# SCOTUS: 5-4, Bush's favor. Aww, mama, can this really be the end? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2000, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292 "2000-12-13T03:18:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/61 "2000-12-13T08:26:19Z")
For starters, Nader sucks away hundreds and thousands of votes. Can we not safely say that a couple thousand of those were in Florida? Certainly. Result: enough votes for Gore to win, gone. Gore actually gets **more** votes than Bush, but in the wrong places. “Landslide George” lucks out. People in “butterfly” county went to vote for Gore, by a perfectly horrible mistake, vote for the one guy they **most** despise, Buchanan. Result: same as above. Not even votes for Bush! Darth Pat, for God’s sake, pisses in Al’s cornflakes! And gloats on national TV! A few thousand people go to vote for Gore, are denied a ballot because of some screw-up, aren’t registered to vote even though they have thier registration cards _in thier hands._ A couple thousand votes, at least. Result: as above. Couple thousand more are denied ballots because the company hired by Ms. Harris to clean up to rolls wrongfully assigns them “felon” status. (I am sure she will apologize. I’m sure they will be much comforted.) Result: as above. Machinery that isn’t designed to work perfectly, doesn’t work perfectly. (Elucidator’s Maxim: \* Malform Follows Malfunction\*) Margin of error many times exceeds margin of (gag! RALPH!!) “victory”. Result: as above Florida legislature, lawyers, Supreme Court, more lawyers. Which is it? God hates Gore, or the Devil loves Bush? The guy just couldn’t get a break! (Got this creepy feeling some guys gonna post just that, it really **was** God’s will.) Oh, Milo, you got a bet, buddy. Not betting they will succeed, mind you. Just betting they try. But the way Al’s luck is going, all the storage places will be simultaneously struck by meteors, tornadoes, and mad cow disease. Ah, what the hell. Survived Nixon, survived Reagan, survived Gingrich. “Bambi” Bush? Bring it on! ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/62 "2000-12-13T09:38:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Now who’s “divining” things! Your mind-reading skills are hardly up to snuff. Your reading skills are faulty. I made no mention about “divining” things. Perhaps you shouldn’t stereotype people because they disagree with you? > [@](#): > > I made the egotistic error of voting for a third-party candidate many years ago, and I swore afterwards that I would never again give solace to those arrogant enough to think they could buck the system. You’re also making the “egotistic error” of claiming that your personal experiences should dictate human conscience on the whole planet. > [@](#): > > So kindly keep your alleged psychic utterances to yourself. I believe this practice is known as “pooh-poohing”. I made no claims about being psychic. Nor did you provide any reasoning which would show my original statement to be invalid. Curiouser and curiouser… > [@](#): > > By your “logic”, we should all start our own third parties, for I doubt that anyone agrees on every issue! Congratulations, something DIDN’T go over your head! That was sort of the point. Of course, in your ineffable wisdom, you’ve taken a simple, grey-area, moderate notion and taken it to its greatest extreme. Life is not black and white, sir. > [@](#): > > I hope at least you enjoyed your venture into verbal onanism, for I doubt anyone else did. I see I touched a nerve. Perhaps I was right. In the meantime, why not open a Pit thread about me? That’d be quite a larf. “He was right that I’m a whiner, so he’s a poopy-head!” > [@](#): > > You continue to embarrass yourself. And you continue to prove that you are unable to debate. Again, I invite you to the Pit if all you’ve got in your bag of tricks is juvenile name-calling. > [@](#): > > But your suggestion that perhaps Bush’s campaign was better is ludicrous He won, didn’t he? Okay, sorry… he didn’t win, he’s just going to be the next President. You seem to think that every aspect of a campaign is planned out and orchestrated by the candidate. I assure you, they hire the best PR people to conduct the affair. That’s why it costs millions of dollars. What, you thought they spent all that money on the victory celebration? > [@](#): > > Bush is far too stupid to have planned and executed this on his own Oh, wow, you pointed out the blatantly obvious. You think Gore planned HIS campaign all by himself? It’s a stupid man who thinks he can do everything. > [@](#): > > Such standards, although perhaps regrettably non-specific, were in place before the election! And the reason they were non-specific is obvious: different precincts used different systems! A standard for one type of system could hardly be applicable to another system. That has absolutely, positively, definitely **nothing** to do with what I posted. I was discussing invalid votes - votes which you, yourself, agreed were invalid - and you respond by talking about differing standards? > [@](#): > > You betray your ignorance of the law. Even assuming your flawed perspective, a ruling which does not persist past the case in question is NOT a new law, by definition. Did you not read the rest of the thread? Milo said “The Court voted 7-2 that what the Florida Supreme Court did was completely fucked.” In other words, they had no basis for deciding things the way they did… they altered the meaning of the law in an invalid way. I did not say it was a “new law”, I said they were changing the law. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. Want to take your argument up with them? > [@](#): > > It is your knowledge of ethics that remains extremely doubtful, not mine. Only someone manifestly ignorant of the subject would suggest that Ethics = Law! And only someone manifestly ignorant would suggest that I ever claimed that Ethics = Law. I said that ethics demands that you obey the law. In other words, **it is unethical to break the law.** Of course, if you really want to delve into the subject deeper - talking about special cases when the law is unethical, for example - I invite you to open a new thread here in GD to discuss it. I would enjoy debating the topic with you. > [@](#): > > And who argued for the premise that ethics “has any place in modern politics”? You deliberately misconstrue my remarks. I misconstrue your remarks? Deliberately? Or maybe you’re just not as clear with your writing as you believe? You make a long rant about how ethics demands that we count all the votes. I said that’s rubbish, as further recounts are not demanded by law, nor are they demanded for the sake of fairness (they had already been counted, fairly and accurately, according to the SCOTUS rulings). As such, there is no ethical imperative that we continue to count the votes. The only reason to continue counting the votes is so people like you, Stoidela, and Elucidator can give rational people headaches for the next four years with your finger pointing and rants of “See? See?!? Gore should have been President!!” > [@](#): > > . Nonetheless, only a Republican would so glibly deny that ethics should play a role in modern politics. I didn’t deny that ethics should play a role in modern politics. I just said that they don’t. Forgive me for having a grip on reality (and perhaps a touch of cynicism). If you really wish to learn of my political views, rather than throw about stereotypes like a hatemonger, perhaps you can E-mail me and we can discuss the matter in private. I would find such an interaction fascinating. As it is, I am a big fan of “Enlightened Despotism”, though I realize the likelihood of this sort of gov’t ever lasting is slim to none. I also agree strongly with Plato and his ideas of “Philosopher Kings”. Elucidator… > [@](#): > > For starters, Nader sucks away hundreds and thousands of votes. You mean he earned hundreds of thousands of votes. I say, congratulations to him! That’s a hard thing to do. > [@](#): > > Gore actually gets more votes than Bush, but in the wrong places. Yeah, kinda sucks. Oh well, he took that risk going into this. > [@](#): > > People in “butterfly” county went to vote for Gore, by a perfectly horrible mistake, vote for the one guy they most despise, Buchanan. Funny… that’s a popular claim, but there’s no proof. Isn’t it great the way that works? Remedy: We’ll just have to make sure that doesn’t happen next time. > [@](#): > > Darth Pat, for God’s sake, pisses in Al’s cornflakes! And gloats on national TV! He gloated? He expressed his sorrow. He admitted that he didn’t want any votes that weren’t supposed to be his. Unfortunately, due to the carelessness of the ballot designers, and the committee that approved them, AND the voters who weren’t paying attention, we’ll never know how many of Pat’s votes should have gone to Gore. We’ll just have to chalk that up with Roanoke and the _Mary Celeste_. > [@](#): > > A few thousand people go to vote for Gore, are denied a ballot because of some screw-up, aren’t registered to vote even though they have thier registration cards in thier hands. Alleged, not proven. Didn’t Florida alter their records a couple years back, or something, and thus needed everyone to re-register? I’ll look that up for you tomorrow (I’m going to bed after this post… it’s 1:30 AM, dagnammit, and I have classes tomorrow!). > [@](#): > > Couple thousand more are denied ballots because the company hired by Ms. Harris to clean up to rolls wrongfully assigns them “felon” status. A couple THOUSAND?!? Are you sure?!? Damn, that’s a horrible mix-up! Do you have a cite handy, so I can check up on it more thoroughly? > [@](#): > > Machinery that isn’t designed to work perfectly, doesn’t work perfectly. Wouldn’t it be scarier if it DID function perfectly? That’d be, like, Twilight Zone… > [@](#): > > Which is it? God hates Gore, or the Devil loves Bush? The guy just couldn’t get a break! Well, you see, Gore began telling everyone how he did everything - “I invented the Internet, I brought fire to mankind, I created the sun, the moon, and the stars” - and this angered Zeus. So, Zeus called forth Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, and told her to teach this callous and egotistical mortal a lesson. So Athena climbed into the minds of men, and began twisting their thoughts away from the great, almighty Gore. Gore decided to fight back, so he sent his trusted lieutenant, Lieberman, off to a distant land to find Chronos’s (no, not OUR Chronos!) bones, from which to fashion a dagger so he may slay Athena, and Zeus. At the same time, Gore sent his champion, Jesse Jackson, to infiltrate Olympus and steal the gods’ Ambrosia, so that he, too, may rise to the status of a god. Unfortunately, disaster befell Lieberman when he was accosted by the ancient, cranky titan, Cheney, whom locked Lieberman up in a cage and forced him to wear a ballerina outfit. And Jesse Jackson ran afoul, oh, some flying monkeys, and they stole his magical soapbox, rendering him powerless. So now Bush has fallen into favor with the gods of Olympus, and with his army of flying monkeys, he will rise to power over all mortals, and the trumpets shall sing his praise forever (well, for the next four years, anyway). I trust this clears up any misconceptions regarding divine intervention. And, with that tale, I bid thee good night. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/63 "2000-12-13T10:14:43Z")
With all the Nixon references being bandied about regarding Bush, I’m surprised I haven’t seen any comment about the last incumbent VP to narrowly lose an allegedly rigged election. All we need now is the statement “You won’t have Al Gore to kick around anymore”… jr8 “The genius of you Americans is that you never make any clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that leave us scratching our heads wondering if we might possibly have missed something.” – Gamel Abdel Nasser ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/64 "2000-12-13T11:04:39Z")
SPOOFE Bo Diddly writes: > [@](#): > > Your reading skills are faulty. I made no mention about “divining” things. Perhaps you shouldn’t stereotype people because they disagree with you? Can’t you keep track of your own posts? You wrote: > [@](#): > > If Buchanan or Brown had gotten enough votes to keep Bush from getting elected, **you’d be praising third parties like they were a gift from the heavens**. (emphasis added) Are my subsequent comments really so hard for you to fathom? How could you possibly know what I would do without “divining” my thoughts, ostensibly with psychic powers? You have no right to suggest what I might or might not do, or to project your prejudices upon me. > [@](#): > > That was sort of the point. Of course, in your ineffable wisdom, you’ve taken a simple, grey-area, moderate notion and taken it to its greatest extreme. Life is not black and white, sir. And you’ve utterly ignored the point, sir. Where should we draw the line? At fifty million parties? At twenty thousand? Our constitution does not favor any more than two. It might be regrettable, but it is the case nonetheless. Again you call me a “whiner”. It is typical of braggarts and buffoons of all stripes to call any objections “whining”. I find that characterization quite offensive (which prompted my annoyed reply). Allow me to quote something I read recently: > [@](#): > > Perhaps you shouldn’t stereotype people because they disagree with you? You ramble objectionably in a vain effort to try to sound superior, when all you succeed in doing is coming across as dismissive and smug. You gloss over your faulty premises and instead try to make my valid objections sound arbitrary. You speak of my inability to debate, yet persist in belittlement and obfuscation. Yes, I have unfortunately stooped to the same, but I only give as I receive. You continue to suggest that Bush’s election campaign is what has (or appears to have) landed him in the White House, when the reality is it was his lawyer’s efforts to stop the vote count early that accomplished this. Allow me to again point out the “blatantly obvious”: Even though the presidency is awarded to that candidate that earns the most electoral votes, the fact remains that Gore won the popular vote. While I agree this doesn’t count for anything in practical terms, it certainly indicates who ran the better campaign. You deceptively feign innocence when you write: > [@](#): > > I was discussing invalid votes - votes which you, yourself, agreed were invalid - and you respond by talking about differing standards? I talked originally about counting all legal votes. You responded by saying we shouldn’t count “invalid” votes. I, perhaps foolishly, gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you wouldn’t say something so utterly vapid and tautological as “invalid votes are invalid”. Furthermore, you also made the following remark in that same paragraph: > [@](#): > > These are the standards that have been used for years. You should have brought it up before then. I reply by saying that the standards **were** in place prior to the election, even though they were not precise, and now you suggest that I am making irrelevant remarks? That’s rather disingenuous, don’t you agree? You state, with emphasis, that **it is unethical to break the law.** Then you, yourself, suggest that this is not always the case! Instead of opening a new thread, let me simply ask you: was it ethical to keep slaves? The law protected this unethical act. Yet you again insist on equating ethics with the law: > [@](#): > > You make a long rant about how ethics demands that we count all the votes. I said that’s rubbish, as further recounts are not demanded by law, nor are they demanded for the sake of fairness (they had already been counted, fairly and accurately, according to the SCOTUS rulings). As such, there is no ethical imperative that we continue to count the votes. I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/65 "2000-12-13T11:11:28Z")
SPOOFE Bo Diddly, Before pouncing unfairly on my example of slavery, allow me to restate my ethical query: Would it have been ethical for a slave to run away from their legal owner? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/66 "2000-12-13T11:20:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Seven of nine justices on the court said that the recount process under way in Florida was flawed, illegal, unconstutional, inaccurate, wrong. > > (What I’ve been trying to get you to understand for a few weeks now.) > > But you still don’t get it, or won’t see it. Milo, I’ve read the _per curiam_ opinion and the first two dissents. **Four** of the nine Justices say the Supremes shouldn’t have taken either case at all - that there was **no Federal issue** here. Therefore, at most five Justices claimed the FL decision was unconstitutional. You’ve admittedly been trying to get us to understand your point of view for weeks, but in every election thread I’ve seen you on, your arguments have been slapped away with the ease of Sammy Sosa swatting my best fastball over an outfield fence. So, no, we don’t see it - nor should we, by the standards of this forum. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/67 "2000-12-13T13:12:16Z")
You’re labling the Green party as a party fo kooks is supposed to make it better? When they realized that they can’t win the presidency without their vote, the Democratic Party leaders could have initially made nice to would-be Nader voters. Instead, they resorted to intimidating the Nader voters, something one would expect from a banana republic. That certainly didn’t work. Only when they rediscovered Bill Clinton did Gore make a turnaround, but it was just too late. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/68 "2000-12-13T13:17:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > **RT** , you know that Bush has won. Recount after recount (three total, all made to order by Gore’s team) has shown Bush winning. “All made to order by Gore’s team?” Let’s see - he’s consistently _asked for_ manual recounts of **four specific counties**. One of them was Miami-Dade. Miami-Dade has **not** been manually recounted. > [@](#): > > Gore only wanted to count counties that served him. And Bush didn’t want to have votes counted that _didn’t_ serve him. The difference is, that while Gore _asked_ for four particular counties to be recounted, he consistently _offered_ to go along with a statewide manual recount, if Bush was also willing to agree on that. There was no comparable willingness on the part of Bush. > [@](#): > > Gore only wanted the ballots that helped him to be counted (all the rich elderly but none of the military). The cry that ‘Every vote counts’ sounds hypocritical if you do things like that. Yeah, and Gore reversed himself within about 24 hours on that one - he recognized his hypocrisy, and changed his position. Bush, OTOH, has done **one** thing throughout - tried to block the manual recount of votes that the machines couldn’t recognize, by whatever means necessary. He went to Federal court to block the recount on November 11, he got state GOP/Bush campaign officials to make rulings claiming the hand recounts had to stop _before_ the November 14 deadline claimed by Ms. Harris (and later overturned); he filed suit in every possible court he could - state courts, Federal courts at all levels - to block the manual recounts and keep people’s votes from being tabulated. The GOP even paid for and micromanaged the brownshirts that rampaged through the Miami-Dade government building on November 22, after which the local officials immediately and abruptly reversed their decision to do a hand recount. > [@](#): > > Frankly, Bush has been more than fair with this weirdo. I guess we have different definitions of ‘fair’. > [@](#): > > We should let Bush take his due and get on with four years of a Republican administration. **Hail to the Commander-in-Thief! All hail the Bush fraudulency!** :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/69 "2000-12-13T13:53:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > But they held out for an extreme standard that anyone but the most heavily partisan could see was unfair, and as it turns out, illegal. > > Had Gore moderated his approach from the start, he might have gotten his recount. > > \*\* Not only could he have gotten his recount, he probably could have won. But “probably” was not what he wanted, he wanted a certainty. Moderation is not the essence of Gore, Gore has a childish need to come out on top, and so he shot himself in the foot by never agreeing to standards. The recounting and recounting was a risky scheme that didn’t pay off. I’m happy Gore lost. Unfortunately, that means Dubya won. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/70 "2000-12-13T14:25:48Z")
“We should let Bush take his due and get on with four years of a Republican administration.” I can hardly wait for the hearings on his nominees to the high court ! Surely he won’t try to stack it further in favor of the GOP ? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/71 "2000-12-13T14:31:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > Bush has truly won the electoral college, and that is how we elect our President in this country. Define ‘truly.’ :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Bush has even won in the traditionally Democratic Florida (face it, only the votes in the counties Gore picked really ‘counted’). FL is ‘traditionally Democratic’?! (Can’t make head or tail of your parenthetical.) > [@](#): > > We knew from the outset that neither would have a landslide. We accepted that neither would have the majority of the public vote. That is how our system works. And this proves what? > [@](#): > > But Gore’s obstructions have only prolonged his defeat. Since the ‘obstructions’ have consistently come from Bush, as I outlined in my last response to you, I have no idea what you mean here. > [@](#): > > Gore has run himself into the ground. Nobody will touch him with a 10-foot poll (sorry :)) come '04. Actually, I think Gore’s in far better shape within the party, as a result of the past five weeks of struggle, than he was on the morning of Nov. 8. I don’t think we’re going to see a case of disowning-the-loser this time. I think Gore will remain a respected figure within the party, and could well be the nominee in '04. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/72 "2000-12-13T14:41:57Z")
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision to recount was itself a razor-thin, 4-3 vote, which reversed the trial court’s decision to _not_ allow recounting. To quote CJ Rhenquist: > [@](#): > > Florida statutory law cannot reasonably be thought to require the counting of improperly marked ballots. Each Florida precinct before election day provides instructions on how properly to cast a vote, each polling place on election day contains a working model of the voting machine it uses, and each voting booth contains a sample ballot. In precincts using punch-card ballots, voters are instructed to punch out the ballot cleanly: AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD. No reasonable person would call it “an error in the vote tabulation,” FLA. STAT. §102.166(5), or a “rejection of legal votes,” FLA. STAT. §102.168(3)©, when electronic or electromechanical equipment performs precisely in the manner designed, and fails to count those ballots that are not marked in the manner that these voting instructions explicitly and prominently specify. I thought the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to permit recounts was wrong, for the very simple reason that different counties were counting votes in different ways. It was unfair that a voter in one county could cast a ballot in exactly the same way as a voter in another county – and have one vote be counted and the other not. I’m sorry for Al Gore too - he has devoted pretty much his entire adult life towards the goal of becoming President. I cannot recall another candidate in my lifetime better prepared, by study and training, for the job. While I have not always agreed with Mr. Gore’s policies, or the policies of his party, I do think these traits, as well as his almost fanatical dedication to understanding complex issues, deserves praise. So often, politicians possess only cursory knowledge of issues; Mr. Gore, by all accounts, strives to acquire in-depth knowledge before forming an opinion or policy. That said… I think Florida’s electoral votes, under the law of the state and of the United States, are properly awarded to Mr. Bush. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/73 "2000-12-13T14:51:43Z")
Some comments: Were I on the Supreme Court, I would go with Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, who noted in her opening lines that “I might join the Chief Justice (of the USSC) were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own state’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated”. IOW, she does not necessarily feel that the Florida Court did the right thing, but feel that they have jurisdiction. (She also found the Equal Protection claim meritless). But this should also give pause to those Gore partisans who are so upset about the USSC ruling. You may be right about the USSC decision, but you are merely being deprived of the ill-gotten gains that the partisan FSC tried to steal for you. One question for **DSYoungEsq** , or any other legal expert: Once the USSC reversed the decision, what is the difference between remanding it and not remanding it? Suppose they had not remanded it, would not the FSC have been able to rehear the case anyway, and issue a new ruling “not inconsistent with” the USSC ruling? It would seem to me that the only difference is regarding the message being send, specifically whether the USSC believes that it is possible to construct such a new opinion not inconsistent with their own. If this is true, then (in light of the fact that this is evidently impossible in this case) it would appear that the majority opinion is being disingenuous, by pretending to be doing less than they actually are. Regarding the point made by **Shayna** (and seconded by others), I also agree. I heard protesters shouting “No more Gore!!” outside the Gore residence last night, and thought it was completely inappropriate. Such slogans might have a place at a Bush rally, but not outside the Vice Presidential residence at his hour of defeat. It’s sad that matters have come to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/74 "2000-12-13T15:05:47Z")
I am a pretty much middle-of-the-road guy. And while I think it is unfortunate, I just could never accept the idea that pregnant or dimpled chads should be counted. And once that standard was adopted by Miami-Dade county I was swayed into thinking that manual recounts without standards were simply not fair. I also am of the opinion that this is USSC jurisdiction. I do not see this as a state’s rights issue, rather as a state’s responsibility. The federal governemnt has bestowed upon the states a responsibility to conduct a National presidential election. But that means that they must pass some Federal muster of fairness. Look I am no lawyer, so I am just giving my impressions. In the end the next President - Bush, Gore, Other - will be judged on their four years in office come 2004 and not on how they got there (except by those who won’t ever forget or forgive). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/75 "2000-12-13T15:37:20Z")
The worst case of faulty reasoning I see here is in Scalia’s statement that the count had to be stopped in order to avoid delegitimizing the Bush presidency. But what does he think this decision DOES? It declares that the problem ballots cannot be counted at all because there is no sufficiently-detailed uniform standard, while preventing the FSC from declaring such a uniform standard lest they be accused of creating law. The FL Legislature couldn’t do that even if the wanted to because it would be after the election, therefore the USSC was both requiring and forbidding it in the same decision. But what it looks like to a small-d democrat is that some unknown number of honestly-intended votes are being prevented from being included in an election, in the name of meeting an artificial deadline. The full count (which WILL be done, by probably several private, partisan and nonpartisan organizations) will show how many problem ballots there were, of each type, although the counts may vary slightly. Betcha these get done after December 18 but before January 20. What damage to Bush’s legitimacy will this decision have created if that shows Gore really won, even discounting the butterfly ballots etc.? I’ve read the decision and the dissents, and I do agree in the name of accuracy that there had to be uniform standards. The decision went to some detail on that subject. That is a problem, no argument from me. But the claim that there was no time remaining (largely due to the USSC’s own stay!) was not based on any finding of fact, or even argument. Brava to Justice Ginsburg most of all, and to all of the dissenters who put country above party. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/76 "2000-12-13T15:43:06Z")
Time to throw the blame for Gore’s loss, and there’s plenty to go around. You could point to almost anything that went wrong in his campaign, either strategically or tactically, or to anything that went unexpectedly right for Bush, and say that’s the difference. That’s a whole thread, or book, I’m not gonna start now. There are people who should NOT get assigned blame, though, and Nader is one IMHO. He’s just one person, with just 1 vote (more or less - we can’t be sure anymore). A good measure of blame does belong to anyone who voted for him without truly believing he’d be the best President for the next 4 years. A triple dose goes to anyone who would have voted for Gore but wanted to make an incoherent “they all suck” protest statement, and will now be stuck with their least-palatable choice. Yes, Ralph should go screw, but so should most of his voters, and they should go first. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/77 "2000-12-13T16:07:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*The worst case of faulty reasoning I see here is in Scalia’s statement that the count had to be stopped in order to avoid delegitimizing the Bush presidency. But what does he think this decision DOES? \*\* Occurs to me that I should clarify. If the statewide recount had been held, variable standards or not, and Bush had won, I’m confident there would be no questions of his legitimacy raised in mainstream politics. But a single-justice majority has now prevented him from achieving that, while leaving the risk that the inevitable unofficial recounts will show his win to be illegitimate. Scalia et al. may have been trying to do Bush a favor, but they’ve handicapped him instead, and permanently, while damaging the Court’s own legitimacy in the process. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/78 "2000-12-13T16:11:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **The full count (which WILL be done, by probably several private, partisan and nonpartisan organizations) will show how many problem ballots there were, of each type, although the counts may vary slightly. Betcha these get done after December 18 but before January 20. What damage to Bush’s legitimacy will this decision have created if that shows Gore really won, even discounting the butterfly ballots etc.?** This idea is a bunch of Democratic jive. There is no way to truly “know” who won, and will be none, no matter who counts them after the election. What standards will the new organizations use? If they use the Palm Beach standards, then Bush will win (especially if they apply those standards retroactively to Broward County, as they should). If they use the Broward County standard, than Gore will win. So what will we know that we don’t already know now? The issue will remain open to interpretation, as it is now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/79 "2000-12-13T16:36:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*This idea is a bunch of Democratic jive. There is no way to truly “know” who won, and will be none, no matter who counts them after the election. What standards will the new organizations use? If they use the Palm Beach standards, then Bush will win (especially if they apply those standards retroactively to Broward County, as they should). If they use the Broward County standard, than Gore will win. So what will we know that we don’t already know now? The issue will remain open to interpretation, as it is now. \*\* Possibly, or possibly that’s just a bunch of _Republican_ jive. We don’t know what’s on the ballots at all right now, much less know confidently enough how they’ll break. I was predicting, reasonably I believe, that we’ll get a list or lists of what ballots of what type of chad etc. there were, and we can draw our own conclusions. I believe that WILL happen, whether or not we choose to give the results any credence, and the political implications WILL be present and have to be accommodated. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292/80 "2000-12-13T16:38:56Z")
> [@](#): > > The only reason to continue counting the votes is so people like you, Stoidela, and Elucidator can give rational people headaches for the next four years with your finger pointing and rants of “See? See?!? Gore should have been President!!” I enjoyed that so much I wanted to see it again in this thread:) I do not think there will be a full recount of Florida. It is my understanding that the parties have to PAY the expenses of the county while counting. Does anybody have any specific info on whether or not this is true? If it is, I can’t see anyone ponying up several million dollars just to recount. Plus, with the margin so thin, it would have to be a 100% recount to carry any weight with objective observers. A partial recount that put Gore up for even one second would be immediatley declared the only true and final count, and the above mentioned posters would be clamoring for Bush to concede. Hopefully, the will be ignored. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-5-4-bushs-favor-aww-mama-can-this-really-be-the-end/45292.md?page=5)