread it was blank....now it is not.
Is this some kind of trick?
If your trying to confuse me you are about ten years too late
I'm just not going to let this thing get me down.
They will squabble and fight like two kids in the back seat until this ride is over.
posted on November 22, 2000 02:06:21 PM
Has Jeb's political machine have no shame? The nasty criticism and innuendos lobbed at the Supreme Court by Feeney is beyond anything I've EVER seen. If Bush thinks he's going to win points from the US Supreme Court with the show put on by this little toady, he's stupider than his reputation gives him credit!
posted on November 22, 2000 02:14:59 PM
KatyD...it is Bush's feelings that the Courts overstepped their bounds in making the decision they did and this is the next step in the appeals process. It is every American's right to challenge a verdict they feel is not correct.
What about Gore's lawsuit to the Florida Supreme Court to over-rule the decision made by Katherine Harris? What makes his okay and Bush's not? And the insults and allegations lobbed at Ms. Harris were much worse than what is being said now.
And Gore is now filing charges against Miami-Dade county for halting the recount. Any comments on his desperate actions?
And if Gore manages to squeak a victory out of this, I wonder how many US Supreme Court nominees will be from Florida?
*********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Nov 22, 2000 02:16 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2000 02:21:47 PM
Ya,know, Toke, I repect your views but when do you think enough is enough. If Mr. Feeney (and by extension, Bush) made the statement that they respectfully disagreed with the Florida Justices interpretation of the law, and thus were pursuing the issue to a higher court..yada, yada, yada...then that would be one thing. But question the very INTEGRITY of the judges sitting on that court, implying that their decision was based in partisanship rather than the law...well, it's beyond unseemly. They have taken their rhetoric too far, and insulting our judiciary branch for making decisions that they don't happen to agree with is waaay out of bounds. I hope they do hurry up and file their petition with the Supreme Court. I have a feeling that they're about to have the door slammed in their faces.
posted on November 22, 2000 02:25:13 PM
Njrazd, let everybody file all the Court briefs they want to. Let everybody challenge every decision made by every court in this issue. Fine. But to publically DERIDE and INSULT the Courts who don't happen to agree with them on the legal issues is beyond the pale.
posted on November 22, 2000 02:38:17 PM
KatyD...the INSULTS that were directed at Katherine Harris were unsubstantiated and totally without merit. Alan Dershowitz called her a "criminal" and another Dem called her "komissar". (Funny a Democrat referring to a Republican as a Communist.) And all because they disagreed with the ruling she made according to the rule of law in the State of Florida to which she is an ELECTED official, not APPOINTED like the judges are. Her villification was one of the low points of this whole episode.
So, exactly when is it okay to DERIDE and INSULT public officials?
*******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 02:39:49 PM
I believe they've shat upon the separation of powers. This isn't politics...it's a huge deal for us as citizens......
Give me a break. Katherine Harris is a POLITICIAN. She makes her own bed. We're talking about our COURTS here. Big difference, and if you can't see it, you need to take a refresher course in Civics.
Toke, SHAT? Nevertheless, I agree with you....I think..
posted on November 22, 2000 02:47:06 PM
KatyD...if the courts aren't governed by Politics, then why all the fear about Bush getting in and appointing new judges.
EVERYTHING touched by the government is political. Every decision made is calculated for the maximum benefit of those making the decision and what it can do for them in the future.
Katherine Harris may be a politician, but she has not done anything to warrant personal attacks. And for every person who thinks her decisions are partisan, there is another person who thinks 6 liberal judges are partisan, too.
Edited for grammar.
********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Nov 22, 2000 02:48 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2000 03:01:33 PM
Njrazd, so you are saying tit for tat is okay? You condone attacks on the credibility and integrity of our Courts? And what would you suggest Bush do if the US Supreme Court denies his petition, or even upholds the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation in their ruling? Attack the integrity of the Supreme Court? Incite civil disobedience, or worse, riots? Maybe call out the Texas Rangers? heh. When do you think enough is enough? There is a reason for separation of powers in our government. The Courts do not MAKE the law, they interpret it. And to cast aspersions as to the honesty and integrity of the Courts because one does not LIKE that interpretation attacks the foundation of our country. The buck stops at the Supreme Court. What's the crybaby going to say when/if that Court rules against him? That they are all crooked partisans out to get him?
posted on November 22, 2000 03:05:25 PM
Personally I think that Ms. Harris deserves every insult she has or will receive over her actions (which I wouldn't say for either Bush nor Gore). Unfortunately it looks like she will make out fine over them as the GOP seems set on making her a hero for furthering their cause (right or wrong).
posted on November 22, 2000 03:22:04 PM
KatyD...as with any other suit that goes to the Supreme Court, it is obvious that any decisions would be final and they will have run out of options through the court system.
And their whole point is that the Florida Court IS re-writing the law in extending the time limit. The law was not written in favor of either party and should remain as the legistlation enacted it.
As far as the insulting, I don't think it's appropriate when directed to any individual when doing their job. And I can assure you much worse is said about Clarence Thomas on any given day. But, he's a Republican "Tom", so that makes it okay.
And I could also ask you when enough is enough. When the initial recount came back showing Bush still the winner, shouldn't that have been enough? While Dems want us to believe the counting machines are unreliable, the machines are not partisan and any errors would have been divided equally among the candidates.
********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 03:43:13 PM
I have to agree completely with KatyD, and not at all for partisan reasons (tho I'll readily admit to being a partisan).
It's one thing to criticize an individual like Harris and btw, I agree with the notion that she asked for it because:
(1) She didn't recuse herself. One standard (and a good one) for recusing oneself is, "If you have to ask if you've got a conflict of interest, the answer is yes."
(2) She made decisions that all too clearly favored not just her party, but her PERSONAL candidate. EVEN IF she had been on the right side of the law (and an awful lot of constitutional scholars --except the strict constructionist cadre -- think she did), it still opened her for criticism on partisan grounds.
(3) Her decisions were clearly intended to THWART at every turn an otherwise legal (if not legally mandated) activity because it could jeopardize her candidate's position in the election. I'll repeat: even if she had the law on her side, she nevertheless opened herself up for criticism.
That said, the Komissar comment was wrong. And it came from a Gore supporter, but not the Gore campaign. Alan Dershowitz's comment, on the other hand, that she's a crook was intemperate, perhaps, but not wrong. He's a pretty high-flying attorney and in fact has documentation for the charge. I'd have preferred he not use the word "crook," but I'm glad he got that bit of information out there. It needed to be known.
All in all (except for these two examples), I think the Dems have been treating her with kid gloves.
At any rate, back to my argument. Criticizing (or even attacking, which I dispprove) individuals is one thing, but the kinds of vicious, partisan attacks on the Court undermines the very fabric of our nation. It's not that the Court (whatever court) can't be criticized, can't be considered wrong. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions in its past that are considered clearly wrong by today's standards ("Separate but equal" being the most famous, but by no means the only one). But the kinds of remarks made by the Republicans can erode public confidence in our INSTITUTIONS -- the very institutions that we rely on to keep us together and coherent as a nation.
It's the kind of thing that scares me greatly. With the events of today, it appears we MAY be headed toward a Constitutional Crisis. If the state and federal High Courts are called untrustworthy, partisan, suspect and therefore ILLEGITIMATE by ANY side, it may ultimately weaken us as a nation.
It's not just an issue of respect, or even decorum. It's downright dangerous.
posted on November 22, 2000 03:55:30 PM
clevergirl...why should Harris have recused herself and who could have been appointed who would not have been considered partisan? This is such a hotly divided issue, that any decision could be construed for what it's not.
*****************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 04:01:30 PM
CleverGirl, thank you for clarifying the exact points I was trying to make.
As far as the insulting, I don't think it's appropriate when directed to any individual when doing their job. And I can assure you much worse is said about Clarence Thomas on any given day. But, he's a Republican "Tom", so that makes it okay.
Njrazd, we must be talking on different wavelengths here. You are talking about an INDIVIDUAL, I am talking about our Judiciary branch of government. I am not talking about whether the Bush Camp or the Gore Camp agree or disagree with the Court rulings they have sought and received. I am talking about scurrilous attacks upon our Courts, which our country is reliant upon for guidance on legal and constitutional issues. If one is unwilling to accept the judgement of the Courts as outlined by our Constitution, what does that say about those individuals and their respect for our Constitution? Very scary indeed.
And yes, Florida is headed for a constitutional crisis within its own state evidenced by Tom Feeney remarks today that more than implied that the Florida Legislature is pondering the means by which they can overturn the Florida's Supreme Court Ruling. Listen, folks, that is VERY SCARY business, and if this is the Bush campaign's idea of "scorched earth", I urge all to rethink about what an extension of such action BEYOND the state of Florida means to this country and our very Constitution. This has gone beyond political rhetoric.
posted on November 22, 2000 04:20:06 PM
KatyD...who's inciting riots now??
It's too bad the Florida courts ruled the way they did. It would have been fun to see what Gore would have done if the situation had been reversed. Any ideas?
Edited for spellink.
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Nov 22, 2000 04:30 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2000 04:30:46 PM
It frightens me a great deal that it seems that so many people will so easily get into the mindset that the judicial branch doesn't deserve, and shouldn't be accorded, respect. While I have little respect for either the Republican or Democratic parties, the judiciary has always seemed, to me, to have been accorded, and has largely deserved, the highest respect of all the people.
It's true that any court, even the U.S. Supreme Court, can make, and has made, totally bogus decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of the government's decision to inter American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II comes to mind as one of the most awful court decisions there ever was.
Still, even through erroneous decisions or decisions that can be seen as politically motivated, the judicial branch, as a whole, has never been seen as anything less than the word of law. That a court decision can be seen as and called "unfair" is certainly reasonable. When a court's action is called, as James Baker called it last night, "unfair and unacceptable, it's the addition of the word "unacceptable" that threatens the whole fabric of our society.
Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes. But what James Baker was moving around to last night, advocating an action of the legislature to circumvent a Supreme Court decision, is scary.
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.
Anyway, all that frightens me too badly to talk about much. I'm much more comfortable with purely legal issues. Making it clear that I don't mean to associate Njazd with any of my previous fears, I'd like to address this question is (her?) post:
"When the initial recount came back showing Bush still the winner, shouldn't that have been enough?"
Actually, no, that shouldn't have been enough, even though James Baker, and the other Bush spinners said so. I believe James Baker is a lawyer. He certainly must have realized that he was completely and unequivocably misstating the law in saying that should have been enough.
There is no question, and I've read the Florida statutes myself, that Al Gore had an absolute right, under existing Florida statutory law, to ask for recounts in any Florida counties of his choosing. Whether his request should have been granted or not was up to the judgement of the individual counties.
No matter what James Baker and Bush said about it being over after the machine recount, it was not. Al Gore, like any other citizen of the United States, had a right to avail himself of the law. It is clearly, and always has been, from the beginning of this, true Gore had a right to ask for and, if the counties deemed it proper, receive, hand recounts of his choosing. No one deserves anything less than what is allowed under the law, and no one should try to prevent someone else from availing himself of his legal rights.
While I've understood that people are easily swayed by political rhetoric (to be polite; to be impolite, lies), and that people can't be held completely responsible for responding to what these politicians do so well, I'm beginning to see that people also should have an obligation, a duty, a repsonsibility, to attempt, at least a little bit, to find out what the truth is for themselves if their blind acceptance of a political persuasion will lead them to wholeheartedly endorse not only the denial of someone else's legal rights, but, for those who have bought into it more passionately, a position that could ultimately lead them to endorse and perform any manner of action that might lead to God knows where.
posted on November 22, 2000 04:45:05 PM
Why is it scorched earth for Bush to avail himself of all legal remedies, and yet Gore is simply exercising his rights (which included, by the way, challenging a court decision)?
posted on November 22, 2000 04:48:55 PM
IMLDS2, I am very sorry that you feel the need to call the Justices of the Florida Court "clowns and puppets". I'm not sure what you will call our Justices of the US Supreme Court should they make a ruling not to your liking. Of course I'm sure you were kidding with your remarks about the Texas Rangers, right? Certainly you're not advocating any form of violence as a response to the election predicament, right?
KatyD
Who has alot of audacity. ..when she can spell it.
[ edited by KatyD on Nov 22, 2000 04:50 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2000 04:50:24 PM
donny...I agree that Gore had the RIGHT to ask for hand counts. It would have been truly "fair" though had he asked for hand counts in the entire state and not just the highly Democratic ones. I feel Bush dropped the ball on that one.
However, I also agree that Bush has the RIGHT to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to. Whether he will be successful is another story, but his right to bring the appeal forward is what is in question in this thread. It will be an interesting wrestling match between the Florida Legislature and the Florida Courts. As a Legislator, I would hope the laws that I work to propose and enact would be respected by the Courts as well.
posted on November 22, 2000 04:53:24 PM
KatyD...is there any reason you keep asking us if we are prone to inciting violence? Is this something you expect of conservatives as a whole, or just those of us who defend our views? Do you think we need to flex our Second Amendment rights? LOL
*******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 22, 2000 04:56:00 PM
hi hopefulli, the problem doesn't lie with Bush seeking legal remedies that are available to him. The problem is what he is what he is implying and advocating once he finds those "legal remedies" are not to his liking. Please read CleverGirl's comments above. His criticism and spoken disdain for our high courts, and seeming willingness to go to legislative war in order to overturn the Courts is what I contend is true "scorched earth" policy, and if you read between the lines, it is scary business indeed.
