Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Election

[iphonelover]

So very true. Ted Cruz and Republicans are complete hypocrites on Supreme Court authority when it doesn't go their way. Chris Matthews just owned Ted Cruz and pretty much every Republican with this video.


Chris Matthews faced off with Senator Ted Cruz tonight and confronted him about his complaint about the Supreme Court becoming too politicized. Cruz was so outraged about the Supreme Court’s recent pro-gay marriage ruling that he proposed judicial retention elections every eight years to counter “judicial tyranny.”

As they talked about Supreme Court issues, Matthews asked Cruz why he would want to “put judges out there and make them politicians,” constantly trying to raise money. Cruz said he’s “reluctant” to do this, but is tired of “unelected judges” seizing major policy issues.

Matthews shot back, “They seized the presidency in 2000, you did not complain!” He said if there was ever an example of “partisanship or ideology” in the court, that was it, and “you loved it.”

Cruz pushed back against Matthews’ “talking points” and they ended up sparring a bit on that famously controversial decision.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

while i can't stand the guy, cruz more than held his own in that discussion with matthews

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

So very true. Ted Cruz and Republicans are complete hypocrites on Supreme Court authority when it doesn't go their way. Chris Matthews just owned Ted Cruz and pretty much every Republican with this video.


Chris Matthews faced off with Senator Ted Cruz tonight and confronted him about his complaint about the Supreme Court becoming too politicized. Cruz was so outraged about the Supreme Court’s recent pro-gay marriage ruling that he proposed judicial retention elections every eight years to counter “judicial tyranny.”

As they talked about Supreme Court issues, Matthews asked Cruz why he would want to “put judges out there and make them politicians,” constantly trying to raise money. Cruz said he’s “reluctant” to do this, but is tired of “unelected judges” seizing major policy issues.

Matthews shot back, “They seized the presidency in 2000, you did not complain!” He said if there was ever an example of “partisanship or ideology” in the court, that was it, and “you loved it.”

Cruz pushed back against Matthews’ “talking points” and they ended up sparring a bit on that famously controversial decision.

People seem to forget that Bush ran to the SCOTUS after the Florida Supreme Court decided the whole state should be hand recounted. Counts by a newspaper consortium showed Gore would have won.

 

[Moot]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Not that I even remotely like Cruz or consider him a viable candidate...but, I did it find it interesting to listen to him talk about his father's experience as young communist revolutionary in Cuba. And he also made a valid point that if capitalism is opened up in Cuba most of the money will go to Castro government because it owns most of the countries industry.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Cruz scares me as a potential President, but in that clip... he did very well.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

The supreme court is corrupt and the system hasn't proven itself to be able to keep government honest. As it stand the system does need to be reformed so what we have been seeing since the founding of this country is stopped. The constitution is not a piece of paper that courts should allowed to write invisible words in so that it says what they want it to say. Period.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Ted Cruz is asking for election of Supreme Court Justices to prevent "partisanship." Yet in this video he clearly responds to Mathews by citing the Florida State Supreme Court's partisanship in ruling to recount votes, forgetting that THEY are all elected to six year terms by the citizens of Florida.

Seems like a perfect example of why NOT to elect judges at all, especially in any Supreme Court, state or Federal.

 

[Crovax]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

So very true. Ted Cruz and Republicans are complete hypocrites on Supreme Court authority when it doesn't go their way. Chris Matthews just owned Ted Cruz and pretty much every Republican with this video.


Chris Matthews faced off with Senator Ted Cruz tonight and confronted him about his complaint about the Supreme Court becoming too politicized. Cruz was so outraged about the Supreme Court’s recent pro-gay marriage ruling that he proposed judicial retention elections every eight years to counter “judicial tyranny.”

As they talked about Supreme Court issues, Matthews asked Cruz why he would want to “put judges out there and make them politicians,” constantly trying to raise money. Cruz said he’s “reluctant” to do this, but is tired of “unelected judges” seizing major policy issues.

Matthews shot back, “They seized the presidency in 2000, you did not complain!” He said if there was ever an example of “partisanship or ideology” in the court, that was it, and “you loved it.”

Cruz pushed back against Matthews’ “talking points” and they ended up sparring a bit on that famously controversial decision.

How exactly did the scotus seize the 2000 presidency? The main ruling was 7-2 (the Gores recount was done unfairly to Bush) only the side ruling was 5-4 (That no alternate recount could be done in time) and by all but the most extreme recount scenarios Bush won

 

[Crovax]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

People seem to forget that Bush ran to the SCOTUS after the Florida Supreme Court decided the whole state should be hand recounted. Counts by a newspaper consortium showed Gore would have won.

Maybe you should read that again Gore only wins in the most extreme case

USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes: ballots that did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.
Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.
Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

 

[iphonelover]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

How exactly did the scotus seize the 2000 presidency? The main ruling was 7-2 (the Gores recount was done unfairly to Bush) only the side ruling was 5-4 (That no alternate recount could be done in time) and by all but the most extreme recount scenarios Bush won

Ehhhhh I don't buy the line that the recount would have landed Bush a win over Gore. I know a lot of very staunch Republicans in my family and they all confide that they still to this day do not think Bush actually won the popular vote and that if an all out recount had occurred Gore would have been president. That coming from hard-Red life long Republicans mouths.

There's very real legitimate arguments that Bush lost.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

while i can't stand the guy, cruz more than held his own in that discussion with matthews

....yeah..... I'm not a Cruz Fan.... but Matthews makes an idiot of himself in this video.

 

[Crovax]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Ehhhhh I don't buy the line that the recount would have landed Bush a win over Gore. I know a lot of very staunch Republicans in my family and they all confide that they still to this day do not think Bush actually won the popular vote and that if an all out recount had occurred Gore would have been president. That coming from hard-Red life long Republicans mouths.

There's very real legitimate arguments that Bush lost.

Actually there isn't

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

 

[iphonelover]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Actually there isn't

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

Actually there is.

 

[Crovax]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Actually there is.

No there isnt

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

 

[cpwill]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

iphonelover, are you a POE, and is that why you chose to start this with a video that in fact made Cruz look relatively well-thought and well-spoken against the increasingly unhinged Chris Matthews?

 

[disneydude]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

How exactly did the scotus seize the 2000 presidency? The main ruling was 7-2 (the Gores recount was done unfairly to Bush) only the side ruling was 5-4 (That no alternate recount could be done in time) and by all but the most extreme recount scenarios Bush won

Actually you are wrong. If the recount had been allowed to go forward, the results indicate that Gore would have won the state and the Presidency.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

The Associated Press reported the findings this way:
AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

 

[Crovax]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Actually you are wrong. If the recount had been allowed to go forward, the results indicate that Gore would have won the state and the Presidency.

The Florida Recount of 2000

The Associated Press reported the findings this way:
AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

From you own link

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

 

[disneydude]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

From you own link

LOL.....love how you cherry pick to take it out of context:

Here is what you left out: if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court. On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. DOH!

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Maybe you should read that again Gore only wins in the most extreme case

.Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore,and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.


Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com
​

 

[Atiya]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

Cruz scares me as a potential President, but in that clip... he did very well.

The mere thought that Senator Ted Cruz uf Texas might possibly become president of the US frightens the bejesus out of me; I view everything he says with extreme prejudice.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

The mere thought that Senator Ted Cruz uf Texas might possibly become president of the US frightens the bejesus out of me; I view everything he says with extreme prejudice.

cruz scares me, too. bright ... and unhinged
but i would not be surprised to find that he prevails as the GOP nominee. he's the kind of candidate that the koch suckers throw money at. i see scott walker as the only republican potentially standing between cruz and the nomination, because he has been effective, in a GOP way, against the unions in wisconsin

 

[Derp]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

The Florida Recount of 2000

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Nobody can say for sure who might have won. A full, official recount of all votes statewide could have gone either way, but one was never conducted.

:beatdeadhorse

 

[Atiya]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

cruz scares me, too. bright ... and unhinged
but i would not be surprised to find that he prevails as the GOP nominee. he's the kind of candidate that the koch suckers throw money at. i see scott walker as the only republican potentially standing between cruz and the nomination, because he has been effective, in a GOP way, against the unions in wisconsin

Senator Ted Cruz has the type of personality that rubs people the wrong way. He will never get the GOP nomination because of his fanatical aggressiveness. People still remember when he shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act that was, btw, already the law of the land. I'm surprised he's gotten as far as he has in the polls, courtesy of the Tea Party I suppose; however, mainstream America will run from this maniac as if the Devil itself were gaining ground.

Scott Walker has many problems and is currently under investigation as to how he handled the Governor's recall situation in his state. There's lots that will come out regarding this Wisconsin governor politician that will prove corrupt. Believe it or not Jeb Bush appears the more moderate out of the clown car.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

So very true. Ted Cruz and Republicans are complete hypocrites on Supreme Court authority when it doesn't go their way. Chris Matthews just owned Ted Cruz and pretty much every Republican with this video.


Chris Matthews faced off with Senator Ted Cruz tonight and confronted him about his complaint about the Supreme Court becoming too politicized. Cruz was so outraged about the Supreme Court’s recent pro-gay marriage ruling that he proposed judicial retention elections every eight years to counter “judicial tyranny.”

As they talked about Supreme Court issues, Matthews asked Cruz why he would want to “put judges out there and make them politicians,” constantly trying to raise money. Cruz said he’s “reluctant” to do this, but is tired of “unelected judges” seizing major policy issues.

Matthews shot back, “They seized the presidency in 2000, you did not complain!” He said if there was ever an example of “partisanship or ideology” in the court, that was it, and “you loved it.”

Cruz pushed back against Matthews’ “talking points” and they ended up sparring a bit on that famously controversial decision.

If the purpose was to show Ted Cruz being very lucid and well spoken, congratulations - that's what you just did. And I don't even like him at all.

I always enjoy seeing Matthews sputter, too.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Matthews Confronts Cruz: You ‘Loved’ Partisan SCOTUS When They ‘Seized’ 2000 Elec

.Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore,and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.


Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com
​