Blue states smarter than red states?

[66Scorpio]

The secretary of state is supposed to follow the laws passed by the legislature while judges are supposed to interpret the laws rather than inventing new ones or issuing orders that the secretaryof state disobey the laws.

I should have said (Jeb) Bush’s predecessor, a Democrat.

And you may not be aware that if a secretary of state is not doing their job properly, the governor can appoint a vew one or be voted out and the new governor will appoint a new one. Not so with judges: the state is saddled with them until they die or retire.

[Fear_Itself]

@66Scorpio

Not so with judges: the state is saddled with them until they die or retire.

The judiciary should be beyond the reach of partisan politics, which is what you want to return to. No thanks.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@66Scorpio

And you may not be aware that if a secretary of state is not doing their job properly, the governor can appoint a vew one or be voted out and the new governor will appoint a new one. Not so with judges: the state is saddled with them until they die or retire.

Wrong again. Florida Supreme Court justices (like those of many other states) are subject to merit retention votes every six years, and mandatory retirement at 70. They can also be impeached, just like virtually any government officer.

I should have said (Jeb) Bush’s predecessor, a Democrat.

None were appointed by Jeb Bush’s predecessor, either; they were appointed by Lawton Chiles. Bush’s predecessor was Buddy McKay, who succeeded Chiles when he died in office.

The secretary of state is supposed to follow the laws passed by the legislature while judges are supposed to interpret the laws rather than inventing new ones or issuing orders that the secretaryof state disobey the laws.

States’ highest courts invent new laws all the time; it’s how our system works. However, neither that, nor “orders that the secretary of state disobey the laws” occurred here.

I think we’re done here, yes?

[66Scorpio]

[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:163, topic:610127”]

Wrong again. Florida Supreme Court justices (like those of many other states) are subject to merit retention votes every six years, and mandatory retirement at 70. They can also be impeached, just like virtually any government officer.
[/QUOTE}

What is the vote required and what is the standard needed? Probably unreachable in any practical sense.

None were appointed by Jeb Bush’s predecessor, either; they were appointed by Lawton Chiles. Bush’s predecessor was Buddy McKay, who succeeded Chiles when he died in office.

I know he was not his *immediate *predecessor, but a predecssor non the less.

States’ highest courts invent new laws all the time; it’s how our system works. However, neither that, nor “orders that the secretary of state disobey the laws” occurred here.

Courts fill gaps in the law rather than building you a new mug to drink your hemlock from. The statue in question required that the secretary of state certify the election results in 7 days but the court said that 19 days would be OK to keep the recount nonsense going.

I think we’re done here, yes?

Absolutely, since this has little to do with Red State / Blue State IQs and is merely liberal whining that they could not steal an election by judicial fiat.

[ABraut]

Courts interpret laws or strike them down; they don’t get to write or rewrite laws. Common Law interpretations are when the law is unclear or silent on a particular subject. Florida’s election result deadline was clearly set by law. Florida’s Supreme Court illegally extended the lawful deadline. It really is that simple. Five SCOTUS Judges sided with the Constitution and current law, while four said ‘Screw the Constitution and current law!’

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@66Scorpio

Absolutely, since this has little to do with Red State / Blue State IQs and is merely liberal whining that they could not steal an election by judicial fiat.

Whatever makes you happy. You can fool yourself, but I doubt you’ll fool anyone who actually reads this stuff.

[QUOTE=ABraut]
Courts interpret laws or strike them down; they don’t get to write or rewrite laws. Common Law interpretations are when the law is unclear or silent on a particular subject. Florida’s election result deadline was clearly set by law. Florida’s Supreme Court illegally extended the lawful deadline. It really is that simple. Five SCOTUS Judges sided with the Constitution and current law, while four said ‘Screw the Constitution and current law!’
[/QUOTE]

Florida’s Supreme Court read the subsection of the election statute requiring that the election be certified by a particular date in pari materia with the section of the statute guaranteeing candidates a manual recount under specified circumstances. Because the statutes contradicted one another (given that a recount could not be completed within the deadline), the Florida Supreme Court was required to find a reading that satisfied both.

It might be simple in your head, or Conservapaedia, or wherever you read about it, but it’s not to anyone who actually knows the facts.

[66Scorpio]

I agree with the above, but has anyone considered the potential mischief that would have been available to Bush or any future presidential candidates if they could demand recounts until they won?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@66Scorpio

I agree with the above, but has anyone considered the potential mischief that would have been available to Bush or any future presidential candidates if they could demand recounts until they won?

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested (nor any law offered) infinite recounts. Under the Florida law in question, you get one automatic recount, and one manual recount if the automatic one is close enough, and that’s it.

[66Scorpio]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Whatever makes you happy. You can fool yourself, but I doubt you’ll fool anyone who actually reads this stuff.

I don’t “fool”, I convince based on facts and logic. I didn’t fool you because you are unconvincible based on your ideology.

I may fool others because what I say is true. That really gets to you as a liberal: someone who tells the truth and lets others make up their own mind.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@66Scorpio

I don’t “fool”, I convince based on facts and logic. I didn’t fool you because you are unconvincible based on your ideology.

I may fool others because what I say is true. That really gets to you as a liberal: someone who tells the truth and lets others make up their own mind.

I don’t doubt that was your intent, but almost everything you posted over the last page or so was factually incorrect. Anyway, considering you’ve been here for all of a month, making assertions about my ideology is a little silly. “You disagree with me, and therefore you are an ideologue.”

[66Scorpio]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested (nor any law offered) infinite recounts. Under the Florida law in question, you get one automatic recount, and one manual recount if the automatic one is close enough, and that’s it.

I will have to go back and check my references but my understanding is that Gore lost multiple recounts but returned to the courts to try and run the clock on another law that would have invalidated the results in his specifically selected districts, or the state as a whole, which would have handed him the presidency.

[66Scorpio]

And I still have no idea why the fact that Gore tried to steal the election (or the alternative “fact” that Bush did) has any bearing on the OP.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@66Scorpio

I will have to go back and check my references but my understanding is that Gore lost multiple recounts but returned to the courts to try and run the clock on another law that would have invalidated the results in his specifically selected districts, or the state as a whole, which would have handed him the presidency.

Not exactly. Gore demanded manual recounts in four counties more or less immediately, after automatic recounts triggered by statute differed from the original totals. Three of those counties asserted that they could not complete manual recounts within the statutory deadline.

@66Scorpio

And I still have no idea why the fact that Gore tried to steal the election (or the alternative “fact” that Bush did) has any bearing on the OP.

Nor me, but I have an inkling that it hasn’t gone away because you keep phrasing it in such subjective terms. It is not a “fact” under any definition that Gore tried to “steal the election”. He tried to obtain a recount to which he was entitled by state law.

[ABraut]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It might be simple in your head, or Conservapaedia, or wherever you read about it, but it’s not to anyone who actually knows the facts.

I read about it in the case you claim does not exist:

A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§ 102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based.

531 U.S. 98 (2000)
BUSH et al. v. GORE et al.
No. 00-949.
United States Supreme Court.

In its first decision, Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220 (2000) (Harris I), the Florida Supreme Court extended the 7-day statutory certification deadline established by the legislature.

Moreover, the Florida court held that all late vote tallies arriving during the contest period should be automatically included in the certification regardless of the certification deadline (even the certification deadline established by Harris I ), thus virtually eliminating both the deadline and the Secretary’s discretion to disregard recounts that violate it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ABraut

I read about it in the case you claim does not exist:

What the hell are you talking about? I claimed Bush v. Gore didn’t exist? I’ve been talking about Bush v. Gore for more than a page, so that would be some achievement.

[ABraut]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What the hell are you talking about? I claimed Bush v. Gore didn’t exist? I’ve been talking about Bush v. Gore for more than a page, so that would be some achievement.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It wasn’t Gore v. Bush; there was no such case.

:smack:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

If you read the post I was responding to, all would be clear. It shouldn’t have been that hard; I even quoted it in the post you just cited.

@66Scorpio

It was Gore v. Bush, by the way, because it was initiated by the lliberal who wanted the robed wizards to override the decision of the elected administration in Florida as to how the will of the people, federally, would be expressed. So the answer is neither: I was not talking bad about Gore v. Bush in the result because it never should have gone to the courts in the first place.

[emphasis added]

[ABraut]

I can only go by what you wrote, not what you meant to write. You may have meant “It wasn’t Gore v. Bush; it was Bush v. Gore.” but you wrote:

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It wasn’t Gore v. Bush; there was no such case. The underlying case was styled Gore v. [Florida Secretary of State] Harris.

Your poorly worded attempt at a semantic dodge, still admits that Gore initiated the original case, so I don’t even understand what you were trying to prove.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’ve been talking about Bush v. Gore for more than a page, so that would be some achievement.

This is not true, either. You’ve been specifically talking about Gore v. Harris. This quote is your only mention of Bush v. Gore, on this page. You have no posts on the previous page. (or the page before that, or the first page)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

“Poorly worded attempt at a semantic dodge”? What was “poorly worded” about it? I was correcting a poster who asserted that the case was “Gore v. Bush”, and I did so quite clearly. I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything. It was a semantic dodge in the sense that it was a nitpick, sure; it was a response to a nitpick, so what did you expect?

The US Supreme Court case was styled Bush v. Gore because Bush was the petitioner. The Florida case was styled Gore v. Harris because Gore was the petitioner. If you don’t understand the distinction it’s because you don’t understand case styling; not my fault.

This is not true, either. You’ve been specifically talking about Gore v. Harris. This quote is your only mention of Bush v. Gore, on this page. You have no posts on the previous page. (or the page before that, or the first page)

Okay, I’ll give you that.

ETA: If Scorpio meant that it should have been styled as “Gore v. Bush”, that’s a different issue, but that’s not what he said. He was either referring to the underlying case or stating that the style of the case was “Gore v. Bush”.

[Zaklog]

^ Acsenray
You asked for a rational argument against homosexual “marriage,” so here one is. Whether you like it or recognize any part of it, I can’t say.

The first problem when addressing something as basic as this is to understand the true nature and purpose of the object in question. What is the true nature and purpose of marriage? Is it for the individuals or for society? If it’s simply for the individuals, then society has no reason to distinguish between whoever wants to get married. If it’s for the benefit of society, then the larger society has both an interest and a right in defining the institution. On the other hand, if it is basically for the benefit of the individuals, then society has no reason to specially privilege the state of marriage. Since it is privileged (both practically and philosophically), it appears to be for the larger society than just the two individuals.

In trying to understand the purpose of the institution, we might choose to look at an ideal case, what most people believe it should be, even if it doesn’t always achieve it. What characteristics do an ideal (in the platonic sense) marriage have? First, it’s enduring, permanent. Even though we’re aware that some marriages end in divorce, very few people get married expecting or intending to get divorced. We want it to be for a lifetime, even if we fail to achieve it. Second, it carries an obligation of sexual fidelity. Again, some people don’t follow this and don’t consider it important, but on the whole, this is one of the expectations. When people fail to live up to it, we, as a society, disapprove. Third, it generally produces offspring. Yes, either by choice or by unfortunate circumstance, some marriages don’t, but in the normal course of events, a married couple eventually has children.

So, we have a permanent union implying fidelity and some degree of stability that usually produces children. What purpose does this serve for society? It looks like a good situation for raising children. Stability and trust that these people will continue to be there sound like a great thing for kids. And (with certain obvious exceptions) being raised by biological parents is generally the best environment for children. These people have a clear, built-in predisposition to take excellent care of the children. In this context, sexual fidelity serves two purposes: One, it ensures that children are being raised by their parents. Two, it offers another assurance of stability. Developing a new romantic relationship is a chaotic process. (That’s not to say bad, but it’s not exactly stable either.) Breaking off a romantic relationship is even more so. Keeping these things to a minimum when there are already children involved seems like a good idea.

If we want to continue having society, then we have to have children. If we want to have a society worth living in, then we should take great care with how they are raised. Another societal benefit to marriage as I’ve described it is that it gives the members of a community a powerful interest in a strong, stable society. If a couple is thinking about the world their children will grow up in, they want to make it safe and enduring.

So does my argument invalidate childless marriages? Not necessarily. If they follow most of the other characteristics I’ve described above, they still serve to support and encourage the main purpose of the institution.

How does all of this apply to homosexual “marriage”? Obviously, the couple can’t have biological children. At best, they will be one person’s step-children. Although the numbers are still small, step-children are statistically more prone to abuse and other problems. Also (between men at least), there’s a lesser expectation of sexual fidelity in a homosexual “marriage” than a normal one. No matter how carefully infidelity is managed, it can create confusing and volatile situations. Also, even with children, the members of such a marriage don’t have the same genetically predisposed interest in a stable society.

From this standpoint, what benefit does society gain from privileging homosexual unions? Other than a vague sense of fairness, none.

Yes, I am aware that not everybody agrees with the understanding of marriage I’ve laid out. I know I’m not going to convince everybody. I was just answering the challenge as issued. I have other reasons, too, but these come from sources that my critics probably won’t recognize. I’ve tried to create a logical, secular argument here.