On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:54:54 -0600, Jim Campbell wrote: > I asked you before to stop posting out of context to try to prove a > point. The "...." you chose to insert into the first paragraph > conveniently glided over this:
Oh stop it. I found it that way.This line adds absolutly nothing anyway: > "See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); /post/, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., > dissenting)." > And even that particular ruling was over consistent standards regarding > enforcing the Equal Protection Clause violation - the ruling to "stop > the recount" was 5-4. Regardless of the outcome of a ruling, there's > almost always one or more justices dissenting. That's the nature of law > - everything's pretty much "good enough". A 5-4 decision is still a > decision, but your implication that there was "no choice" is a lark. Any > single justice changing their mind in a split such as this changes the > entire ruling, implying there most certainly was a choice, and more of > the justices at that time felt that one path was the best. 7/2 was that the Fla court decision was unconstitutional. The 5/4 you talk about was how to fix it. The remedy was not clear-cut but the fact that the Fla Supreme Court should not have changed the law in the middle of the recount was straightforward. Out of the 5/4 vote: 5 said that there was no fix. 1 said the problem was fixable & purposed a fix 1 said he did not know what the fix was but they should spend more time & find one. 2 said they should never have taken the case on. > You're up in arms over Rather saying "...some say, politically and > ideologically motivated Court" (or the like), interpreting it to mean > that he was parroting DNC talking points. I already told you I'm not up in arms and I can't understand why you are harping on such stupid shit. Rather's comment was biased no matter how you slice or dice it. It was one example of many that show he tends to support the left. Not a big issue with me. I always thought the guy was a lousy talking head anyway. Can't understand why anyone watched him. Come to think of it only a few did. > However, since you're > obviously on the side of the majority opinion, did you think then, or do > you think now that the 4 dissenting justices, who voted against halting > the recount, were politically or ideologically motivated, or would you > say they were implacable, neutral executors of the interpretation of the > law? I don't feel the 4 dissenters were politically or ideologically motivated. Two wanted nothing to do with it and the other two thought they could come up with another solution to save the day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150278 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
