• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush's Election and why it took so long

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Third World Election

A Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying children should study the U.S. election event closely because it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomenon. He illustrated his point by saying:

"Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was, himself, the former head of that nation's secret police (the CIA).

"Imagine the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover from the nation's pre-democracy past [the Electoral College].

"Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother.

"Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.

"None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will to power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange, faraway elsewhere."
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
Third World Election

A Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying children should study the U.S. election event closely because it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomenon. He illustrated his point by saying:

"Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was, himself, the former head of that nation's secret police (the CIA).

"Imagine the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover from the nation's pre-democracy past [the Electoral College].

"Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother.

"Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.

"None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will to power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange, faraway elsewhere."

AHHH, so you go by the word of a Zimbabwe politician that has no relivance to america rather than looking at the facts and absolutely no EVIDENCE to support your claim that both Bush Elections were full of fraud?

Where is your facts on this... explain yourself instead of looking foolish pleasew! :D
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
AHHH, so you go by the word of a Zimbabwe politician that has no relivance to america rather than looking at the facts and absolutely no EVIDENCE to support your claim that both Bush Elections were full of fraud?

Where is your facts on this... explain yourself instead of looking foolish pleasew! :D

Looking foolish??? I think it looks pretty foolish that for the first time in American history, 2 presidential elections took two weeks to count the votes, for the same candidate... There's your proof! Of course like every other conservative, you don't want to listen to it because your man won. Imagine if Gore, Kerry, or any other Democrat would have went through the same thing. What would you have to say about it then? You would be outraged wouldn't you? Of course since it was a republican then that makes it okay doesn't it???
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
Looking foolish??? I think it looks pretty foolish that for the first time in American history, 2 presidential elections took two weeks to count the votes, for the same candidate... There's your proof! Of course like every other conservative, you don't want to listen to it because your man won. Imagine if Gore, Kerry, or any other Democrat would have went through the same thing. What would you have to say about it then? You would be outraged wouldn't you? Of course since it was a republican then that makes it okay doesn't it???

That is where you are wrong. kerry gavve his concedance (spelling) speech the night he found out he lost.. No recount or anything. Gore wanted a recount/recount/recount in florida becuase the votes were so close. You need to wake up to reality and not listen to bullshit rhetoric the left brings up. there is absolutely no FACT that proves the elections were fraud.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
That is where you are wrong. kerry gavve his concedance (spelling) speech the night he found out he lost.. No recount or anything. Gore wanted a recount/recount/recount in florida becuase the votes were so close. You need to wake up to reality and not listen to bullshit rhetoric the left brings up. there is absolutely no FACT that proves the elections were fraud.

First of all... Don't ever tell me what I need to do...There is not a man on this earth that will ever tell me what I need to do! Second of all Gore didn't get his recount did he? Bush's brother (the governor of Florida, which is the state that took so long in counting their votes) saw to that. Kerry just gave up.

After winning the popular vote, and having it take so long AGAIN to count votes, he pretty much said to hell with it, and gave in. How the hell can you sit there and honestly say that there was nothing wrong with either election??

And just what is this so called reality that you think you posess, that no one else does? Do you not know how corrupt our society is?? From politics, policeman, and judges to priest and ministers; this country has become the epitomy of corruption.

I suppose you think Libby's indictment and Karl Rove are just "left wing rhetoric" too.?? Do you even know the definition of conservative? Yeah, this administration is real conservative alright. Give one example of how Bush is such a great leader for this country. I dare you to come up with one. And if you say because he's a republican than your an even bigger fool than I thought.

That's whats wrong with america. Anytime someone brings something up, republicans just turn up their noses and act like it's no big deal. "Oh it's okay, it's just some left wing rhetoric". "Republicans never do anything wrong". You should take a step back and listen to your own advice.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
No, but think about it dude.
If you heard about the exact same election scenario in Iran, perhaps, would you believe it was a valid election?
This is old and rather uncreative.

Fact of the matter, Bush won accroding to the laws of the state of FL, the laws of the United States, and the Constitution of the Unites States.

If you have a problem with that, then thats your problem.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
First of all... Don't ever tell me what I need to do...There is not a man on this earth that will ever tell me what I need to do!
Oooh, big man!
You must throw some tremendous tantrums.

Second of all Gore didn't get his recount did he? Bush's brother (the governor of Florida, which is the state that took so long in counting their votes) saw to that.
What a farce.
The ballots in FL were counted THREE times.
Gore didnt get his FOURTH count because said count would iave violated the Equal Protectiob clause of the US Constitution.
Jeb didnt have a THING to do with that,

Kerry just gave up.
Yes - a bigger man that Gore, he.

After winning the popular vote, and having it take so long AGAIN to count votes, he pretty much said to hell with it, and gave in. How the hell can you sit there and honestly say that there was nothing wrong with either election??
Kerry didnt win the popular vote, and in any case, the popular vote is meaningless.

I suppose you think Libby's indictment and Karl Rove are just "left wing rhetoric" too.??
They are as politically driven as Whitewater/Lewinsky.
You tell us if its "rhetoric" or not.

Do you even know the definition of conservative? Yeah, this administration is real conservative alright. Give one example of how Bush is such a great leader for this country. I dare you to come up with one.
Oh, you DARE me!!
LOL
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes I DARE YOU little man...you obviousy had no problems when you voted because you voted republican. I however went to vote on these new electronic "voting machines" (which 97% of America had to use), and when I went to cast my vote for Kerry..the screen refreshed and showed hat I had voted for Bush. I was outraged. Then when I went to ask the lady why that happened and demanded a re-vote, she sad there was nothing she could do. I then ran into a group of at least 20 people that had the same thing happen to them...no one got to reclaim their vote. This was at 7:00am. I wonder how many more people had this happen to them all day and throughout the night. I then look on the internet and saw testimony's of people that had the same problem. How is that right? What would you have done if your vote came back saying you voted for Kerry??? Don't give me your "republicans never do anything wrong" crap...Bush did not win the election. This proves how corrupt you people are and how you will do anything to get your people in office. So tell me please...what has George Bush done for this country???

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_testimony.html
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
Oooh, big man!
What a farce.
The ballots in FL were counted THREE times.
Gore didnt get his FOURTH count because said count would iave violated the Equal Protectiob clause of the US Constitution.
Jeb didnt have a THING to do with that,
That's not true. The entire state of Florida was not subject to the recounts. The reason why the Equal Protection clause was invoked in Bush v. Gore was because the votes were not being recounted in every county.

The real sad and ****ed up thing for Gore was that even if he had been allowed his last recount, he still would have lost, however there were outher recount scenarios involving counts of overvotes or undervotes that would have led to a Gore victory (according to the study ran by several newspapers... we don't remember the study very well because its results came out in the fall of 2001).
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
I however went to vote on these new electronic "voting machines" (which 97% of America had to use)
97%? That's absolutely not true. (I am assuming that you mean 97% of voters, and not 97% of Americans.)
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
This is old and rather uncreative.

Fact of the matter, Bush won accroding to the laws of the state of FL, the laws of the United States, and the Constitution of the Unites States.

If you have a problem with that, then thats your problem.
Bush did not win according to the laws of Florida or the laws of the United States. He won because an activist conservative majority of the Supreme Court chose to ignore long time precedent and the text of the Constitution.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
Yes I DARE YOU little man...you obviousy had no problems when you voted because you voted republican. I however went to vote on these new electronic "voting machines" (which 97% of America had to use), and when I went to cast my vote for Kerry..the screen refreshed and showed hat I had voted for Bush.
Bullshit.
You're lying.
Bold-faced, got-nothing-to-say-so-you-have-to-make-things-up, lying.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Russell Hammond said:
Bush did not win according to the laws of Florida or the laws of the United States. He won because an activist conservative majority of the Supreme Court chose to ignore long time precedent and the text of the Constitution.
In specific terms, please explain how the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling that decided the outcome of the election was in error.

G'head. Illustrate for us your ignorance and your hate-based partisan bigoty.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GeorgeDumbyaBush said:
I however went to vote on these new electronic "voting machines" (which 97% of America had to use), and when I went to cast my vote for Kerry..the screen refreshed and showed that I had voted for Bush.

http://WWW.WHAT-REALLY-HAPPENED/MORE-BULLSHIT-LIBERAL-RHETORIChtml
*cough*Bull$hit*cough*

I live in Florida, what really happened, is those clever Dems "out thunk theirselves". They went and "roundeded up" all the drunken bums and non English speaking minorities in Dade County and bussed them to the polls.The fools couldn't read the instructions which resulted in hanging chads because they were improperly inserted into the machines.Oh yea, the director of elections for the State of Florida in 2000, was a Democrat and Gore was the one who took this case to the courts.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
In specific terms, please explain how the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling that decided the outcome of the election was in error.

G'head. Illustrate for us your ignorance and your hate-based partisan bigoty.
How was Bush v. Gore in error? It was not based on precedent! State law has traditionally determined procedures for counting votes, and it is the role of the State Supreme Court to interpret state law. That is a basic principle of federalism. In another topic you were blathering about how important the Electoral College system is because the President is elected by the States. Again, that would infer that the final arbiter of election procedure in a State is the State Supreme Court.

It also violated a long-time Supreme Court tradition of staying out of political issues.

Note: I'm not saying that the Florida Supreme Court's decisions were a better interpretation of state law. Rather, I am saying that the Supreme Court had no business deciding the case. I disagree that it did involve Equal Protection, because the natural extension of that argument would be that every State in the Union (or at least every precinct within a State) must have a uniform election system. Is that what you are willing to accept?

And you know the decision is bad law when the Court exclaims that it has no precedential value. The role of the Court is to decide Constitutional issues, and not to pick the winner of an election. So there's an Equal Protection right for vote recounts, but only in 2000 and only when the election is Bush v. Gore? Come on. It's a bad, activist decision.

Hate-based partisan bigotry? Good one. You got me there.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First things first:

I note you've done everythng BUT argue how the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling that decided the election was wrong.

I wonder why that is.

Russell Hammond said:
How was Bush v. Gore in error? It was not based on precedent! State law has traditionally determined procedures for counting votes, and it is the role of the State Supreme Court to interpret state law. That is a basic principle of federalism
Except, of course, that when said state court decisions and state laws clearly conflict with the US consitutiona and US law, the SCOTUS has every right to strike those decisions and laws.

In another topic you were blathering about how important the Electoral College system is because the President is elected by the States. Again, that would infer that the final arbiter of election procedure in a State is the State Supreme Court.
Psst...
"States rights" do not include the "right" to violate the US constitution or violate federal law.

It also violated a long-time Supreme Court tradition of staying out of political issues.
LOL
Every case the SCOTUS hears is a political issue of some sort.

Note: I'm not saying that the Florida Supreme Court's decisions were a better interpretation of state law. Rather, I am saying that the Supreme Court had no business deciding the case.
Except that the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction on each and every case appealed from a state supreme court, and that the SCOTUS has every reason to look at cases that might very well violate the US Constitutiuon.

That the specific case deals with election law is meaningless.


I disagree that it did involve Equal Protection, because the natural extension of that argument would be that every State in the Union (or at least every precinct within a State) must have a uniform election system. Is that what you are willing to accept?
The issue was the standard for evaluating a specific kind of ballot under specific circumstances, and if FL's election law provided Equal Protection for the voters in FL through its standards for same.

The SCOTUS found that FL election law did not specify a state-wide standard for this evaluation, and as such, did not provide EP to the voters of FL.

Please tell me how this translates you what you said.

And you know the decision is bad law when the Court exclaims that it has no precedential value.
Really?
Explain this, in specific terms.

The role of the Court is to decide Constitutional issues, and not to pick the winner of an election.
And thats exactly what the court did - decided a constitutional issue.
Did FL election law, as interpretd by the FLSC provide EP to the voters of the state of FL?
NO, by a 7-2 margin.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
First things first:

I note you've done everythng BUT argue how the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling that decided the election was wrong.
Apparently you did not read my post. I said the entire decision was not based on precedent; I also mentioned that the natural extension of the ruling is that every state would have to have a uniform election system, but that the Supreme Court essentially acknowledged the case was bad law by stating it has no precedential value for future elections; and then I stated "So there's an Equal Protection right for vote recounts, but only in 2000 and only when the election is Bush v. Gore?"

Let me add more: The Court's argument is poor legal reasoning. Boiled down, it follows:
1) The individual citizen has no Constitutional Right to Vote for electors.
2) If a State legislature grants a citizen the Right to Vote for electors, the Right is fundamental.
3) Having once accorded the Right to Vote, the State may not value one person's vote over that of another.
4) Engaging in a vote recounting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another.

But, if we accept the logic of the Court's decision, engaging in a vote counting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another. Some counties used chads, some used bubble sheets, etc. There was no uniform form.

You're also wrong about the 7-2 decision. The 7-2 decision was that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida; 2 of those 7 proposed a remedy of remand to the Florida Supreme Court to order a constitutionally proper recounting procedure. So, the case would have continued. In other words, the 7-2 decision stopped the recount, but the 5-4 decision decided the election.

Except, of course, that when said state court decisions and state laws clearly conflict with the US consitutiona and US law, the SCOTUS has every right to strike those decisions and laws.
And I disagreed that the state court's decision violated the Equal Protection Clause.

LOL

Every case the SCOTUS hears is a political issue of some sort.
You may think it's silly, but the Political Question Doctrine is a long-established tradition of the Supreme Court dating back to Marbury v. Madison, the very case that established the idea of judicial review.

In response to my statement that the Supreme Court had no business deciding the case:
Except that the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction on each and every case appealed from a state supreme court, and that the SCOTUS has every reason to look at cases that might very well violate the US Constitutiuon.
I won't bother to clarify the issue of jurisdiction, because as a non-lawyer I wouldn't expect you to know it. In broad strokes, your statement is correct that the SCOTUS has every reason to look at cases that might very well violate the US Constitution. My argument was that the Supreme Court has no business deciding purely political disputes, and that the Supreme Court should have stayed out of a decision that was the province of the State. Both of these arguments address the 5-4 decision that decided the election, not the 7-2 Equal Protection decision, because remember that two of those 7 justices would have sent the case back to the State Supreme Court to formulate a constitutional recounting procedure.

The issue was the standard for evaluating a specific kind of ballot under specific circumstances, and if FL's election law provided Equal Protection for the voters in FL through its standards for same.

The SCOTUS found that FL election law did not specify a state-wide standard for this evaluation, and as such, did not provide EP to the voters of FL.

Please tell me how this translates you what you said.
My argument follows directly from your statement that I bold-faced. State-wide standard for evaluation implies that there must be a uniform standard for counting votes, and thus because such a standard exists in very few states in the Union, one could argue that all of our elections are invalid and violate the Equal Protection Clause.

And thats exactly what the court did - decided a constitutional issue.
Did FL election law, as interpretd by the FLSC provide EP to the voters of the state of FL?
NO, by a 7-2 margin.
Wrong. 5-4 said that the Florida Supreme Court would not be allowed to re-examine the issue and formulate a constitutional procedure. The 5-4 decision was not based on the Equal Protection Clause but on a date of Dec 12.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Russell Hammond said:
Apparently you did not read my post. I said the entire decision was not based on precedent
This doesnt make it wrong. Its right/wrong based on the particulards of the case and argument supporting the conclusion.

What I'm looking for is the logical, reaosned argument as to why the 7-2 EP decision was wrong - and you havent delivered.

; I also mentioned that the natural extension of the ruling is that every state would have to have a uniform election system
You did, but you didnt say how yours is the necessary conclusion drawn drom BvG. Retating your premise doesnt support it.

but that the Supreme Court essentially acknowledged the case was bad law by stating it has no precedential value for future elections;
Again, thats what you -said- but I dont see your argument supporing your premise. Restating your premise doesnt support it.

Let me add more: The Court's argument is poor legal reasoning. Boiled down, it follows:
1) The individual citizen has no Constitutional Right to Vote for electors.
2) If a State legislature grants a citizen the Right to Vote for electors, the Right is fundamental.
3) Having once accorded the Right to Vote, the State may not value one person's vote over that of another.
4) Engaging in a vote recounting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another.
Yep.
Still waiting for you to point out the logical flaw in this argument.

But, if we accept the logic of the Court's decision, engaging in a vote counting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another. Some counties used chads, some used bubble sheets, etc. There was no uniform form.
And...?
You're confusing "uniform means of evlauating a ballot" with "uniform means of casting a ballot". These are seperate concepts, and one has no bearing on the other.

That there must be a unifrom standard for evaluating a ballot in no way necessitates that balloting methods be uniform -- it doesnt matter what method you use to vote, just so long as all the ballots cast via that method are evaluated the same way.

Thats a pretrty elemntary distinction - why didnt you see it?

You're also wrong about the 7-2 decision. The 7-2 decision was that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida;
Thats right. This is the EP decision, that the FLSC and FL election law as interpreted by the FLSC did not provide equal protection to the voters of FL.

THIS decided the election because THIS meant that the ballots in question could never be legally counted.

2 of those 7 proposed a remedy of remand to the Florida Supreme Court to order a constitutionally proper recounting procedure. So, the case would have continued. In other words, the 7-2 decision stopped the recount, but the 5-4 decision decided the election.
Incorrect, by a full 180 degrees.
By deciding that FL election law did not provide EP for the voters of FL, they in effect decided that the ballots in question could never be counted.

To wit:
-To count the ballots, the standard by which they would e evaluated must be changed.
-To change the standard, you have to change the law.
-Only the FL legislature can change FL election law
-Election law cannot be changed during the election.

So, as the the flawed standard cannot be changed, it must stand; the flawed statndard necessitates that the ballots cannot be counted.

And I disagreed that the state court's decision violated the Equal Protection Clause.
You can disagree all you want - you need so support your position for it to mean anything. You're not doing that.

You may think it's silly, but the Political Question Doctrine is a long-established tradition of the Supreme Court dating back to Marbury v. Madison, the very case that established the idea of judicial review.
That doesnt change the fact that if you were right and that the SCOTUS doesnt address political issues, then the SCOTUS will make very very few decisions. Just aout -every- ruling they hand down deals with a political issue.

I won't bother to clarify the issue of jurisdiction, because as a non-lawyer I wouldn't expect you to know it.
LOL
This is called a false appeal to authority.
News for you, pally: if YOU know it, there's a VERY good chance that -I- know it. Given your arguments in this I very seriously question the veracity of your implicaton that YOU are a lawyer.

In broad strokes, your statement is correct that the SCOTUS has every reason to look at cases that might very well violate the US Constitution.
Yes. I know. And the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction. Case closed.

My argument was that the Supreme Court has no business deciding purely political disputes, and that the Supreme Court should have stayed out of a decision that was the province of the State.
And, again - states and state courts do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and US law, period. For your argument to have any teeth, you have to argue that they DO have that right and that said right is outside the perview of Judicial Review simply because it deals with an election.
You arent about to do that, are you?

Both of these arguments address the 5-4 decision that decided the election, not the 7-2 Equal Protection decision, because remember that two of those 7 justices would have sent the case back to the State Supreme Court to formulate a constitutional recounting procedure.
This has been addressed. the FLSC cannot "fix" the EP concern because the FLSC can neither create nor change election law during the election.

Changing the standard changes the law. The law cannot be changed, especially by a court, and so EP cannot be guaranteed. The ballots, therefore, cannot be counted because of the 7-2 EP decision.

My argument follows directly from your statement that I bold-faced. State-wide standard for evaluation implies that there must be a uniform standard for counting votes, and thus because such a standard exists in very few states in the Union, one could argue that all of our elections are invalid and violate the Equal Protection Clause.
You;d be right if all the state standards for manual evaluation of ballots were questioned. They werent,
As such, the decision applies to FL electiuon laws, and no others.

And even if so.... so what?
Why do you think that even if this decision -did- invalidate every single election result, the decision is unsound?
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
But what if this exact situation happened in Iran, what would you think?
I'm not one of those "not my president" kids, but think about it.
If the results were arrived at through the various procedures prescribed y Iranian Law and the Iranian Constitution - what COULD I think?

The fact that Jeb was governor is circumstantial and immaterial -- had there been a Democrat governor and Gore won, would the people whining about Jeb be asking the same questions? Of course not.

Same applies to the SCOTUS decisions.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In response to my statement that the case was not based on precedent...
This doesnt make it wrong. Its right/wrong based on the particulards of the case and argument supporting the conclusion.
That's not really true. We accord a greater weight to decisions that build on established law, rather than activist decisions that create law out of thin air.

What I'm looking for is the logical, reaosned argument as to why the 7-2 EP decision was wrong - and you havent delivered.
If you don't want to bother responding to my argument, that's fine. I will repeat it: it is wrong for two reasons, because it goes too far and not far enough. It goes too far by saying that the Equal Protection Clause requires a uniform system for recounting votes, and does not go far enough because the decision only applies to the recount in Bush v. Gore. This is my argument. Please address it. You can say that it is not a logical argument, all you want, but it makes me think that you either do not understand my argument or you are chosing to ignore it.

In response to my statement that the Court acknowledges Bush v. Gore is bad law by limiting its scope to the instant case:
You did, but you didnt say how yours is the necessary conclusion drawn drom BvG. Retating your premise doesnt support it... Again, thats what you -said- but I dont see your argument supporing your premise. Restating your premise doesnt support it.
First of all, I repeated the statement because you claimed I never addressed the 7-2 decision when I clearly did.

The Court creates an entirely new application for the Equal Protection Clause, but limits this new application to one election and one election only. That is my premise. My conclusion from this premise is that this act of the Court is essentially a self-acknowledgement that the case is bad law. So, why is my premise faulty? Please show me where the Court states that this new application for the Equal Protection Clause is intended to live beyond Bush v. Gore.

In response to my statement "But, if we accept the logic of the Court's decision, engaging in a vote counting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another. Some counties used chads, some used bubble sheets, etc. There was no uniform form."
And...?
You're confusing "uniform means of evlauating a ballot" with "uniform means of casting a ballot". These are seperate concepts, and one has no bearing on the other.
They are completely interrelated. You cannot apply the same standard for counting votes that appear on different forms. For instance, what counts as a vote on a chad form? One standard is a hole pushed through the ballot with or without a hanging chad. What counts as a vote on a bubble form? One standard is one bubble per line filled completely in. A vote on a different form is by necessity evaluated in a different way. Add in the fact that some forms result in statistically lower percentages of rejected votes, and you have a real problem if the equal protection clause requires a uniform system for evaluating a voter's intent.

That there must be a unifrom standard for evaluating a ballot in no way necessitates that balloting methods be uniform -- it doesnt matter what method you use to vote, just so long as all the ballots cast via that method are evaluated the same way.
You're wrong. You cannot evaluate a chad form in the same way as a bubble form. They are read on different machines and they require different methods of recounting.

Thats a pretrty elemntary distinction - why didnt you see it?
There is no distinction, because by their nature these different forms require a different evaluation system.

Thats right. This is the EP decision, that the FLSC and FL election law as interpreted by the FLSC did not provide equal protection to the voters of FL.

THIS decided the election because THIS meant that the ballots in question could never be legally counted.
Only 5 judges agreed with your second sentence.

Incorrect, by a full 180 degrees.
By deciding that FL election law did not provide EP for the voters of FL, they in effect decided that the ballots in question could never be counted.
Well we don't actually know whether you or I am correct on this, because 5 justices would not allow the Florida Supreme Court to hear the case on remedy.

To wit:
-To count the ballots, the standard by which they would e evaluated must be changed.
-To change the standard, you have to change the law.
-Only the FL legislature can change FL election law
-Election law cannot be changed during the election.

So, as the the flawed standard cannot be changed, it must stand; the flawed statndard necessitates that the ballots cannot be counted.
Let's break down the votes:
(3) Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional because only the Florida legislature can change Florida election law.
(5) All of the above, plus O'Connor and Kennedy -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional, and no constitutional recount could be formulated in the time remaining.
(7) All of the above, plus Breyer and Souter -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional.

(2) Ginsburg and Stevens -- The Supreme Court should have abstained from the decision out of respect for principles of federalism, and the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

Only Three Justices Agree with your statement.

After I mentioned Marbury v. Madison and the Political Question Doctrine.
That doesnt change the fact that if you were right and that the SCOTUS doesnt address political issues, then the SCOTUS will make very very few decisions. Just aout -every- ruling they hand down deals with a political issue.
It's not a question of if I am right about the existence of the Political Question Doctrine. I'm flat-out right. Here is a starting point for you...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag27_user.html

The Supreme Court and other federal courts have a long time tradition of staying out of cases that pick political winners and losers. To be fair, many people criticize political question jurisprudence because it lacks good standards. So, the Court can decide to hear Bush v. Gore, but stay out of a case, Veith v. Jubelirer (cert. denied 2004), which involves redistricting.

Yes. I know. And the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction. Case closed.
Well, since you already know it, I only wanted to clarify that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only when a federal question or diversity is involved. So, there are cases that arise in state courts that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear. So, yes it is appellate jurisdiction, but not over every case. This issue really isn't important for Bush v. Gore.

I apologize for making what appeared to be a "false appeal to authority."

And, again - states and state courts do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and US law, period. For your argument to have any teeth, you have to argue that they DO have that right and that said right is outside the perview of Judicial Review simply because it deals with an election.
You arent about to do that, are you?
The comment you are responding to was directed at the 5-4 decision. I will respond to this sometime tomorrow.

Changing the standard changes the law. The law cannot be changed, especially by a court, and so EP cannot be guaranteed. The ballots, therefore, cannot be counted because of the 7-2 EP decision.
I will also respond to this statement tomorrow.

You;d be right if all the state standards for manual evaluation of ballots were questioned. They werent,
As such, the decision applies to FL electiuon laws, and no others.
I was stating that as result of an extension of the Equal Protection Clause to require uniform counting standards, "one could argue that all of our elections were invalid". The first part of your response deals with Bush v. Gore, and you are correct, but in evaluating the quality of a legal decision one element is ascertaining how the decision will affect future cases involving similar issues.

And even if so.... so what?
Why do you think that even if this decision -did- invalidate every single election result, the decision is unsound?
Because in interpretting the law, the Court should have an idea that a decision is not written in a vaccuum. I may say more on this last issue tomorrow.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Russell Hammond said:
In response to my statement that the case was not based on precedent...That's not really true. We accord a greater weight to decisions that build on established law, rather than activist decisions that create law out of thin air.
So... you'd rather have an irrational unsupportable decision that rests on precedent than a logical, sound decision that doesn't. Interesting.

It goes too far by saying that the Equal Protection Clause requires a uniform system for recounting votes, and does not go far enough because the decision only applies to the recount in Bush v. Gore. This is my argument. Please address it.
I did.
Your arguments here don't hold water for the reasons I already explained - and that I will be happy to explain again.

The Court creates an entirely new application for the Equal Protection Clause, but limits this new application to one election and one election only. That is my premise. My conclusion from this premise is that this act of the Court is essentially a self-acknowledgement that the case is bad law.
How do you reach that conclusion?
Why is that conclusion sound?

In response to my statement "But, if we accept the logic of the Court's decision, engaging in a vote counting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another. Some counties used chads, some used bubble sheets, etc. There was no uniform form."
There doesnt need to be a uniform method of -casting- a ballot in order to satisfy the requirements of Equal Protection in the -evaluation- of ballots, and requiring that there is a unifrom means of evaluating cast ballots doesnt create a requirement that all ballots be cast the same way.

They are completely interrelated. You cannot apply the same standard for counting votes that appear on different forms.
No kidding.
Thats why the requirement is that the standard be the same across similar means of casting ballots. You can cast a ballot in a hundred different ways, so long as the standard of evaluating each of those hundred different ways is specific and consistient across the state.

For instance, what counts as a vote on a chad form? One standard is a hole pushed through the ballot with or without a hanging chad. What counts as a vote on a bubble form? One standard is one bubble per line filled completely in. A vote on a different form is by necessity evaluated in a different way.
You're wrong. You cannot evaluate a chad form in the same way as a bubble form. They are read on different machines and they require different methods of recounting.
Yes. And?
So long as all the bubble ballots are evaluated the same way and all the punch ballots are evaluated the same way, how is equal protection NOT satisfied?

Only 5 judges agreed with your second sentence.
Only Three Justices Agree with your statement.
Omly two agree with yours that the court had no business hearing the case in the first place. Where does that leave your argument to that end?

Well we don't actually know whether you or I am correct on this, because 5 justices would not allow the Florida Supreme Court to hear the case on remedy.
Ok then....
Tell me how the standard could be changed in a matter that does not vilate the constitution or federal law, and for that standard to be changed in time to meet the varions requirements set by federal law.

(3) Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional because only the Florida legislature can change Florida election law.
How are they wrong?

(5) All of the above, plus O'Connor and Kennedy -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional, and no constitutional recount could be formulated in the time remaining.
How are they wrong?

(7) All of the above, plus Breyer and Souter -- The Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional.
And the same question I have been asking since this began:
How are they wrong?

(2) Ginsburg and Stevens -- The Supreme Court should have abstained from the decision out of respect for principles of federalism, and the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
By your argument, since this is a minority view, and a minority view (apparently) is invalid - how are they right?

The Supreme Court and other federal courts have a long time tradition of staying out of cases that pick political winners and losers.
The SCOUTS did not pick the winner or loser.
The SCOTUS addressed the procedure by which the winner/loser was picked, and did so in a matter that ensured said procedure didnt violate the Consitution or US law.
The distinction is clear and significant.

Well, since you already know it, I only wanted to clarify that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only when a federal question or diversity is involved. So, there are cases that arise in state courts that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear.
And election law is not one of those cases.

So, yes it is appellate jurisdiction, but not over every case. This issue really isn't important for Bush v. Gore.
It is when part of the argument is that the SCOTUS had no right to hear it in the first place.

I apologize for making what appeared to be a "false appeal to authority."
Accepted.
 
Last edited:

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Two days after 911, the congressional committee investigating the Florida election, announced that Bush had lost the election in Florida. I remember the new broadcaster saying even though he was not elected, a year had gone by and We should follow him for the solidarity of America after 911. Bush is liar, a fraud, a cheat, and is not legally president, he has shown this everyday since the court elected him. Our Supreme Court took it upon itself to elect a president even though it not stated any where in the Constitution that the Court can elect the president. We have three seperate parts of our government, The Supreme court, the Congress and an independent presidency.

You liberals collect your guns and ammo. We may have to resort to a new american revolution to retore our republic to its democratic values, and end the dictatorshiip of Greed.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
dragonslayer said:
Two days after 911, the congressional committee investigating the Florida election, announced that Bush had lost the election in Florida.
There;s been lots of recounts. Onyl a very few show that Bush didn't win -- but as none of them are the OFFICIAL count carried out under the laws of the state of Florida, the United States and the US Constitution, NONE of them matter.

And you liberals wonder why you keep losing elections.

You liberals collect your guns and ammo. We may have to resort to a new american revolution to retore our republic to its democratic values, and end the dictatorshiip of Greed.
You liberals ban every gun you can.
How are you going to "collect" them?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
dragonslayer said:
Two days after 911, the congressional committee investigating the Florida election, announced that Bush had lost the election in Florida. I remember the new broadcaster saying even though he was not elected, a year had gone by and We should follow him for the solidarity of America after 911. Bush is liar, a fraud, a cheat, and is not legally president, he has shown this everyday since the court elected him. Our Supreme Court took it upon itself to elect a president even though it not stated any where in the Constitution that the Court can elect the president. We have three seperate parts of our government, The Supreme court, the Congress and an independent presidency.

You liberals collect your guns and ammo. We may have to resort to a new american revolution to retore our republic to its democratic values, and end the dictatorshiip of Greed.
From here on out, try listening to reality instead of the voices in your head....

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic countiesMr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html?ex=1122955200&en=cf5afcd60e6018af&ei=5070&oref=login

This is old hat...why you still slurp down the partisan hackery is still a mystery...:roll:
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
So... you'd rather have an irrational unsupportable decision that rests on precedent than a logical, sound decision that doesn't. Interesting.
I do not see a scenario where a case can both rest on precedent and be unsupportable. Now, a case could certainly apply precedent wrongly, but then it does not really rest on precedent. Also, there are times where the precedent itself may be faulty (for example, earlier court decisions upholding segregation.) Also, a decision could be very logical and sound and be worthless because it is not based on the law.

I don't argue in black and white. So, when I say that cases based on precedent are generally better legal decisions, that does not mean it is so in every case.

Responding to my statement that because the Court finds a broad new right in the Equal Protection Clause, but limits it to one case, it is implicitly making a bad decision.
How do you reach that conclusion?
Why is that conclusion sound?
Because our country is founded on a system of common law. Later decisions are supposed to build on earlier decisions. Here, the Supreme Court creates a new application for the Equal Protection Clause out of thin air, but says this new application is only good for Bush v. Gore. It means the case has no precedential value--this broad new application doesn't apply to future cases. We should want our Court to formulate rational workable standards for interpretting the Constitution that allow people to predictably comply with the law. How does a state comply with Bush v. Gore? It can't! And in Florida's case, the Court wouldn't even let it try!

There doesnt need to be a uniform method of -casting- a ballot in order to satisfy the requirements of Equal Protection in the -evaluation- of ballots, and requiring that there is a unifrom means of evaluating cast ballots doesnt create a requirement that all ballots be cast the same way...

Thats why the requirement is that the standard be the same across similar means of casting ballots. You can cast a ballot in a hundred different ways, so long as the standard of evaluating each of those hundred different ways is specific and consistient across the state.
The end result is that a voter's intent is accorded in very different ways based on what kind of ballot the voter is using. If Equal Protection requires uniform evaluation of ballots, then each voter in the state has a right to have his or her intent accorded the same weight as each other voter in the state. Throw in different ballots, which require different standards, and not every voter is evaluated in the same way.

So long as all the bubble ballots are evaluated the same way and all the punch ballots are evaluated the same way, how is equal protection NOT satisfied?
Because not every voter in the state is evaluated in the same way!

Omly two agree with yours that the court had no business hearing the case in the first place. Where does that leave your argument to that end?
It leaves Bush as the president. I was stating the vote totals because you were making incorrect claims about how many justices supported certain viewpoints.

Tell me how the standard could be changed in a matter that does not vilate the constitution or federal law, and for that standard to be changed in time to meet the varions requirements set by federal law.
As far as whether the Florida Supreme Court had time to do so; I don't know the answer to that question; we'll never know. As to how it could have been changed consistent with the "reasoning" of the Equal Protection Clause, it would have been easily solved by formulating one counting standard for each type of ballot, and directing every county in Florida to apply it in a state-wide recount.

You respond to my recounting of the vote totals for each argument with the following:
And the same question I have been asking since this began:
How are they wrong?
I was not listing the numbers of justices to support my points, but to rebut your claim that seven justices (including Rehnquiest) supported the Rehnquist argument that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the power to formulate a constitutional recount.

Responding to my statement about Ginsburg and Steven's opinions:
By your argument, since this is a minority view, and a minority view (apparently) is invalid - how are they right?
Sometimes minority views become majority views later in life. So, yes it has no legal weight, but that does not mean it is not persuasive or even right. But again, the reason for citing this concurrence where I did was to account for all of the justices.

The SCOUTS did not pick the winner or loser.
Sure it did. Bush might not be president, if it wasn't for the Supreme Court's decision to prevent the Florida Supreme Court from formulating a uniform recounting standard.

The SCOTUS addressed the procedure by which the winner/loser was picked, and did so in a matter that ensured said procedure didnt violate the Consitution or US law.
They did so in a manner that assured that Bush would be president.


The distinction is clear and significant.



In response to a comment I made about jurisdiction not being a significant issue in Bush v. Gore.
It is when part of the argument is that the SCOTUS had no right to hear it in the first place.
Let me clarify: It's not an issue of could--it's an issue of should. The Court had no BUSINESS hearing the case, because of its own tradition of staying out of political decisions. That doesn't mean that I think that the Court did not have the power to hear the case, but rather, I think the Court should have turned down the case out of respect for the role of states in the electoral process.

Let me go back briefly to a point I skipped last night...

Changing the standard changes the law. The law cannot be changed, especially by a court, and so EP cannot be guaranteed. The ballots, therefore, cannot be counted because of the 7-2 EP decision.
I don't agree. Courts have a considerable amount of power in interpretting and creating the law. For example, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, federal courts promulgated legal standards that required local school boards to implement particular busing systems. Those cases were judicially created law. Courts have the power to compel employers, including state agencies, to rehire employees. I know almost nothing about Florida election law, but I can tell you that just as the Supreme Court has the ability to create new standards in interpretting the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Laws, the Florida Supreme Court has the ability to create new standards in interpretting the Florida Constitution and Florida Laws. I will acknowledge that I have no desire to go read the Florida Constitution or Florida Election Laws, so I will leave it at that.
 
Top Bottom