Howard,
Great points!! I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I was
disappointed too that it came down to what it came down to. You listen
to the arguments made by both candidates supporting their course of
action, they were both so full of holes that it wasn't even funny. I
read an article in I think in GQ months after the election and Scalia
made a comment to the effect (I can't quote exactly) that he was
disappointed that it had to come what it had to come to but believed
that they made the best decision under the law and under the
circumstances. Again, not a direct quote but that's what I remember the
tenor of his statement being.
Michael Corrigan
Programmer
Endora Digital Solutions
www.endoradigital.com
630/942-5211 x-134
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:26 AM
Subject: RE: Bush Wins!
There are many ways to slice what the Supreme Court did. A friend has
argued that the conservative court followed it's conservative
philosophy by
deciding that the "weight" of the vote carried the day and that
getting a
precise count was of a secondary concern (we are governed by a
representative system, after all, not a democracy). I believe Burke
(the
father of modern conservative thought) held this view of voting.
Of course, I, as a conservative, believe that the court is supposed to
judge
the law, not make it. I oppose an activist court. I'm a
constructionalist.
In the absence of law or precedent (and only precedent founded on the
law or
precedent, etc) should carry weight in a decision. In the absence of
such
support, the court should sit back and do nothing and let Congress or
the
Executive figure it out. This is how I believe our checks and
balances
system was designed.
In Gore vs. Bush (or was it Bush vs. Gore) I believe the Court's
biggest
non-conservative moment came in stepping in to decide what was
essentially a
state's-rights issue. It wasn't a federal issue. There was no
federal
issue at stake.
So you had this court, in straight-faced irony, throwing out cherished
conservative principles -- deciding law and butting into a state
issue,
being down right activist.
Now you have the further irony of super liberals like Alan Dershowitz
criticizing the court for being activist and making law, when for
years
these same liberals have defended and defied such activist decisions
as Roe
vs. Wade (there is absolutely no Constitutional support for the
decision --
regardless of what you think about abortion, Roe vs. Wade was just
plain
stupid, even left-leaning justice Ginsberg believes the Constitution
was
misapplied).
It's strange times we live in. Conservatives behaving like liberals
and
liberals attacking them for it.
But in the end, I stand by my original statement. The system worked.
We'll
never cross all the T's and dot all the I's correctly. Few things we
ever
do will be arrived at in a perfect course of action and dialog. Our
system
wasn't designed to work that way. It was designed to route around
human
imperfection. In the end, we got the president we deserved, and even
though
I'm still somewhat skeptical of Bush, we could have had a lot worse if
our
system had let us down.
H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:06 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Bush Wins!
One could also suggest that what the Supreme Court did was criminal
(as a
matter of fact there are a few books that deal with this -
one by Alan Dershowitz). The system only works completely when the
individual branches of government heed the boundaries.
Personally, I still think that Bush probably still would have gotten
in (as
the real remedy was for Congress to step in and they
were controlled by the Republicans) but it troubles me to see that the
court
did what they did.
Howie
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: Bush Wins!
> Well, yes, but ...
>
> If you count the votes they way Gore wanted the votes counted, Bush
wins.
>
> If you counted the votes the way they should have been counted (all
of the
> votes, both under and over and this chad and that chad, etc.), then
Gore
> wins.
>
> But the bottom line is, the system worked. We had a contested
election.
One
> branch of the government made a decision about how the outcome
should be
> decided and that led to an eventual declaration of a winner. There
was no
> civil war, no coups, no civil unrest (at least of the kind that
leads to
> death and destruction). Yes, one could make the case that there
were
flaws
> in the system, that there were some possible this or possible that
in the
> political hanky-panky realm, but in the end, we had a smooth
transition of
> power, which is the most important thing we could ask for.
>
> H.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
