MGibson, excessive deference to minority views to the extent that the country as a whole is fragmented and paralyzed is just as dangerous as failing to take account of them at all. That may explain why Canada no longer exists in twenty years or so, for instance.
GadareneI was referring to Hugo Black’s evolution from a Klansman to an ardent civil rights proponent as an example of how someone’s world-view can change radically, even in adulthood. Thanks for the reminder that it took place primarily before his joining the Supreme Court, but I think my underlying point still holds.
No, I don’t think it does. First, your initial post was in the context of a Supreme Court appointee shifting ideologically from the point of their appointment. Black underwent no such shift. Second, Hugo Black didn’t “evolve” from a Klansman to an ardent civil rights proponent; most evidence shows that he was an ardent civil rights proponent long before he accepted membership in the Klan. Here’s the relevant passage from the book I’ve got on hand (I can quote to you from Justices and Presidents, considered one of the authorities on the politics behind Supreme Court appointments, when I get home):
There’s nothing that I have seen in Black’s history to remotely contradict his account of having joined the Klan for social reasons, though doubtless his desire to move up in Alabama politics at a time when most influential Alabama politicians were Klansmen also played a part. In fact, Black’s political record–from the time that he was Birmingham’s prosecuting attorney, before his Klan membership–consistently demonstrates his progressive views on civil rights. Though he was surely less enlightened in this regard than most people are today, he was never in any sense a racist relative to contemporaneous men and women. Thus, it’s wholly inaccurate for you to describe him as having undergone a profound shift in world-view as an adult, either before or after his ascension to the bench.
I made a lengthy post once on the degree to which Supreme Court justices can be said to have shifted ideologically after their confirmations. If you like, I’ll dredge it up and reprint it.
Who’s confused here? Of course interpreting laws is what courts are SUPPOSED to do. The Florida Supreme Court took that ‘interpretation’ ball and ran with it just a skosh too far.
Perhaps you disagree. The Florida Legislature (who the U.S. and state constitutions give rule-making power over elections) didn’t, however. Hence their preparations to overturn the Fla. SC’s actions, which they saw as wrong and overstepping. Until SCOTUS made their actions moot.
As Samuel Clemmens is believed to have said: There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. That certainly applies to the mess left-over from Florida, to ALL partisan parties, as each has it’s own methodolgy,and each is subjective, by definition.
My point is, and again, I apologize If I’ve been less than clear, that it’s so d*mn close that we cannot reconstruct the election. We have no objective standard that declares one party the winner over the other, that doesn’t have a margin of error big enough to place that declaration in serious doubt. Yeah, one of the candiadates probably got more votes, though not necessarily so, but we can’t prove which one it was beyond a shodow of a doubt, and when you start departing from the legal standard of what constitutes a legal vote, and start looking for ‘voter intent’, the process only becomes even more muddy. Also, there’s the ex post facto bit: The election must be judged by the laws in place at the time of the election, be they flawed or not. To change the rules after the election disenfranchises those persons (of both parties) whom did cast legal, counted, ballots.
Confused yet? Guess what. So is everyone else, save those whom are Religeously Political, and for whom only their candidate is legitimate, ever. I’m not one of those, I belong to the vast majority whom say: ‘It’s done, it wasn’t pretty, let’s do better next time’.
Actually, this is a criticism of your position.
In a popular vote all votes count the same. It is proponents of the Electoral Collage who need to justify inherent inequities.
EC thread anyone?
Tranquilis:
If you believe so strongly in democracy then perhaps you should reconsider your support of the Constitution, which does not.
No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. - James Madison
Actually, how silly of me – apparently you didn’t, because otherwise you would have known that the USSC voted 7-2 that Florida’s SC “fornicated with the dog” as you Americans like to say. They also had a narrower 5-4 split on a second question of just how badly Florida’s SC did so. Even the newspapers bothered to mention these vote tallies, although apparently you wish to forget.
The “liberals” on the USSC today include Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. If you had paid any attention to the court for the last five years or so, you would know that the press widely touts a 5-4 conservative-liberal split.
Please note that two of these four “liberal” Justices voted that the Florida SC must have inhaled before it made its 4-3 ruling (despite its being composed of seven Democrats) that overturned the appellate judge’s decision (who was another Democrat, BTW) that yet another recount/deadline extension/coin flip would be unlawful. (I believe Ginsberg was one of the dissenters in both the 7-2 and 5-4 decisions, from comments that she made later.)
For your edification, here is a quote from the Supreme Court decision:
I feel your pain. You have my sympathies for your inability to count to nine, seven, five, four, or even two. Try using both your right and left arms, then once you’ve mastered that, switch to fingers to get to ten. With toes you can make it to twenty! After that, you’ll have to remove some clothing.
Milossarian, Grim Beaker, and possibly others have been asking me to back up my statements with cites. Okay, here’s a batch. First is Stephen Jay Gould’s article on why the Florida results can’t be determined. Then a very amusing explanation of the Supreme Court decision. Then several articles on how the the black vote was kept down in Florida. Finally, an article listing myths about Florida’s election results. I find these articles convincing and believable; Bush supporters will no doubt find reasons to reject them out of hand.
http://www.windowatch.com/2000/December/levine6_11.html
“The ‘Gore Exception’: A Layman’s Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore” by Mark H. Levine (This article by an actual lawyer started as a widely distributed e-mail and is now on the WindoWatch site.)
I think you’ve got it backwards. The proponents of the electoral college are the ones who want to give more importance to the small states and/or rural area, by giving extra value to the votes of people living in small states and/or rural areas.
We who want to scrap the electoral college (or modify its winner-take-all aspect) are the ones who want everyone’s vote to have the same value.
We do?!? Never heard that expression. As to the more serious issue of the 7-2 to 5-4 split, I don’t entirely disagree with you although I think your interpretation is a bit off on what they really said.
Basically, it comes down to this: 7 justices thought there were equal protection problems with the count as the FSU had devised it; 2 felt there were no such problems. Of these 7, 2 thought that the issue could and should be sent back to the FSU for remedy and the other 5 thought that it was too late. (The argument here basically comes down to the “safe harbor” prevision whereby a state’s electoral votes can’t be challenged by Congress if they are in by Dec. 12th. But, other states had previously gone beyond this “deadline” and, given the Republican advantage in the Congress, it seemed unlikely that there would be a challenge if they had gone beyond the 12th and Bush had still been declared the winner.) Of the 5 who thought that it was too late, 3 also wrote a separate opinion arguing that they thought the FSU decision was totally fucked (not the 5 that you claim), i.e., that there never should have been hand counts in the first place.
I think a more realistic assessment of the makeup of the Court is that there are 3 mad-dog conservative justices, 2 moderately-conservative justices, and 4 liberal-to-centrist justices. (Brennon and Marshall could be called “mad-dog liberal” justices [in a good sort of way, in my admittedly-biased opinion ] but they ain’t on the court anymore.)
Except that that WAS the legal standard of what constituted a legal vote in Florida. Interpretation was legally left to the local canvassing boards, like it or not. Yes?
Precisely, as I stated above. I’m glad we agree that the law defining a valid ballot was flouted and effectively nullified. I hope we can also agree to “salute the uniform” when we see the Presidency occupied by a man who obtained it illegally, not just dishonorably.
Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent?
SPOOFE Bo Diddley said: Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent?
Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with waterfront property, as it happens. The reason that the state of Wyoming should count less than the state of California is simple: California has more people living in it than Wyoming does. More people, more votes. It makes sense.
Do the math: Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and three electoral votes. California has a population of 32,000,000 and 54 electoral votes (55, as of the 2000 census.) So, 500,000÷3=166,667, or one electoral vote per 166,667 Wyoming citizens. Likewise: 32,000,000÷54=592,593, or one electoral vote per 592,593 California citizens. This means that if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts three and a half times as much as it would if you lived in California! How can anyone call this fair? This is indefensible!
Frankly, I resent being penalized just because I live in a populous state. If you live in California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania, your vote should carry equal weight as the votes of those who live in Wyoming or Vermont or North Dakota or Alaska. Voting in America should be done away with. The rural privilege is not fair.
SPOOFE Bo Diddley said: Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent?
Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with waterfront property, as it happens. The reason that the state of Wyoming should count less than the state of California is simple: California has more people living in it than Wyoming does. More people, more votes. It makes sense.
Do the math: Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and three electoral votes. California has a population of 32,000,000 and 54 electoral votes (55, as of the 2000 census.) So, 500,000÷3=166,667, or one electoral vote per 166,667 Wyoming citizens. Likewise: 32,000,000÷54=592,593, or one electoral vote per 592,593 California citizens. This means that if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts three and a half times as much as it would if you lived in California! How can anyone call this fair? This is indefensible!
Frankly, I resent being penalized just because I live in a populous state. If you live in California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania, your vote should carry equal weight as the votes of those who live in Wyoming or Vermont or North Dakota or Alaska. All votes in America should be equal. The rural privilege should be done away with.
Anyone reading my posts, please disregard the typo in the first post I clumsily submitted before editing properly. I did not mean to suggest that voting in America should be done away with. If the moderator could wipe out my first post, I’d appreciate it. Anyone else, please read my second posting of this message for the correct version of my last paragraph. Thank you.
I don’t think it was even as far as that. I think the two liberals who agreed that there were equal protection concerns did not explicitly say that they felt the decision could be overturned on these grounds - merely that there was room for concern (which they felt could be alleviated in any event). In fact, I seem to remember one of the two (I’ve forgotten if it was Breyer or Souter) writing explicitly that he was not saying this. The media presented the decision as if it was a 7-2 decision to reverse, but in reading the decisions I did not get that impression at all.
That would indeed be tragic. Thankfully, the U.S. system is nothing of the sort.
The electoral college is a means of balancing the majority vote and the minority needs. It gives minority states disproportionate representation; as a result, it will occasionally allow the minority vote to take precedence. This is a far, far cry from your South African example, wherein the minority routinely and regularly dominated and oppressed the majority.
] but they ain’t on the court anymore.)