no! No! Don't count the votes! Anything but that!

[Monster104]

After finishing the whole darned thing, I’ve noticed that the Justices opposed made a better presentation of why they were not in favor of Gore than the majority did in ruling in favor of Gore. In effect, the Justices in favor overturned precendents that upheld and followed the law, and ruled in a way that has no basis in Florida law, as pointed out by opposed Justices.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by headshok *
I suppose the whole thing might be funny in a way, but I can’t help thinking that we’ve now reached the political version of DEFCON 1. I don’t see how we’re going to have anything but bitterness and acrimony for the next two years.

How will anyone tell the difference?
Like we haven’t had just that for the past 8?

I remember 1993. The GOP filibustered everything they could, big or small. And where the Dems had held up the appointment of an occasional Bork or Thomas, the GOP blocked practically every attempted Clinton appointment. Some guy named Limbaugh said that the Clinton budget would sink the economy.

I remember 1994. The Clinton healthcare plan was no prize, but the GOP smeared it, warning us that, under that plan, certain bad things would happen. Those things happened…in the Orwellian world of HMOs. And we still don’t have universal healthcare.

I remember 1995. The Gingrich Congress, flush from the ‘Revolution’ of 1994, tried to undo the past 40 years in a single session. They failed, but they managed to raze a lot of forests before their time.

I remember 1996. The GOP and its sympathizers in the conservative media swore up and down that a minimum wage increase would sink the economy.

I don’t really remember 1997, politically at least. Must’ve been a quiet year. Glad one of them was. But the GOP was still holding up Clinton appointments in the Senate. (This actually never stopped, the whole 8 years.)

We all remember 1998. We had a civil war over a blowjob.

We all remember 1999. After the GOP turned the 1998 elections into a referendum on impeachment, and got their heads handed to them, they went ahead and impeached anyway. (So much for caring about what the people say. Kinda like now.) 1999’s kickoff was the trial in the Senate. Happy New Year.

And I guess we don’t need to remember 2000, yet, because it’s still happening.

(OK, that was a hijack, but what the hey. :))

[elucidator]

Appeal after appeal after appeal…

And STILL Bush won’t do the statesmanlike thing and concede.

What a sore loser! Running to the Supreme Court when he doesn’t get his way! We desperately need closure, but Bush keeps putting his own interest above the country!

And he’s going to run AGAIN to Federal court. (sigh) He should bow to the Will of the People! But no, he goes whining to court again and again and…

Well, you get the idea. Shoes on the other foot. Can he wear it?

Bet me.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**(sigh) He should bow to the Will of the People!
Bet me. **

Last I checked, the Florida Supreme Court doesn’t speak for me.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
Since we can’t agree on who came in first or second, why don’t we give it to the guy who came in THIRD?

Sounds like a great idea to me! Just went to hear him speak here last night. He can run circles around the other two bozos.

[Monster104]

What a sore loser! Running to the Supreme Court when he doesn’t get his way! We desperately need closure, but Bush keeps putting his own interest above the country!

Uh…if you haven’t noticed, Bush is the certified winner. Gore is the one pushing this through the courts.

And he’s going to run AGAIN to Federal court. (sigh) He should bow to the Will of the People! But no, he goes whining to court again and again and…

Well, considering that 3 of the FSC justices opposed Gore and the decision of the court, saying they overstepped their judicial bounds, and even ruled opposed to a ruling of the USSC…

Have you even read the decision? You seem to be having more and more radical partisan posts with each subsequent post.

Bush goes whining to court again and again? Excuse me? Like Gore isn’t?

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by Monster104 *
**Bush goes whining to court again and again? Excuse me? Like Gore isn’t? **

Monster, did you just hear a whoosh?

Stoidela says…
Then, a large number of Americans will be completely revolted by this turn of events, and the Dems won’t have to try very hard at all to get their votes. In fact, people may be so disgusted by this that they elect Al decisively in '04, or more deliciously, Hillary!

Not likely. Algore is alienating folks at warp speed. His latest approval ratings are in the 30’s…that’s worse than Clinton at his lowest. Even if he did win, they’d have to change the song to "Hail to the Thief."

As for Hilary…(heehee)…no, really…(chortle)…oh I can’t take it…BWA HA HA HA HA!

[Typo_Negative]

I didn’t think it was possible. I’m a registered Democrat. But this whole mess has left a bad taste in my mouth. If I hear anymore about dimpled chads, the rule of law, or the will of the people, so help me I’m gonna spit.

And can someone explain to this poor, disillusioned, Democrat idiot what an undervote is???

Gore has lost me. If he wins the nomination in 2004, he will have lost me. If I had it to do over again, I would vote for Dubya. (not that it would do any good, I’m in California)

Any more of this nonsense and I’m gonna register as a Republican.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Monster104 *

Uh…if you haven’t noticed, Bush is the certified winner. Gore is the one pushing this through the courts.

Bush goes whining to court again and again? Excuse me? Like Gore isn’t?
**

Certified by whom? Nobody is the winner until the electors vote.

Both have been running to the courts like madmen.

[SPOOFE]

Certified by whom? Nobody is the winner until the electors vote.

Ol’ what’s-her-face… you know, that chick so horrible that the only thing they can think of to bash her about is her makeup?

(No, I know what you mean… he didn’t actually WIN yet…)

Both have been running to the courts like madmen.

But the differences lie in the motivation. One went to the courts in an attempt to manipulate (legally or illegally) the outcome of the election… the other went to the courts in order to prevent the first from doing so. Like football. And we’ve even got the referees with bad eyesight

[elucidator]

Hail to the Thief
He got damn near half the nation
Hail to the Thief
It’s our money, it’s our call!
Hail to the Thief
It buggers imagination
We chose a C+ student to rule…us…all
*
Everybody sing!

[Sterra]

can no one see sarcasm any more?

[Sam_Stone]

I have never read a dissenting opinion so strongly worded. This ruling will be discussed in law schools for a long time.

For those that don’t want to wade through the whole opinion, (which I read about two hours ago), let me quote from the dissenting opinion, written by the Chief Justice of that court:

However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.

My succinct conclusion is that the majority’s decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion.

Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.

And…

…we run a great risk that every election will result in judicial testing. Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters–not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to become embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the
majority perceives it is “the right thing to do.” Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns.

Here’s more…

Continuation of this system of county-by-county decisions regarding how a dimpled chad is counted is fraught with equal protection concerns which will eventually cause the election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts or Congress.

and more…

I conclude that it is plain error for the majority to
hold that the Commission abused its discretion in enforcing a deadline set by this Court that recounts be completed and certified by November 26, 2000. I conclude that this not only changes a rule after November 7, 2000, but it also changes a rule this Court made on November 26, 2000.

Note that both of these points would result in a violation of the U.S. constitution, as well as the first point made in the dissention. As the judge said:

Directing the trial court to conduct a manual recount of the ballots violates article II, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, in that neither this Court nor the circuit court has the authority to create the standards by which it will count the under-voted ballots.

some more…

Clearly, in a presidential election, the Legislature has not authorized the courts of Florida to order partial recounts, either in a limited number of counties or statewide. This Court’s order to do so appears to me to be in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decision.

Laying aside the constitutional infirmities of this Court’s action today, what the majority actually creates is an overflowing basket of practical problems.

some more…

In that time frame, all questionable ballots must be reviewed by the judicial officer appointed to discern the intent of the voter in a process open to the public.31
Fairness dictates that a provision be made for either party to object to how a particular ballot is counted. Additionally, this short time period must allow for
judicial review. I respectfully submit this cannot be completed without taking Florida’s presidential electors outside the safe harbor provision, creating the very
real possibility of disenfranchising those nearly six million voters who were able to correctly cast their ballots on election day.

Note that this last comment validates what the Republicans in the legislature have been saying, that there was a real risk that Florida would wind up in a contest phase on Dec 12 and ran the risk of losing representation. A claim that Democrats have laughed at.

Continuing…

Another significant problem is that the majority returns this case to the circuit court for a recount with no standards. I do not, and neither will the trial judge, know whether to count or not count ballots on the criteria used by the canvassing boards, what those criteria are, or to do so on the basis of standards divined by Judge Sauls. A continuing problem with these manual recounts is their
reliability. It only stands to reason that many times a reading of a ballot by a human will be subjective, and the intent gleaned from that ballot is only in the mind of the beholder. This subjective counting is only compounded where no standards exist or, as in this statewide contest, where there are no statewide standards for determining voter intent by the various canvassing boards, individual judges, or multiple unknown counters who will eventually count these ballots.

I must regrettably conclude that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make provision for: (1) the qualifications of those who count; (2) what standards are used in the count–are they the same standards for all ballots statewide or a continuation of the county-by-county constitutionally suspect standards; (3) who is to observe the count; (4) how one objects to the
count; (5) who is entitled to object to the count; (6) whether a person may object to a counter; (7) the possible lack of personnel to conduct the count; (8) the fatigue
of the counters; and (9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards.

He concludes:

This case has reached the point where finality must take precedence over continued judicial process. I agree with a quote from John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, when he wrote that, “[t]he margin of error in this election is far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who wins.” Further judicial process will not change this self-evident fact and will only result in confusion and disorder. Justice Terrell and this Court wisely counseled against such a course of action sixty-four years ago. I would heed that sound advice and affirm Judge Sauls.

Remember, this is the Chief Justice of that court, and he was appointed by a Democrat.

[ElvisL1ves]

Remember, this is the Chief Justice of that court, and he was appointed by a Democrat.

Points you’re not acknowledging:

1. This is a MINORITY opinion. The majority opinion rules in court cases, like it or not, same as elections. If you think this is bitter, try reading just about anything Antonin Scalia has to say whenever strict constructionism is violated. IOW, tough noogies unless it gets overturned on one more of Bush’s federal appeals.

2. ALL justices on the FSC were appointed by Democrats. Why are you making the automatic assumption that anything they decide must be partisan, in the face of a split?

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**And can someone explain to this poor, disillusioned, Democrat idiot what an undervote is???
**

A ballot that showed no vote at all for President, like for a chad problem. That’s what the FSC is requiring finally be looked at and counted. An overvote has votes for more than 1 candidate, and there’s no plausible way to figure out which one it was (even for the PBC butterfly ballots), even if a statistical projection would convince most people in other circumstances.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
If you think this is bitter, try reading just about anything Antonin Scalia has to say whenever strict constructionism is violated.

Yeah…I was going to make this point. I thought this dissent was fairly strong, but still rather mild compared to some that I have seen by Scalia, say on the abortion cases.

I’ve gotten to the point on this issue where both sides’ logic looks pretty tortured…Even the justices. (Although, in contrast to some of the political partisans, I really do feel the justices are trying to apply the law as they see it and not be partisan. And, I noticed that the Chief Justice started out his dissent by noting that although he strongly disagreed with the Majority, “I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority.”)

So, I haven’t heard any of the Bush partisans here say whether or not they at least feel it was good that the justices said that the undervotes should be counted statewide? As a Gore “partisan” (at least when in the sense of Gore v. Bush), this does make me feel more comfortable with the decision than if they hadn’t done that. Admittedly, it does present some practical problems for lots of county election boards in the state though. (“We’re sorry to ruin your weekend, but…”)

[keno]

Why does everyone believe the SC will jump into this? That Court has been known to duck politically delicate problems in the past. In this case, the deck is stacked for Twig – he controls the State Legislature and he controls, or at least can deadlock Congress, and in the event the Congress can’t decide between competing slates of electors, the one certified by the Governor is recognized as official.

In other words, the SC doesn’t need to expose itself to any political flack. The deal is done. Move on, Bush and the GOP have it wrapped up, unless as someone posted earlier, other legislators decide to overturn their election results, Yahoo – that ought to be something to see.

[dublos]

Well, it isn’t likely to happen, but what I would like to see happen out of all this…

A count of “Obvious, hanging chad” votes
A count of “Dimpled, we aren’t really sure” votes
A count of “No sign of a vote” votes

And that count to include ALL the undervote, no matter how long it takes.

I really don’t mind if Mr. Bush is my new president, but I would like to know it’s because Florida actually voted for him by a majority, even by 1 vote.

And if it’s Mr. Gore, and we don’t know that till after the electors have cast their votes and we have a new president, oh well, Mr. Bush is president, but at least we would know.

and of course the real muddle… if Mr. Gore is shown to win in time to certify a new set of electors, and the madness that is likely to follow that…

What if after that the recount is completed and it shows Bush really did win?

Of course what resemblence that has to what’s really gonna happen? Not likely to be anything close from my guess.

-Doug

[Stoid]

Just a note of minor interest to some… I was reading an article in last week’s New Yorker, and they quoted a Bush “insider” as saying: “So long as we can keep them from counting, we’re winning”.

I find that * such * a strange position to take… or rather, to try and defend.

Tonight, for the very first time, I’ve heard Republicans on TV saying “It’s time to let them count, and once and for all we’ll know. It really looks skanky to have Bush keep scrambling to stop counts, especially when the counts will include ALL the counties.”.

How refreshing…it’s like a nice lemon-lime beverage…

stoid

[SPOOFE]

I was reading an article in last week’s New Yorker, and they quoted a Bush “insider” as saying: “So long as we can keep them from counting, we’re winning”.

…

I’ve heard Republicans on TV saying “It’s time to let them count, and once and for all we’ll know. It really looks skanky to have Bush keep scrambling to stop counts, especially when the counts will include ALL the counties.”.

So you’re basing your stance on gossip. No wonder nobody takes you seriously.