- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Nah, not going to do your research for you and I'm convinced it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to you guys in the slightest. You got what you wanted and you don't care how you got it.
I should point out that unlike you folks, I am NOT an anonymous guy on the internet; I am a practicing attorney, have taught Constitutional law, and while you may disagree with my analysis, I at least know what I'm talking about.
Moderator's Warning: |
If he was ahead in the initial count and the legal recounts then yes, I would.MMmm hmm. Wonder if you'd say the same thing if they decided Gore won.
Who else was going to take it. States cannot violate their own laws, and certainly can't change them during an election.You realize it was a STATE law that the Supreme Court ruled on?
Oh how wrong youOh, that's right, conservatives only care about state's rights when it gives them the result they want.
Such as?The vast majority of all Constitutional scholars, lawyers and judges will tell you it's a bad decision.
Such as?That obviously includes many conservatives.
Who? Link? Care to expand?Forgive me if I pay attention to experts in the field as opposed to some anonymous guy on the internet.
Well, forgive us sir if you restate over and over that experts mainly agree with you and we ask you for some examples and writings.Nah, not going to do your research for you and I'm convinced it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to you guys in the slightest. You got what you wanted and you don't care how you got it.
I should point out that unlike you folks, I am NOT an anonymous guy on the internet; I am a practicing attorney, have taught Constitutional law, and while you may disagree with my analysis, I at least know what I'm talking about.
Well, forgive us sir if you restate over and over that experts mainly agree with you and we ask you for some examples and writings.
Oh no. You personally made the statement that most legal/constitutional experts agreed with your take on this decision, I did not. You provide the proof in this assertion or you may drop it.Then let me turn it around for you: I challenge you to find many articles from conservative legal scholars that support this decision.
Ah, so provide the names and link to their words if you please.There are plenty from liberal and apolitical scholars. You can ignore the liberals ones if you want, but there are plenty of learned treatises discussing how poor the decisions was legally.
Who?And then you'll find some prominent conservatives who have argued against it, as well.
Still waiting on names and writings.But you're not going to find many legal scholars at all who defend it. Even in the conservative reviews and papers like the Wall Street Journal, there's very little. Seems like a case that important would get all sorts of articles, wouldn't it?
Ah, so you're not going to be providing those names then...........?The few you will find represent a small minority (as I stated) and most are obviously political in nature (as are a percentage of the liberal views of course).
Oh no. You personally made the statement that most legal/constitutional experts agreed with your take on this decision, I did not. You provide the proof in this assertion or you may drop it.
Ah, so provide the names and link to their words if you please.
Who?
Still waiting on names and writings.
Ah, so you're not going to be providing those names then...........?
Just do a google search, will ya? There's hundreds.
Jesus, this is like saying "Many people consider the Beatles good music" and having someone say "Oh yeah? Since you didn't source anything, I will then conclude the exact opposite."
"I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying and want you to find it for me."
"I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying and want you to find it for me."
SO GIVE ME ONE! It's your point, not mine.Just do a google search, will ya? There's hundreds.
Jesus, this is like saying "Many people consider the Beatles good music" and having someone say "Oh yeah? Since you didn't source anything, I will then conclude the exact opposite."
It's your claim, back it up.I once read that LaMidRighter thinks the earth revolves around the sun.
Since he never produced any evidence, I will assume he is wrong and lying and that the exact opposite is true.
Oh, I suppose I could look it up myself in a few seconds, but why bother? I'd rather hold my belief without having any evidence to support it.
The same clown that fell asleep during hearings a couple of weeks ago? Stuart Smalley is far more fitting.
British parliment is much more lively, but still you can't excuse falling asleep on the job.People fall asleep watching C-SPAN. Senate hearings are quite boring. What's your point?
"I get paid $150 an hour to do research for people and I don't feel like doing it to satisfy someone who has shown that evidence wouldn't matter anyway."
Just do a google search, will ya? There's hundreds.
Jesus, this is like saying "Many people consider the Beatles good music" and having someone say "Oh yeah? Since you didn't source anything, I will then conclude the exact opposite."
"I get paid $150 an hour to do research for people and I don't feel like doing it to satisfy someone who has shown that evidence wouldn't matter anyway."
The end result is that GWB is what happened when the Supreme Court decided to take matters into its own hands and annoint a President overturning the will of the people.
Hopefully after the disaster of his 8 years, as a country, we've learned our lesson.
Sigh. Still holding onto that falsehood. You lost. Let it go.
Sir, you seem to be having difficulty discerning the difference between making a claim that would be difficult to substantiate, i.e. "Barry's crack dealer was white", and one that could easily be ascertained by a short tiptoe over to Google.
You're right. Al Franken was certified and that is as official as it can get. I won't say anything other than the interest in keeping future elections honest and for either side within the law, if felons cannot vote legally by state law then they cannot vote, I don't know where the distribution would have fallen politically and don't care. In future elections I want all laws upheld and honored as much as we can possibly accomplish.Ditto for Franken!
And yes, pining over Bush/Gore is silly, and doubly so after Bush's terms are already over. It's not like we can get a do-over.
Reality much different
In reality, that has not been proven. And the actual number of felons who voted illegally will likely be much lower based on reviews from prosecutors who received Minnesota Majority's lists in the form of spread sheets in February.
"We received about 480 names from Minnesota Majority," Ramsey County's lead prosecutor Phil Carruthers told KARE Wednesday, "About 270 were clearly inaccurate and were rejected right from the get-go."
He said a quick review revealed the names and birthdates didn't match, or that the felons in question were no longer barred from voting.
"They were ruled out usually because they had the wrong identity of a person," Carruthers explained, "Or because the person no longer was on probation, and thus their civil rights had been restored."
There are 30 felons on the group's list that have been charged with election violations in Ramsey County. But prosecutors had already received those names from the county elections office and the Secretary of State's office, according to Carruthers.
"We've charged about 30 cases so far," he said, "About half of them were people who were felons who just registered but did not actually vote. Election workers flagged those names before they could vote, but it's still a felony for a felon to register."
Those who are being charged with two felonies are felons who registered at the polling place on election day and voted, leaving no time for a cross-check with lists of convicts still on probation
"We're going to continue to investigate 180 other complaints but we're not talking about a huge number of actual cases. And of that 30 about half of them were registration only, they didn't actually vote."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?