However, it would seem that Florida law governs voting procedures in the Florida primary, which would be why the Florida Supreme Court became involved when the "safe harbor" provision began to conflict with case law saying that if intention of the voter could be determined the vote should be counted. A previous decision had involved ballots marked in pen despite instructions to use a number 2 pencil.
It was the contention of the Bush campaign that
1) The Florida Supreme Court's involvement amounted to making law and was thus unconstitutional. Justice Stevens, writing for the minority, found that the Florida court had done what courts do, based on Marbury v Madison -- review an ambiguity in legislation and thus acted within the scope of its constitutional powers.
2) Counting ballots cast in error somehow diluted the validity of ballots which were not, and this denied those voters equal protection under law. This really does not pass the giggle test as it is difficult to name a specific group of voters which is harmed and furthermore the Rehnquist court was not previously known for its interest in equal protection, having often refused to review even death penalty cases with egregious violations of defendant's rights.
The US Supreme Court became involved (to my understanding) because the Bush campaign was alleging unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Florida Supreme Court.
It takes a Ivy League law school professor several hundred pages to spell out all of the reasons he thinks the decision is corrupt in Supreme Injustice. The link I posted earlier
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/04/dershowitz/index.html?pn=2
summarizes his arguments and those of a couple of other books on the topic, including at least one with an opposing point of view. You might want to take a look. It quotes this excerpt from Dershowitz's book:
"I have been told that one of the dissenting U.S. Supreme Court justices characterized the mind-set of some of the majority justices as follows: 'If the Florida Supreme Court is going to act like a bunch of Democratic political hacks, well, by God, we will act like a bunch of Republican political hacks.'"
If you are really interested or have an open mind I see if I can find my copy of the book.
Dana
>Does state or federal law govern federal elections?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re:Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
>
> <g> although possibly correct from your point of view, the decision stemmed
>from a process that was unquestionably corrupt and had no legal basis. Just
>for a start, it was unconstitutional in that it ignored the elements of the
>Florida constitution that governed voting, and the unquestionable precedent
>that the intention of the voter be the guiding principle. For more info, take
>a look at a book entitled Supreme Injustice. It's admittedly partisan but the
>case the author makes in unshakeable in my opinion.
>
> http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/04/dershowitz/index.html
>
> As for deception... hehe, are you sure there shouldn't bhave been a grin
>after that statement? LOL. What about "the tax cut will benefit small
>businesses?" and "the British government has learned"?
>
> As the French would say -- we agree in principle. LOL.
>
> Dana
>
> >Missed you. Welcome back to rhetoric central!
> >
> >I don't see how Bush corrupted the Supreme Court since I believe that they
> >made the correct decision in Florida. I don't see where / how he deceived
>us
> >and I certainly don't agree to the no purpose thing. Latest polls from
>Iraq
> >support my view(only on throwing the bum out).
> >
> >Besides that, we agree totally! ;-)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 3:31 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re:Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse. Consider the
>possibility
> >that people may dislike Bush *because* he corrupted the Supremem Court,
> >deceived the American people time after time, and embroiled the US in a
> >senseless and dangerous military adventure to no good purpose. I mean, that
>is
> >enough for me.
> >
> > I don't say these things because I dislike the man. He seems quite
>sincere
> >in his beliefs, and if he were a member of my chuch I might invite him to
> >dinner. That doesn't make his beliefs less dangerous. Nor does it mean that
>he
> >is not being used, or possibly allowing himself to be used.
> >
> > Personally, I rather dislike the Clintons. I still have a reluctant
> >admiration for them. Both of them are great populists.
> > >Clearly, if you hold this perspective, then you ought to fight to ensure
> >that
> > >NO US businesses are allowed to bid or be paid for any activity there.
> > >
> > >However, the tough love thing is a bit much. Is it possible that you
>hate
> >the
> > >current administration with a passion and want it to be hurt,
>embarrassed
> >at
> > >any cost? If so, this could be clouding your reasoning.
> > >
> > >Given the current reality, it makes no sense to allow any country that
>did
> >not
> > >support the current efforts to bid or profit. In fact, there is a solid
> > >argument that if France and Germany had supported the US that the war
>may
> > >never have been needed. Sadaam, seeing the writing on the wall, would
>have
> > >capitulated. However, this is seer speculation that is not were we are
> >now.
> > >Just like this continuing anger over Bush(can we hear about the stolen
> > >election again?).
> > >
> > >So, lets think about what needs to happen given where we are today,
>shall
> >we.
> > >First, we need to world to start participating. While Bush is not doing
> > >everything I would like him to do, both France and Germany are still
> >pouting
> > >about being made irrelevant. There refusal to contribute anything to
>the
> > >rebuilding effort underscores this. Perhaps this total exclusion, which
>is
> >a
> > >response to their previous actions may slap them into the here and now.
> >They
> > >will have to deal with Bush, must likely for more than 4 years.
> > >
> > >Andy
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:59 AM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I want America to feel this economically. I want the us to
> >have
> > > to pay the price for lying and attacking with no provocation.
> > >
> > > I say that as a staunch supporter of America. It's tough love. If we
>do
> > > something wrong, we shouldn't reap the benefits. It's that simple. I
> >don't
> > > want the US to be the Mafia of the world.
> > >
> > > -Kevin
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:52 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > >
> > > > the us and the other sixty-odd countries who helped us get to bid.
>now
> >I'm
> > > > not arguing the fact that the us companies may get the bulk of the
> > > > contracts, but I as a taxpayer would rather my money go to US
>companies
> > > than
> > > > another countries.
> > > >
> > > > i am also not arguing that there wont be corruption in the contract
> > > process,
> > > > ahem Halibuton, but it is still better than the French getting my
> >money.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:46 AM
> > > > To: CF-Community
> > > > Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why should US companies benefit from a war manufactured by our own
> > > country?
> > > > When organized crime does that it's called a "protection racket".
> > > >
> > > > -Kevin
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:32 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > > >
> > > > > The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they
>just
> > > cant
> > > > > bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They
>can
> >be
> > > > hired
> > > > > as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this
>is
> >such
> > > a
> > > > > huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to
> >rebuild
> > > > Iraq
> > > > > when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first
> >place?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: CF-Community
> > > > > Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for
> > > > reopening
> > > > > a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime
> >contracts
> > > > for
> > > > > Iraq's reconstruction.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
> > > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > > > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > > > >
> > > > > "I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
> > > > > alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
>(search)
> > > > said.
> > > > >
> > > > > So let me get this straight.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Economy is bad.
> > > > > 2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
> > > > > 3. Get called on it by other countries.
> > > > > 4. Attack anyway
> > > > > 5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help
>in
> >an
> > > > > illegal war.
> > > > >
> > > > > And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a
>perfect
> >plan
> > > > to
> > > > > boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Kevin
> > > > > _____
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
