Nader.
I for one welcome our new Maronite Lebanese overlords.
I bet they decide Denofrio doesn’t have standing.
You are wrong. Also, you are assuming that continuing the recount would have changed the result, which is not necessarily the case.
Also, the Court wouldn’t be “ruling the election invalid.” They would be ruling that the winner of the election is not eligible to hold the office to which he was elected.
No, I’m right. It was a conservative court handing the election to the conservative candidate.
That is the point of actually doing a recount - to find out the truth.
Rand Rover, I wonder if you’d say that if they had favored Gore.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled 9-0 on anything? I’d bet they’d rule in favor of Obama, but I’ll bet it wouldn’t be 9-0. Could they expedite a ruling or would the inauguration have to be postponed?
Some vague memories from Con Law are surfacing here. I think that, while it is true that a citizen does not normally have standing to challenge something the government does that causes an injury to that citizen only in the sense that it injures all citizens equally, there’s an exception where he is asserting that the government violated the constitution and no one would have standing if the traditonal rules were applied. I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth before on the SDMB with my vague recollections from law school, so I’m fully prepared to be totally wrong about the above.
No, you are wrong. The Court ruled that a state cannot just continue recounting votes without any standards doing the recount or a reason to do so.
They did do a recount. Bush still won. Gore wanted to keep recounting until he got a result he liked.
Brown v. Board of Education was a unanimous decision. I’m sure there have been some others.
Not gonna happen. It’s just more stupid posturing.
Thanks. That’s good to know.
They didn’t do a full recount, which I can’t believe you didn’t know.
Historically, the majority of SC cases has been unanimous. The percentage has gone back up with Roberts. 70% of the cases in his first term were unanimous.
Well, let’s not hijack this thread, but since you have essentially called me an idiot, I feel I should respond. I’m not sure what you consider a “**full **recount,” but Florida definitely did a “recount” and not just a “partial recount” or something. From wikipedia:
After the first recount by the morning of Wednesday, November 8 Bush’s margin in Florida had dwindled to about 500 votes, narrow enough to trigger a mandatory recount in that state. In addition, Gore asked for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law. This set into motion a series of recounts (portions by machine, and portions by hand), questions about portions of the Florida vote, and finally lawsuits.
There was no result. The margin of victory was less than the margin of error. That’s why they were doing a recount… to determine the outcome of the election.
It was pretty cut and dried that Harris’ certification of inconclusive interim results was unlawful, as observed by the FLSC. This leaves us in a quandry… we have no valid result for the FL election, but because of the illegal delay we no longer have enough time to conduct a recount. Bush v. Gore was about extending the deadline so the legally required recount could be conducted and the result of the election determined. The USSC was correct that there was no legal way under FL to extend the deadline. FL elections would not have produced a certifiable result and would award no electors, Gore would have had 266 electoral votes to Bush’s 246.
It was improper to overturn FLSC on the issue of the interim results being inconclusive and uncertifiable. In so doing they chose the president.
Surely plenty of other presidents have had at least one non-native born parent. A quick skim through Wikipedia reveals BOTH Andrew Jackson’s parents were Irish.
The percentage varies by court, but for Roberts’ first term as Chief Justice, for example, the majority were unanimous. About 1/4-1/2 of cases in any given term will be unanimous.
ETA: Oops, just saw that someone else addressed this. Oh well.
You are right to be humble about your knowledge, because this is indeed incorrect. There is nothing different about vindicating constitutional rights. You still must allege particularized injury.
And it is pretty much settled law–though I think unsettled at the Supreme Court level–that voters do not have standing to challenge candidate eligibility. (Take a look at the other threads on this for a bunch of citations).
Including Klinger?!
Seconded. Hey, the Supreme Court wants a civil war, they’ll get one.
…So, only Anglos would retain their citizenship?