Lemme know when you want to deal with constitutional law - ya know, facts. Otherewise, move on (and I don't mean .org)
On Jan 6, 12:01 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > The politically motivated Conservative SCOTUS made a gigantic and > costly mistake in appointing Bush to the Presidency. > > The facts of Dubya's bumbling, simple-minded, corrupt, criminal > administration, illegal wars, illegal torture, "Bush Doctrine", > disregard of the Constitution as "just a piece of paper" (SIC, it is > parchment) and the ecomomic meltdown, etc. prove this error as fact. > Gore, who won the popular vote as I have shown with concrete data, > would have been a far superior selection. > > On 1/6/11, GregfromBoston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ramble On is a great Led Zeppelin Tolkein song. > > > Will caps help? > > > STATE COURTS HAVE NO SAY OR STANDING IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. NONE! > > > Gore was slaughtered in SCOTUS (9-0 was IT, mate!) and EVERY circuit > > (uberdy-duberdy liberal circuits). Even the Florida Chief Justice > > called his colleagues fools, and he was a super lib too. > > > Your opinion is fine. But the constitution rules. I'll try again: > > > STATE COURTS HAVE NO SAY OR STANDING IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. NONE! > > > Article II, Section 1. > > > Christ, READ IT! > > > The rest of us have, and your cruelty to dead horses is disgusting > > > On Jan 5, 4:11 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, Greg, the Reich wing SCOTUS got it wrong. Bush versus Gore was > >> decided on political bias rather than on legal grounds. > > >> Empirical Documentation and Proof: > > >> Bush Vs. Gore--Supreme Court Republicans Decide Election > > >> Was the Supreme Court’s ruling an example of judicial activism > >> supporting election fraud? There are numerous cases where the state > >> courts have supervised recounts, and this should have been another > >> such case; however, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the > >> recount, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s holding > >> authorizing the recount. Given the diffidence the Republican packed > >> Supreme Court has shown both to federal and state governments and > >> their courts since November of 1975, political bias is the only > >> reasonable conclusion in Bush vs. Gore. Moreover a purported conflict > >> of the 2 statutes (7 day limit for certifying an election result, and > >> the 6 days to challenge to call for a recount) is easily resolved by > >> interpreting as conjunctive, namely that the recount law stays the 7 > >> day limit. The Supreme Court didn’t need to overturn the Florida > >> Supreme Court holding which stayed the time limit and for Florida made > >> election recounts unlikely. Bush versus Gore was decided on political > >> rather than legal grounds. > > >> Even more disconcerting is the fact that politics decides law > >> enforcement. The criminal violation of election laws and civil rights > >> were ignored by the attorney generals’ office (state and federal) and > >> the legislative bodies. The attorney general’s offices were filled > >> with Republican appointees, and Republicans controlled both federal > >> and state legislatures. Obviously our country needs an independent > >> department of the FBI set up just to investigate political crimes. I > >> would suggest that such a department should be under the supervision > >> of law professors—jk. > > >> How the courts handled the election issue > > >> Fromwww.wikipedia.org > > >> Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a U.S. Supreme Court case heard > >> on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the > >> 2000 presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven justices > >> found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties > >> in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a > >> consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further > >> declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to > >> establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's > >> deadline for certifying electors. > > >> The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in > >> Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida > >> campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as the > >> winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave > >> Bush a majority of the electoral college with 272 votes and enabled > >> him to win the Presidency. > > >> The Presidential election in question took place on November 7, 2000. > >> Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own > >> popular election for president, and the winner of each state's > >> election receives a number of "electoral votes." The winner of a > >> majority of the electoral college is elected President of the United > >> States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory. > > >> On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that > >> Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of victory > >> was less than 0.5% of the votes cast so an automatic machine recount > >> was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory > >> for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but > >> one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[2] > > >> Florida's election laws[1] allow a candidate to request a county to > >> conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four > >> Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. The > >> four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, > >> Florida law also required all counties to certify their election > >> returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the > >> election,[2] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts > >> did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the > >> statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day > >> deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their > >> returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, > >> after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had > >> discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide > >> certification.[3] Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia > >> county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5pm, > >> Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she was > >> in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm > >> Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual > >> recounts.[4] > > >> Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine > >> whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to > >> make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a > >> written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late > >> filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing the > >> submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of the > >> filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the > >> certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, > >> she would certify the results of the presidential election on > >> Saturday, November 18, 2000.[5] > > >> On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to > >> accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to > >> the Florida Supreme Court.[4] On November 17, the Florida Supreme > >> Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the > >> election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the > >> Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris > >> (Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual recount > >> certified before November 26 at 5pm. > > >> On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to > >> the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered its > >> decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 > >> (2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida > >> Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their > >> ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court was > >> concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida > >> constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the > >> ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ("Each > >> state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may > >> direct, a number of electors . . ."). > > >> While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county canceled > >> its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the > >> recount by November 26.[6] Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to complete > >> the recount but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida > >> Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with > >> 2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes, or > >> about 0.01%.[7] > > >> BACKGROUND > > >> On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of > >> the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who denied > >> the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the > >> Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court issued > >> its opinion in Gore v. Harris (Harris II). The court ordered a manual > >> recount of only undervotes,[5] to be conducted by the Leon County > >> district court, for ballots from the counties and portion of > >> Miami-Dade county not subject to the previous manual tally. The court > >> further ordered that the results of the November manual recount, which > >> was conducted by the various County canvassing boards, for disputed > >> ballots in three counties and portions of a fourth county, which would > >> have presumeably included some overvotes, be included in the final > >> state tally. Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on > >> December 9, and the Court issued a 5-4 injunction stopping the 64 of > >> 67 county recount pending a final decision. The split on this was the > >> same as the 5-4 split in the final ruling. > > >> The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
