Please quote the portion of his dissenting opinion where he says that.
He says that under federal law, the Attorney General has the power to determine what a “legitimate medical purpose” is under 21 CFR § 1306. And the courts are required to give the AG’s determination “substantial deference.” So under the existing process, determined to be the rules before assistd suicide reared its head, the AG gets to decide what a “legitmate medical purpose” is.
But if you can find where he says that he rests his decision simply on what is and isn’t allowed by the rest of the country, please quote it here.
He wasn’t the author of Ayotte, and even if he were, the discussion in Gonzales is over a federal regulation, which is supposed to be interpreted by the federal agency and to which interpretation the courts owe substantial deference, and in Ayotte it’s over a law, which is interpreted by the courts, narrowly.
But when you recount the cases, you somehow failed to mention that one involved a federal reg and one involved a federal law. How did you miss that? You also failed to mention Auer v. Robbins, that lays out the standard for interpretation of a federal reg by the courts. What happened there?
Partly what happened there is that I’m on a strange computer (visiting family for the holiday), and don’t have access to a lot of the legal stuff I normally have. I still think I can make the argument that Scalia rules inconsistantly, especially on certain issues, like abortion and homosexuality, that he apparently has strong feelings about. But I don’t feel I can make the case now under my present circumstances, and so I regrettfully withdraw from the debate.
No, the first call was by NBC at 7:49:40. Ten minutes and twenty seconds before closing in the panhandle. The other nets were even later. The number of prospective voters who publicly claimed later to have turned back during those ten minutes: 1. :rolleyes:
Saint Cad got the wrong 1 hour issue. All the networks flubbed by announcing that polls closed in the panhandle an hour before the actual close time. From wikipedia:
As I noted earlier, there are a number of “what ifs” one can wonder about with all the screw-ups in Florida that year. Some favored Bush and some favored Gore. I’m sure if your major source of information on this subject is the “World Socialist Website”, you’ll lean toward thinking Gore was the victim. If your major source of information on the subject is Rush Limbaugh, you’ll think Bush was the victim.
And if the Wiki article itself is reporting a “study” by John Lott as factual, no wonder you’re screwed up. Where are all the other thousands of people who got fooled, then?
John Mace, there you go again with your false-equivalence, “Both parties do shit, tsk tsk, the hell with them both” shit. :dubious:
First of all, that wasn’t the only study, and it gave roughly the same number of “missed Bush votes” that the other study did. Secondly, the study is not really the salient point. The salient point is that there was a screw up by the networks in announcing poll closure times one hour too early. So, as **septimus **mused earlier, one might wonder how much that affected the outcome of the vote.
Except that’s not what I said, your reckless use of quotes notwithstanding. You might wish I had said that, but I didn’t.
I’m not sure why it matters what Gore wanted, what Bush wanted, whether people would have asked “How high?” if the networks had told them to jump, etc. I thought we were talking about the Bush v. Gore decision and what effect that might have on Sandy’s legacy.
With that in mind, does anyone want to tackle my question in post 45? It’s relevant and I’m sure many would find the various answers interesting.
Except that none of them have been able to actually find these people. As I already pointed out, without your addressing the issue. :rolleyes:
Except that it was not one hour, it was ten minutes. :rolleyes:
Better grab a composition text go look up what else quotes can mean. They include summarizing and paraphrasing. Note that you’re not denying falling into the same old trap. DMC, your question is either rhetorical, or too obvious to answer, but since you ask, the answer is obviously no, this court was going to make Bush President no matter what legal contortions were required. O’Connor was part of that effort, due to her already-known determination to have a Republican appoint her successor as well as to the party-before-country reasons her colleagues shared. Yes, one case can define a judge’s legacy, and this one is hers - a hijack of democracy itself.
You asked what matters - sadly not too many people seem to agree that the Constitution is what matters, the nation, the republic, democracy and its principles. Those obviously required every valid vote to be counted, with its validity assessed fairly and impartially, according to the “clear intent of the voter”. It was further necessary to use the same technology everywhere, and that the technology chosen be as reliable as possible, and completely traceable for recount purposes, but those conditions were not met Regrettably, they still are not) and could not be fixed, only compensated for. I have never heard it asserted that this could not have been accomplished, even before the bogus “safe harbor” deadline that SCOTUS misapplied along with the 14th Amendment, if there had been a good-faith effort to do so, free of stalling and pettifogging tactics.
Doesn’t matter. As I already said, I’m speculating along the lines of what **septimus **did. No one has been able to find any of the people he’s speculating about either.
Once again, point being that fubars affected both sides, and there is no reason to focus on only one side. Unless, of course, you’re trying to push a partisan agenda.
What part of “All five of them reported this incorrect statement at the top of the 6:00-7:00 hour. Westernmost counties in Florida had polls open for another hour, until 8:00 p.m. EST” do you not understand? One hour. If you’ve got a cite that says otherwise, let’s see it.
I don’t know enough about all the justices to answer your question from post 45, but I think I know enough about Justice O’Connor to say that her vote probably would have been the same even if Gore / Bush’s roles were reversed in 2000.
It does matter if you’re interested in determining if the complaint about the panhandle was real or a red herring.
Then the inference has to be “red herring”, doesn’t it? So why then are you bringing it up as a real issue?
Or if you really are trying to be objective (there really is such a thing), not to simply reassure yourself about being above it all and just superior to all those messy “participants”. :dubious: Do you know what false equivalence is?
The part where it has any basis in fact. :rolleyes:
Gore attempted to invalidate military votes that for no fault of their own did not make it in time. Even his own running mate was against this tactic. Al Gore was a slimy politician who lost the election despite his attempts to invalidate the votes of military people serving overseas.
No wonder you didn’t quote from any of your cites-- none of them addresses the issue of the networks announcing that the polls in Florida were closed 1 hour before they actually were.
So, let’s be 100% clear here. There are 2 issues wrt the networks and the timing of their calls:
Calling the race for Gore, which they all did about 10 minutes before the polls closed in the panhandle.
Announcing that the polls were closed one hour before they actually did close in the panhandle.
Item #2, dude, item #2. None of your cites disputes the wikipedia article I quoted above. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
If you’re having trouble getting your point across, I suggest a restatement, but this time dripping in sarcasm and liberally peppered with :rolleyes: and :dubious:. Clearly this is a more effective way to express oneself.
It really wasn’t rhetorical, and while I personally think the answer is obvious, that’s just my (okay, and a lot of others) opinion and I wanted to hear from others, especially those defending the decision. While Martin Hyde took an appreciated stab at it, and I’m not sure if I disagree him in how that particular jurist would have ruled, I was wanting a bigger picture answer, including good old Antonin, for instance.
Looks like I’m not going to get one, so we’ll be having this same conversation, with the same defenses, next time it comes up.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ask about Ralph Nader’s legacy? If he hadn’t run for president, there wouldn’t have been have been a recount, because Al Gore would have won in a walk.
There is more than one school of thought, and I’ve heard plausible arguments for and against putting it squarely on Nader. But, more to the point, he was willing to risk that and I don’t think he should have been.
No, that wasn’t *Nader’s *fault, it was the fault of all the people who voted for him for supercilious reasons. His legacy is still the Corvair stuff. Well, that, and repeated;u insisting there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
If there’s any question left about O’Connor’s legacy, well, what else is there besides her being an affirmative-action recipient?
Rather than Nader’s or O’connors legacy, shouldn’t it be about Al Gore’s legacy? He is the one who was VP during 8 years of a popular president and somehow turned that into losing his own state and having to rely on a base so stupid they couldn’t punch a hole in a piece of paper.
While that sounds sarcastic, it really is serious. The fact the election came down the FL recount at all is just a sign of how bad Al Gore really was as a politician.