“(Mind you, the “end” may not come 'til several appeals.)”
This is a big part of the problem - several appeals can take years. The country doesn’t have years to square this issue away. We have a couple months at best.
Sam said:
Not according to Florida state law.
lucwarm: Under normal circumstances, appeals could take years. These are not normal circumstance. I rather doubt the judges and court clerks are just going to schedule these hearings without thinking about what’s going on here. It will be accelerated to have a decision in time.
Well of course!
According to YOU maybe, not according to the LAW. The election commission has to ok the recount, and in order for them to do so they must be presented with evidence that it is needed because of anomalys, irregularties, and other problems. They were presented with such evidence about four counties, they accepted the evidence for three.
No, it’s cool because it is likely to help Gore and hurt Bush and that makes me happy.
What is unprincipled about it, Sam? Do you find it unprincipled or even questionable that the Bush thinks hand counting votes is more accurate in Texas, but less accurate in Florida? Personally, I find it deeply unprincipled that a United States governor would attempt to thwart the legal counting of ballots. Don’t you?
I know Bush supporters are choking on it, but when their man elected to go to court to stop the lawful counting of questionable ballots, he lost all credibility as a man who is principled, honest or trusting.
It’s a shame for you guys, too. Bush has had the upper hand through this. If he really believed in his win, he had the perfect opportunity to totally blow Gore out of the water. He could have stood back, repeated his mantra about trust, and let the process run. And he would have come out looking like a real class act, and made Gore look grasping. But he completely blew that chance for all time this morning.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahha…
Oh, sorry. Just enjoying a little shadenfreude.
stoid
schadenfreude
Great word.
“Under normal circumstances, appeals could take years. These are not normal circumstance. I rather doubt the judges and court clerks are just going to schedule these hearings without thinking about what’s going on here. It will be accelerated to have a decision in time.”
With all due respect, there is no freakin’ way.
On the state side, you’d be looking at proceedings in Florida Circuit Court and Florida Appeals Court. No doubt the loser would apply for relief from the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. On the federal side, you have the District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, whoever lost would apply for relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some things can be accelerated, but many can’t. It takes time to gather evidence, examine witnesses, do legal research, prepare briefs, and prepare transcripts, write opinions. Even if this case were given top priority, there is just no way it could go from complaint to final denial of certiorari in 10 weeks.
Well, I guess we’ll see. But the judges and both sides know that this is something that needs to be rushed. I don’t think they’ll request weeks or months to prepare briefs and all that. These cases aren’t taking place in a vacuum. Everybody knows what’s at stake here.
Probably true, but the rules have been the same since long before the first ballot was cast. The Bush campaign has had exactly the same opportunity to request a hand recount in any county that they wished.
Instead, the Bush campaign chose to file a hypocritical lawsuit in federal court attempting to override the state of Florida’s methods for tallying the votes of its citizens.
That may well prove to be a tactical error as well as an ethical blunder. Bush has nobody to blame for it but himself.
I would have been happy to have seen the Gore campaign request recounts in areas that voted for Bush but also showed anomolous results, such as Duval County, but I can hardly fault Gore for Bush’s choice not to do so.
Stoid:
I take my cue on debating style from the person I’m debating with.
I first had a run in with you when you accused my of hypocrisy when I said Republicans stand for personal responsibility. Later you said Republican = Selfish, Liberal = generous. Then you posted a thread just to complain about Republicans/Conservatives. I saw that pretty much as a thinly veiled attack.
Of course you don’t like me. I’m the one you are attacking, I kinda figured it out.
When I see this kind of behavior I move to counteract it whether the person spewing it is on my side or not.
I don’t think you’re posting rational arguments on this subject I think you’re posting propaganda.
That aside, I kinda like you, personally, just not your propaganda. I keep the two seprate thoug. I think you’re probably a very good person, just not on this subject.
“Well, I guess we’ll see. But the judges and both sides know that this is something that needs to be rushed. I don’t think they’ll request weeks or months to prepare briefs and all that. These cases aren’t taking place in a vacuum. Everybody knows what’s at stake here.”
What courts do in emergent situations is to grant (or deny) provisional relief (e.g., preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, etc.) If that were to happen here, then the courts would be deciding who should be president pending trial, appeal, appeal, and appeal. Realisically, the matter would take at least a couple years to resolve. Then there would be a possibility of the courts pulling out one president and installing another.
As far as requesting weeks or months to “prepare briefs and all that,” you can bet that whoever is installed provisionally will request weeks, months, and years.
Anyway, I don’t want to make the argument personal, but I’m thinking that you don’t have a lot of experience with lawsuits, trials, appeals, and so forth and I’m asking you to trust me when I say that there’s just no way a full set of appeals could get resolved to a final judgment and exhuasted in 10 weeks. If you don’t believe me, feel free to post the question to the “questions” board.
I for one dissent. For federal cases, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari before a judgment in the Court of Appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 2101(e). What this means is that immediately after the District Court decides the case, the Supreme Court may take up the case, skipping the Court of Appeal. According to the Supreme Court rules, the Supreme Court will do so “upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance so as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” Supreme Court Rule 11. If any case would case would call for such an action, this one would.
I do not know Florida procedures, but I’m sure that they have similar procedures to expedite appeals in extraordinary situations.
As an example of a case proceeding through the courts on an extremely expedited basis is the Pentagon Papers Case the case went from filing to Supreme Court decision in only 15 days.
Spiritus:
I am not debating whether Florida allows for handcounts. I’m debating the procedure. I am also debating the propriety of using selective handcounts to manipulate the statistics. Allowing Bush to also try to manipulate the statistics by looking for handcounts in areas he is likely to pick up a few votes doesn’t make Gore right.
By law, who orders the handcounts in FL? If it’s an election board that’s supposed to be impartial, than shouldn’t both Bush and Gore stay out of it, and let the board do it’s work, observing and protesting when necessary.
If it’s a court that orders it, than it behooves Bush to challenge these requests where he thinks they are frivolous.
I am 100% in favor of any system that does not manipulate the vote. Selective sampling does. Bush must move to intercept it.
If the law allows Gore to make such requests than it behooves him to do so.
I see nothing wrong with what either party is doing.
If I had my personal druthers I’d stipulate that if you do handcounting in one county, you need to do it in all counties.
This is from the link that was posted:
"On June 13, 1971, The New York Times began publishing a series of articles based on the study, which was classified as “top secret” by the federal government. After the third daily installment appeared in the Times, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained in U.S. District Court a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER against further publication of the classified material, contending that further public dissemination of the material would cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to U.S. national-defense interests.
The Times–joined by The Washington Post, which also was in possession of the documents–fought the order through the courts for the next 15 days, during which time publication of the series was suspended. On June 30, 1971, in what is regarded as one of the most significant prior-restraint cases in history, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, freed the newspapers to resume publishing the material. The court held that the government had failed to justify restraint of publication."
(emphasis mine).
Like I said in a previous post, there’s no question that provisional remedies can be granted or denied on an emergent basis.
If you can find a case like that that makes a decision as to a final remedy that quickly, then I’ll concede.
scylla
By law, a hand recount must be requested by a citizen of the county in question. The canvassing board of that county, an independent body, then decides whether the sample count is warranted. Depending upon the results of the sample count, the board then decides whether other precints also need to be manually recounted.
This is not the case.
[/quote]
I am 100% in favor of any system that does not manipulate the vote. Selective sampling does. Bush must move to intercept it.
[/quote]
the sampling is selective only because Bush has declined to balance the requests of the Gore campaign. The applicable state law does not require a statewide recount when one county is sampled. It likewise does not require any canvassing board to agree to a request for a manual count.
Bush’s move to “intercept” the recount is a move to override the laws of Florida and prevent votes from being counted in the manner whach has been deemed the most reliable for determining the expressed will of teh voters. If Bush’s concern was for selective samples, then he has had ample time to request either a complete manual sampling or a balanced selection of other county samples. Instead, he has attacked the method itself. The same method he signed into law in Texas.
In this action, he has demonstrated a hypocrisy that extends to many levels. That you defend this hypocrisy does you little credit. (I am not saying that there might not be valid reasons to object to a selective sampling – far from it. However, Bush’s position is not based upon such arguments and the Bush campaign has failed to take the actions open to them to balance such bias. Yes, it would have been an excellent example of public ethics for the Gore campaign to request a recount in counties that voted for Bush. Their failure to provide such a magnanimous example does not grant carte blanche to the Bush campaign to engage in unethical behavior. The suit the Bush campaign filed, and the statements they have made, are blatantly hypocritical.)
It does, and he has. More specifically, the law allows citizens of teh counties in question to make teh request, and they have done so at the behest of the Gore campaign.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a “final remedy”. They ruled that the government had not made a case to justify restraint and that publication could go forward.
The fact that a temporary restraining order had been obtained before the SCOTUS decision has no bearing upon the nature of that decision. The issue was settled. The ruling was final.
Spiritus:
Actually I got from DavidB that “the party” is allowed to select 3 counties for recount.
I’m not sure which is correct.
What I (and I think the Republicans fear,) is that this is just the beginning. The democrats selct handcounts, then more if they need them, then more, then they sue, and they delay, and they do everything possible to discredit the election wherever possible because it serves their interests.
Several times in his speech yesterday Gore’s campaign manager said we need to slow down and take our time and examine every aspect. We are in no hurry. That’s what I’m afraid of. I’m afraid he’ll litigate, and protest, and play the race card, and anything else he can to get into the White House.
I think Bush is doing the smart thing by not yet escalating the issue. He’ll propbably only ask for handcounts if Gore succeeds in getting his.
You and I have agreed that this election in Florida falls within voter tolerance for error (apparently one district had 15% of it’s ballots disqualified through voter error.)
Barring the absentee ballot, this is about who can manipulate the sytem better.
Gore’s claimed “the will of the people” giving him the popular vote before the absentee ballot has come in. Isn’t that just as hypocritical as Bush claiming victory, now?
No, it’s not hypocritical, it’s politicking (as if that’s a rational distinction,) but both sides are doing it, and considering their positions they should.
Oddly enough, I beleive in the system. With the margin as close as it is Gore must challenge every way possible. Bush must counter those challenges either by discrediting them or issuing his own and Gore will challenge those.
I’m all for it. Let’s work it out quickly though. After the absentee ballots have come in, and all the votes have been certified, that’s it.
I wish both parties would agree to that. A joint statement at this time between both Gore and Bush stating a trust in the system, and an expedient solution would do both parties credit, serve the countries best interests, and help the next President bring us through this. I am proud that we saw this at the White House celebration among the current and former Presidents there yesterday.
Spiritus may consider me president of his/her fan club.
stoid
“The Supreme Court’s decision was a “final remedy”. They ruled that the government had not made a case to justify restraint and that publication could go forward.”
So after that decision, the government was barred from suing the New York times for damages?
Was the government barred from prosecuting the New York times?
In other words, was the case necessarily concluded?
I haven’t read the decision, but I don’t think so.
scylla
You misread DavidB’s post. In each county where a hand recount is determined to be justified by the canvassing board (after having been requested by a citizen), 3 precints are selected to perform a sample count. Based upon the results of this sample, the canvassing board may decide whether or not to recount other precints.
I do not recall agreeing to that. I am not even sure exactly how to interpret it. Which voter;s tolerance? Not mine, certainly.
I have consistently and repeatedly stated that I feel the mechanical error in tabulating Florida ballots has been unacceptable and that, particularly in a race this close, it violates the righ of the citizenry to have their voice accurately and reliably recorded. I view that principal as basic to the very concept of a representative republic, and I take the violation of it very seriously.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular election, the process in Florida, and particularly in Palm Beach County, needs to be corrected.
lucwarm
The issue before the court, as I understand it, was whether the publication of the Pentagon Papers represented a threat to national security severe enough to warrant the prevention of their publication. The Supreme Court ruled upon that issue, and that ruling was final.
Why would it be required that the Supreme Court prevent the government from potentially suing either newspaper for other cause? Certainly, the ruling would prevent the government from punishing either paper (whether in civil court or through criminal prosecution) based upon a perceived threat to national security.
“Certainly, the ruling would prevent the government from punishing either paper (whether in civil court or through criminal prosecution) based upon a perceived threat to national security”
First, I think this is incorrect. I’m not an expert on the First Amendment, but as I understand the doctrine of “prior restraint,” a newspaper is entitled to publish, but does so at its own peril.
For example, let’s suppose that the Spiritus Times is about to publish a defamatory article about lucwarm. Under the doctrine of “prior restraint,” (as I understand it), lucwarm may not obtain an injunction preventing the Spiritus Times from publishing. But lucwarm is of course entitled to bring a defamation action against Spiritus after the article is published. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)
“Why would it be required that the Supreme Court prevent the government from potentially suing either newspaper for other cause?”
Because there’s a big difference between provisional and final remedies. It’s not hard to charge into court and have somebody ordered not to do something. (Actually it’s pretty hard, but I’m talking relatively here.) Either person can appeal, and an appeals court might dissolve the order. Appeals can go all the way to the Supreme Court, and, if a case is important enough, can be heard pretty quickly.
Final remedies are another matter. For example, if lucwarm prevails in his defamation action against Spiritus, and is awarded a $1,000,000 judgment, Spiritus can appeal, but the appeal won’t be decided overnight, even if heard on an expedited basis. (Of course, if Spiritus is on the edge of bankruptcy, he might apply for a “stay” of the judgment, and this application might be heard quickly)
Turning to the situation in Florida, it seems to me that Gore would be seeking a “final” remedy - invalidation of an election. Even if a re-vote were ordered on a provisional basis, the consequences of that re-vote would have to be decided on a “final” basis.
In fairness, I suppose that if Gore lost on the “provisional” issues, he could just abandon his lawsuit. (He likely wouldn’t get anywhere in the courts after that anyway. It’s hard to imagine the courts ordering Bush to step down for Gore, once Bush has served as president for a while)
In any event, I’m still open to being shown that an exhaustive appeal of a “final” remedy can happen very quickly. I doubt it, but if I’m shown the right case, I’ll promptly concede (don’t want to drag things out unnecessarily :))
I am not a constitutional lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But I am confused by your differentiation between a provisional and a final resolution. The only issue brought before the court was the issue of prior restraint justified by national security. The court ruled upon that issue.
What other remedy would have been reasonable? I am not saying that the court has never extended a ruling beond the scope of the question before it, but to make that the criterion for determining whether a remedy was “final” or not seems a bit arbitrary.
If Bush’s challenge of the manual recount goes to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS ruled the recount was valid, would you fail to consider the remedy final unless the court also ruled that Bush could not challenge any other aspect of the election if Florida?