posted on December 7, 2000 02:23:44 PM new
It appears that the Bush team went to the US Supreme argung merits of a case that they did not argue before the Florida Supreme. And guess what they returned to the Florida Supreme with briefs that still does not mention the case they used at the US Supreme.
The Florida justices cornered them on not including the argument and specifically cornered them on arguing that case before them as opposed to using it only on appeal.
I wonder did the US Supreme know that the Bush team applied what amounts to unfair surprise on the Florida Supreme and how will they now argue after being called by the Florida Chief justice to argue it there or not at all.
Boy the more of this you watch and observe the more you suspect that there are rats in the republican rafters.
posted on December 7, 2000 02:43:50 PM new
We're talking politicians and lawyers here. Are you really naive enough to believe that the rats are exclusive to the Republican rafters?
posted on December 7, 2000 03:04:36 PM new
The two main lawyers arguing the case for Bush and k. Harris, Barry Richards and Joseph Klock are both registered democrats.
posted on December 7, 2000 04:15:50 PM new
"The two main lawyers arguing the case for Bush and k. Harris, Barry Richards and Joseph Klock are both registered democrats."
There's an observation that really illustrates what the Republican tactics have been, the Republican party's blatant disregard for the good of the nation as a whole, the Republican party's studied, hypocritical efforts to whip up their partisans' unreasonable hatred of Democrats, divide the country, all with cool calculation to advance their own agenda, whatever the cost.
Since the day after the election, James Baker, George W., and all the Republican politicians and pundits have tried to block hand counts, pointing to them as being done by "Democratic controlled canvassing boards, and 'subject to msichief," accusing Democrats of trying to "steal the election," thereby attempting to, by their recriminations of unnmaed Democrats as, at best, untrustworthy, paint all Democrats as not to be trusted. And while David Boies said, after Judge N. Saunders Sauls ruling - "They won, we lost, we think the judge was wrong and we're going to appeal," after The Florida Supreme Court ruled aginst Bush, James Baker went all out with tirades about partisan activist judges and how the decision was "unfair and unacceptable." While Gore's team disagreed with unfavorable rulings, and said so, Bush's team has painted rulings unfavorable to them as illegitmate. This is different, and dangerous.
With all of this Republican party red-hot rhetoric, it's no wonder that some people buy it. And oh boy, we can see how some people here on this chat board have bought it. We've had members of one political party repeatedly called "Demoncrates," and another poster spewing rage and declaring that she could never be friends with a Democrat because they're "different than us." This has been the intended effect of Rebpulican party spin on their rank and file party members, and it's worked very well.
But what do Republican leaders do on their own? Do they really believe that every legal decision by Democrats is tainted by Democratic partisanship and inherent lack of integrity? Do they perceive "the potential for mischief" anytime a Democrat is around? No!! They go to hire the best lawyer they can, and they use him everywhere; Barry Richards was arguing at least 3 different cases today for Bush, maybe 4.
But, just as excellent legal representation is absolutely necessary to their efforts to have a favorable election decision, so is a riling up, with the worst sort of divisive rhetoric, lies, and accusations, of their rank and file members.
Once you do this, how do you undo it? Although now George W., Republican politicians, and Republican pundits on the news show circuit have softened their stance towards Democrats dramatically, that's only because it looks like victory is in sight for them. Now that there will be a Republican president, it's time for us all to be Americans and rally together behind our new leader.
They turn this on and off like a faucet, because it's all part of the strategy. But how do you remove the feeling from your Republican partisans that Democrats are inherently unethical, different from "us." Once you've convinced your partisans to buy it, how does it get unbought?
Now I'm not saying that the Democratic party hasn't been going into overdrive putting its own spin (read lies) on the situation. But the Democratic spin, while just as untruthful as the Republican party spin, hasn't been as calculatingly divisive and rage-producing as the Republican party spin has been.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:04:36 PM newuaru - I'd like to know where you got that little bit of info on those two attorneys. Link(s) would be especially nice. I've not heard it or seen it and I've been pretty well plugged in over the last month. To be frank, I've done little else but follow this - on TV plus various print media.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:09:41 PM new
I don't have a link to offer, but I can say that I heard Klock say, in a mini press conference after the Sauls trial, that he's a Democrat, and I think it was on CNN tonight, in a little bio segment, that Barry Richards, was described as a Democratic former member of the Florida state legislature.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:21:42 PM new
Clevergirl,
I don't have a link for that info, it was something that I heard on CNN some time ago and found a bit amusing in light of the original message in this thread about rats in the republican rafters.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:45:09 PM new
Donny,
Who's being hysterical and irrational now?
I feel the democrats are the ones that are doing what you accuse the Republicans of doing.
I have also realized that BOTH want to win...BOTH were unethical in many things...BOTH are dueling to the end...BOTH are taxing the American patience.
As for what I said on another thread(yes, when I was emotional and stupid )I have apologized for saying it publicly on the board. So I will not address something that another can't set aside.
Carole
PS: I haven't heard they are Democrat lawyers? Hmmm...interesting.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:35:54 PM new
"Donny,
Who's being hysterical and irrational now?"
Nope, IMLDS2, it's still not me.
I've pointed out in more than a few posts the examples I see of Democratic party lies re this situation, and I've repeated that again in my previous post. I am not a Democrat. I'm an observer, not a participant. I view boths sides with large doses of skepticism, with the background of my own studies of Political Science.
That you don't see a difference in the nature of the political rhetoric in this situation doesn't surprise me, and I would no more seek to convince you than I would seek to convince a pig to sing.
posted on December 8, 2000 07:00:42 AM newnw67, my recollection is that Judge Wells observed that NEITHER counsel had cited McPherson v. Blacker in its their initial arguments, which is borne out by a scan of Boies's brief.
Moreover, if Boies HAD cited McPherson in his first brief, Richard would've had to have responded to it or the Court would've asked about it during the first oral arguments.
I can't seem to get the CNN.com video of the oral arguments (http://www.cnn.com/ under "interactive" to play properly, but I listened to the arguments AGAIN last night on C-Span (no life, I know) and heard Wells point this out to BOTH counsel. (I tried to find a transcript, but the one published by FoxNews is no help as it repeats part of the hearing and omits others.)
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 8, 2000 07:01 AM ]
posted on December 8, 2000 07:48:53 AM new
Right, HCQ. Wells' first question to Richards had to do with the fact that he (Richards) hadn't argued McPherson in his initial appearance OR in yesterday's (but HAD used it at the Supreme Court).
He seemed pretty PO'd about it and asked Richards point-blank, "Does it apply or not?" (paraphrased)
in which Wells starts his questioning of Boies with
Mr. Boies, let me start right off. You know when the case was here previously in the protest part of the proceeding, no counsel for any party in briefs or in argument raised with this court the U.S. Supreme Court of McPherson v. Blacker, seemingly because counsel did not believe that it was important for our consideration. However, that case was forcefully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court has now called that case to this court’s attention in the opinion that came out this Monday. And now, once again, no counsel has argued that case to this court.
(Actually, Bush's reply brief DID cite McPherson, at 47, and discussed its implications further in a clarification it filed yesterday afternoon.)
In my reading, the arguments Gore initially presented to the FL Supreme Court were: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition; the actions of the Secretary of State and Bush caused "delay and uncertainty"; and that the Secretary of State had no discretion to exclude the results of manual recounts, or if she did, she abused that discretion. Bush replied that the injunction Gore requested was inconsistent with FL law; FL law already covers the situation that exists; the Secretary of State followed the law, which didn't permit her to extend the deadline under the circumstances; and Plaintiffs haven't shown the required "irreparable harm". Bush didn't dispute whether the Court could hear the case or interpret existing law. The question of whether the Court could rewrite FL law, as Bush alleges the Court did in its decision, was obviously not part of the matter before the Court.
Nobody needs to tell me I'm clearly no lawyer, but to this layman, Bush raised McPherson in his US Supreme Court brief not in reference to any of Gore's claims in that first petition, but in reference to the actions of the FL Supreme Court itself, which Bush alleges weren't merely of intepreting existing law (which is within its "jurisdiction", but of creating new law. That, and not beforehand, is when McPherson came into play.
posted on December 9, 2000 08:16:10 AM new
Well the ruling is in and the Bush team is running to file their appeals. They even want the ruling stayed until the court can get together and act upon it. Since the ruling only orders recounts why stay that action?
I as an American want to see the votes counted. As a realist and problem solver want to see them counted so that we can ascertain why the machine didn't count them and fix that problem with the process.
Why is Bush so afraid of a total recount. Three days into this mess, Gore wanted to meet with Bush and would drop all legal challenges if they just recounted all the disputed ballots statewide. Bush said no, well here we are at day 31 and we have that total recount in process. We have Bush lawyers in court to fight it on appeal.
What is it about a recount that scares the Bush team. Makes you wonder if he already knows that 85% of the total State undercount are not for him. A lot of people are going to be surprised when the "undercount" turns out to give Gore thousands of votes. Will you wonder how so many votes went uncounted or will you just say they were invented.
)I have apologized for saying it publicly on the board. So I will not address something that another can't set aside.