do you have to support your amazing contention. Simply calling someone a
loon does not trash their reasoning. You're going to have to back things up
here.
larry
At 02:14 PM 12/15/2003, you wrote:
>I am always surprised when people quote those I consider to be so far on
>the fringe that the fringe thinks they are nuts.
>
>Dershowitz is a loon.
>Scott Ritter is a loon.
>
>Why they would be quoted for anything but laughs is beyond me.
>
>Jerry Johnson
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/03 05:59AM >>>
>I am not a lawyer.
>
>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>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>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>
> > > > > > <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]
