Any Supreme Court decision that states it shall not be used for setting future precedent is very suspicious to me. If Rehnquist already knows that it’s a shoddy piece of law that won’t stand the test of time, then why make it?
Any Supreme Court decision that states it shall not be used for setting future precedent is very suspicious to me. If Rehnquist already knows that it’s a shoddy piece of law that won’t stand the test of time, then why make it?
Wait a mo… who was it that started this thread? Why… I believe it was YOU, newcrasher!
So, yeah, tell us some more how you’ve “gotten over it.” :rolleyes: The more you say, the less I believe you.
Lissa:
Really? Compare the (aborted by resignation) Nixon impeachment proceedings to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. I certainly think the opposite is true.
cm, Watergate was 30 years ago. I would hope you’d recognize some changes in the political landscape since then.
Lissa does have a point - when there is little major difference in ideological structures among a party’s leaders, when they’ve reached those leadership positions largely because they hold that ideology (or are at least willing to acquiesce to it), then yes, they will look like a united front. When there is true diversity of viewpoints in a party, and especially in a time when that party is out of power, there is a focus on how to get that power back - that leads to fault-finding and finger-pointing, and calls by the hot-tempered for excommunication of those they blame. You’d find the same things in the GOP 1992-94, wouldn’t you?
OK, ok, I have tried to say it plainly…
There have to be rules for elections. You cannot go on counting and recounting forever. Perhaps this “media consortium” was right. But how was the denial of a recount such as the one the Medconsort. did illegal?
Again, it goes back to the fact that you simply do not like the results.
Oh, she wasn’t the only “Democrat” involved in that. She didn’t do everything herself.
Here’s the cite, but I’ll pull the relevant quote from Al himself out.
Quote
Gore, in a written statement, did not respond directly to the study. “As I said on Dec. 13th of last year, we are a nation of laws and the presidential election of 2000 is over,” he said. “And of course, right now our country faces a great challenge as we seek to successfully combat terrorism. I fully support President Bush’s efforts to achieve that goal.”
Twixt the liberal and conservative
The difference is wry
While one asks “Why Not?”
The other asks “Why?”
Bush is president. Gore ain’t. End of story. While I adore spirited debate and informed opinion, I can’t stand worthless whining, which most of the “elected not selected” crowd seem to be doing. IMHO anyone who votes strictly along party lines without carefully examining the candidates and issues is an uninformed, careless voter and should have the decency to stay away from the polls.
ElvisL1ves:
Certainly there’s been some shift amongst the populace, but I don’t think the political class is of a radically different stripe.
Despite the thirty-year time lag, the Nixon proceedings were generally cited as the model for how the Clinton proceedings should go forward. However, I couldn’t help but be struck by one interesting difference: During the Clinton proceedings, Republicans were constantly lambasted for being “partisan”, i.e., for attacking the president of the opposite party, while the president’s partisans in Congress backed him in lockstep fashion. The Nixon proceedings lacked that sort of partisanship…not on the part of the opposition party, but in that the president’s partisans in Congress abandoned defending him. But somehow, with Clinton, the expectations of what constituted non-partisan behavior were reversed.
I think that Republicans these days show a much broader allowance for internal dissent and/or party-line-crossing than Democrats do.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Let’s ask senator Jeffords to comment on that.
quote I think that Republicans these days show a much broader allowance for internal dissent and/or party-line-crossing than Democrats do.
I think there is a lot of partisan bickering on both sides. The extremist from either side are the ones that don’t ever change their minds.
In what way did the Republicans prevent Jeffords from taking non-party positions on many issues? He was a committee chairman.
No, it proved the exact opposite. I’m sorry, but this is a simple issue of fact, easily supported by cites, this one from the NY Times:
**You may hold SCOTUS’s decision in contempt, but until I see a reliable cite to the contrary, the decision was ultimately irrelevant.
My own opinion is that the matter should have been decided by the Constitution. Florida’s EC votes should have been declared null and void, and the matter sent to the House of Representatives for resolution. (Sorry, Stoid and nightsky, you don’t throw out Florida’s votes and go by the rest of the country’s votes, nor do you split them down the middle.)
Also, no one has mentioned that the Green Party almost certainly pulled the votes from Gore that would have sent him to the White House, even with the hanging chads and the rest. Had Nader not run, there is no doubt in my mind that Gore would have captured New Hampshire and Florida, and this whole thread would be moot. A question I have for the Greens: Do you still think there is no difference between Bush and Gore?
Furthermore, no one has mentioned the fact that a Tennessean could not capture one Southern state, with the possible exception of Florida. And, even if you grant Gore the best possible results of any recounts, that state split almost 50-50, no doubt due to all the Yankees that have moved down there for the clement weather. Hell, at least Mr. Peanut Head captured a few southern states when Reagan whipped his ass in the EC in 1980.
Bob Cos, you have been duped. It’s not your fault. The media was actively trying to dupe you.
You need to be able to read the article. For example,
43,000? there were 175,010 ballots that weren’t counted. What about the other 132,000? You need to read a bit further in the article
The technical term for what the Times did is “burying the lead.”
If you want to dig in more, take a look at the raw data yourself over here: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp Or, just glance at a nice little graphic summary here: http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/images/111201/ballot.jpg Notice that every time you count the entire state, Gore received more votes
[ul] [sup]There was subsequent interplay on this subject but I thought the original posting was interesting. Minty Green posted a quote from another person and said the following. Then Syclla quoted someone and said the following. Unintentionally, the following was the result.[/sup]
[/ul]
[sup]Sorry for the hijack[/sup]
Hm. Shouldnt the electorial system be changed after this?
Thank you, minty. I missed that thread for some reason.
No. It’s there for a reason. A damn good reason too. It’s so that a couple major population centers don’t vote for the whole country. I don’t get where you guys with the popular vote thing are coming from. That’s the law. It was set up that way for a purpose and it works. If you went with a strictly popular vote you would in effect discount the votes of millions of Americans that don’t live in NY or CA. And isn’t that your stance to start with, counting everyones vote and making everyones vote count? Seems like a double standard to me.