several pages :-)
Very interesting article/link. To discuss family members benefiting, etc, is
to diminish the case that these authors are making on a broader political
context. This becomes especially interesting when combined with the fight
going on in Congress over the court make-up, which raises this to a
significant power struggle within the courts, or perhaps an example of the law
of unintended consequences. It is very interesting to think of the Florida
decision as part of the court's reacting to this battle. I don't take much
stock in his "telling" argument that those that support aren't as adamant as
those against. Losers always tend to yell loader and surer, the winners can
afford to be more retrospective. But it did introduce some questions that I
need to mull over.
I have to read some more on this....probably not Dershowitzes' book. Too
imbalanced. At the very least, these discussions help to move the Justices
off of a pedestal and make real humans out of them, flaws and all. I read a
fairly detailed description of the courts in 1980 that really helped me
understand the history and decision making process of the courts. Time for an
update.
Side question, what were the results of the recounts done by independent
bodies after the Supreme Court decision?
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:59 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re:Bush gives the finger to the world again
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
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]
