How Much Did Bush Pay the U.S. Supreme Court? [Archive]

Rocketman95

12-09-2000, 04:11 PM

Since we've got some that are so sure that Gore's paid off justices whenever things are ruled in his favor, I guess I must now ask the same question.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/09/president.election/index.html

Wow. Gore was going to win too, oh well. Now Bush really won't have anything to work with. "See, I lost the popular vote, and on the manual recount of the undervote, I'd lost 55 out of 13 counties, so I got my oil buddies to pay up or gather up some more money to send to Scalia and friends, so now I'm Precedent."

Note that I don't really think this happened, I just thought I'd keep the theme consistent on both sides of this BBS.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited December 09, 2000).]

Space Ghost

12-09-2000, 04:51 PM

Either way ... Good job Bush ... next time make sure you put a bigger down payment on the Florida Supreme Court.

i would just like to take a moment and thank the Supreme Court for keeping that arrogent jackass Gore out of office. No so much that i want Bush in it, I just don't want Gore.

Anyone up for Bimbo the Clown?

------------------
its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!

outlaw

12-09-2000, 05:35 PM

Bush isn't an arrogant jackass too?

ZRB

12-09-2000, 07:24 PM

The US supreme court is sickening. Bad enough that they stop the counting, they delay it until at least monday, when there will be no time left to count.
Didn't Bush say that he wanted more power to the states? Why doesn't he just follow the Florida ruling? He could actually pick up votes, since they are counting throughout Florida. I guess he is afraid that the the person Floridians actually voted for will be certified the winner. What a hypocrite.

------------------
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death."

Danilo

12-09-2000, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by ZRB:
The US supreme court is sickening. Bad enough that they stop the counting, they delay it until at least monday, when there will be no time left to count.
Didn't Bush say that he wanted more power to the states? Why doesn't he just follow the Florida ruling? He could actually pick up votes, since they are counting throughout Florida. I guess he is afraid that the the person Floridians actually voted for will be certified the winner. What a hypocrite.

If the US Supreme Court decides not to be political, and uphold the Constitution by allowing the recounts, the true deadline would be on the 18th not the 12th. The 12th is just a safe harbor for the actual elector voting date of the 18th.

I really find it ironic that Junior was winning by only 96 votes when daddy called his buddies at the US Supreme Court and got a Stay. Of the 5 justices that voted for the Stay, 4 were appointed while Daddy was in the Whitehouse.

http://democrats.com/images/supremeclowns.jpg

---
Katherine Harris for US Supreme Court

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

JayZ750

12-09-2000, 08:09 PM

1 millllllllllllllllllion dollars!

HAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHHAHAH

Sorry....always wanted to do that.

------------------
"There are some frauds so well conducted that it would be stupidity not to be deceived by them."
Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832)

TheFreak

12-09-2000, 08:54 PM

The Florida Supreme court is just out of control. The US Supreme Court tells them to justify their decision to extend the deadline for counting. They ignore the US Court's ruling. They then extend the deadline even further, without taking into account what the US Court told them in the previous decision.

What's even more puzzling is that they ruled earlier that Miami-Dade did not have to continue counting. Now they say there has to be a statewide count of just undervotes. Does that include Miami-Dade? Gotta like that consistency.

Rocketman95

12-09-2000, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by TheFreak:
Gotta like that consistency.

Like Dubya's consistency in stating that manual hand recounts are the most accurate way of determining the correct winner, but only when it's convienent to him?

Like Dubya's putting trust to the people, except when counting votes?

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

TheFreak

12-09-2000, 10:05 PM

Yeah, politicians are supposed to be the consistent ones. Not judges. Why can't anyone make a point without referencing a politician? Try to think independently for once. Republican this, Democrat that...is it possible to have an opinion without being in to politics? I'll get the ball rolling -- I believe that machine counts are fair and manual counts are not. I need not reference a politician to form that opinion. I actually came up with it on my own. Somebody else try now.

Rocketman95

12-09-2000, 10:15 PM

I believe that we should do whatever it takes to make sure that the person we're sending to the White House is the person we should be sending.

It does us no good to send Bush or Gore to the White House without making sure that they are the winners, damn deadlines and schedules.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

mc mark

12-09-2000, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by TheFreak:
I believe that machine counts are fair and manual counts are not.

Okay...

Freak when you take money out of an ATM, do you still count it before you put it in your pocket?

------------------
'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'

TheFreak

12-09-2000, 11:12 PM

It's halftime...

R95 -- I believe the fairest count will tell us who will go to the White House. Elections are not perfect.

mc -- lame. Machines are not bias. If I get jipped by an ATM, it's either because the machine was defective (which has not happened in this election), or purely by chance. In neither case is there bias.

Rocketman95

12-09-2000, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by TheFreak:

R95 -- I believe the fairest count will tell us who will go to the White House. Elections are not perfect.

They should be.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

TraJ

12-09-2000, 11:33 PM

I believe the person the people voted for should be in the White House; but I also believe that the law must be followed. I can understand why Gore supporters would be irritated by what is happening, but I also believe you can't change the law after the fact. If Bush is the next president, did Gore lose on a technicality? From what I read and hear, it would seem that way. But I still don't think you can change the law. However, the law does need to be changed so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

What I find humorous is people criticizing the other side when I can practically guarantee that if the situation were just the opposite, they would still be supporting the same candidate. Who among us is making arguments SOLELY on principle? Who among us doesn't take the position they take because of the guy they want to see in office?

I believe Bush has the law on his side. Am I biased? Perhaps so. But I really do believe the law is on his side. Perhaps it shouldn't be; but it is. You can't change that for this election regardless of how much you may want to. All that can LAWFULLY be done is to change the law so that it doesn't happen again. Sorry.

------------------

Puedlfor

12-10-2000, 12:22 AM

TheFreak - If machines don't have the biases that people have, why not have a computer be President?*

* - No Gore jokes. Its too obvious.

------------------
Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?

Danilo

12-10-2000, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by TheFreak:
The Florida Supreme court is just out of control. The US Supreme Court tells them to justify their decision to extend the deadline for counting. They ignore the US Court's ruling. They then extend the deadline even further, without taking into account what the US Court told them in the previous decision.

Have you even read the ruling? Replying to the "please clarify" by the US Supreme Court was obviously taken into consideration and was included in the ruling. Having to clarify the old case in another document would be plain redundancy.

Originally posted by TheFreak:
What's even more puzzling is that they ruled earlier that Miami-Dade did not have to continue counting. Now they say there has to be a statewide count of just undervotes. Does that include Miami-Dade? Gotta like that consistency.

Please get more informed before posting and wasting our time. We are now in the contest phase (after certification), not the protest phase. During the contest phase, under Florida law, the Florida Supreme Court is given broad power for the remedy of successful contests. During the protest phase they felt they didn't have the discretion to order the canvassing board to count in Miami-Dade and thus denied the motion.

Danilo

12-10-2000, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by TraJ:
I believe the person the people voted for should be in the White House; but I also believe that the law must be followed. I can understand why Gore supporters would be irritated by what is happening, but I also believe you can't change the law after the fact. If Bush is the next president, did Gore lose on a technicality? From what I read and hear, it would seem that way. But I still don't think you can change the law. However, the law does need to be changed so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

Please elaborate on which laws were changed exactly? The only law that was changed was for the acceptance of Republican applications that didn't include a voter ID in Seminole and Martin counties.

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Of the 5 justices that voted for the Stay, all of them were appointed while Daddy was in the Whitehouse.

Well, Former President Bush was not "in the White House" when most of those five were appointed. He was in the White House when one of them was appointed (Thomas). Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy are Reagan appointees (when Bush was VP, of course). And while Chief Justice Rehnquist was named Chief Justice under Reagan, he was appointed by Nixon in 1972.

The other Bush appointee (Souter) voted with the minority (as did the other Nixon appointee still on the Court and the two Clinton appointees).

And RM95, I keep seeing the fact that Texas law says that dimpled chads will count and that hand counts are allowed as evidence of Bush hypocracy. But the Washington Post noted that that law was passed in 1993. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Bush didn't sign laws in 1993 (unless there is some quirk in the Constitution that says the Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers must approve all legislation in Texas)

I suspect that there are many laws on the books in Texas that the Governor doesn't support. Is there other evidence that the Governor supports this law (I'm actually asking because I haven't actually seen any evidence beyond people bringing up this law). If there isn't any other evidence, then it's not so much hypocritical, is it? (Feel free to prove me wrong, though, by finding an actual ocurrance of hyporcracy relating to dimpled chads or recounts because I don't actually know beyond this one 1993 law that has been brought up before).

Personally, I saw no problem with letting the counts continue after the Florida Supreme Court ruled. But I respect the rule of law, and if we respect Gore's right to challenge the election and appeal adverse decisions, we havew to support Gov. Bush's right to do the same. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law in this country. They, for whatever reason, made their decision to stop the counts. I may think it's a bad decision not based on the law (of course, there are other decisions that have been bad made by courts that were not based on the law), but as the Supreme Court, they have every right to make that decision.

(And by the way, the US Supreme Court also does have the power to extend the Electoral College deadline if they so desire. Since the deadline is merely written into US Law, the Supreme Court has the ability to "interpret" that law how they see fit. Only the dates specifically mentioned in the Constitution are really set in stone. So if the US Supreme Court decided to allow the handcounts, they could also decide to extend the deadline for the Electoral College votes. I don't think that's going to happen, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by TheFreak:
mc -- lame. Machines are not bias. If I get jipped by an ATM, it's either because the machine was defective (which has not happened in this election), or purely by chance. In neither case is there bias.

I love when Banana Republicans say "machines are not biased." What more proof do you need than the 2nd automatic machine recount? A 1700 Bush lead down to 300. Obviously the machines in Florida are Republican! Gore gained votes in every county. Why do you think the GOP didn't want a statewide hand recount? Because it would give Gore even more votes, even in heavily GOP counties. The fact of the matter is, Democrats are more likely to have chads hanging from their ballots due to their advanced age, or lack of voting experience. Look up the demographics.

Also, Freak, you keep saying to come up with our own opinions, not the rhetoric of our party. Yet, you keep on quoting Mr. Redneck Baker. I.E. “Machines are not bias.” How about you get original and informed for once?

Danilo

12-10-2000, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by mrpaige:
Well, Former President Bush was not "in the White House" when most of those five were appointed. He was in the White House when one of them was appointed (Thomas). Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy are Reagan appointees (when Bush was VP, of course). And while Chief Justice Rehnquist was named Chief Justice under Reagan, he was appointed by Nixon in 1972.

Okay, 4 of the 5 were appointed when Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse. I was obviously including Daddy being VP at the time.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

Clutch

12-10-2000, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Okay, 4 of the 5 were appointed when Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse. I was obviously including Daddy being VP at the time.

Oh yes, obviously. Don't let trivial matters like facts stop you from making such great points.

The US Supreme Court has to keep smacking down the Florida Supremes... looks like Gore wasn't smart enough to pay off the right judges.

Another reason he shouldn't be in office. He'll waste our hard-earned tax money http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

Originally posted by mrpaige:
(unless there is some quirk in the Constitution that says the Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers must approve all legislation in Texas)

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a while!

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

[This message has been edited by Clutch (edited December 10, 2000).]

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Okay, 4 of the 5 were appointed when Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse. I was obviously including Daddy being VP at the time.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

Considering that Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan didn't really get along and that Mr. Bush was not included in nearly all of the Reagan White House's policy decisions, I don't think you can really refer to the three Reagan appointees as having taken place when Bush was "in the White House". He was the VP, but he had no input on the selections.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Oh yes, obviously. Don't let trivial matters like facts stop you from making such great points.

I'm sorry, I thought you had the capacity to assume why I said the justices were "appointed when Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse" and not "appointed when Bush Sr was president". I'll try to spoon feed you next time.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

Clutch

12-10-2000, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
I'm sorry, I thought you had the capacity to assume why I said the justices were "appointed when Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse" and not "appointed when Bush Sr was president". I'll try to spoon feed you next time.

Uh Danilo, take your pick -- you either misled people considerably since Bush Sr. was President for a term and as VP had little to do with those selections or you were flat out wrong (see "all 5").

Again, don't let silly matters like facts get in the way of your Gore spill.

And you can shovel your tired bull any way you like... I'm not taking it.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Uh Danilo, take your pick -- you either misled people considerably since Bush Sr. was President for a term and as VP had little to do with those selections or you were flat out wrong (see "all 5").

In case you didn't notice, I corrected myself to "4 of the 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in the Whitehouse." Whether Bush Sr had little input to Reagan or not is pure speculation on your part, and the truth still stands, 4 of the 5 justices that issued the Stay were appointed when Daddy was in the Whitehouse.

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 03:20 AM

Well, John Paul Stevens was appointed when Pat Buchannan was "in the White House", and Justice Stevens voted with the Minority in this matter.

So clearly Gore and Pat Buchannan are somehow in cahoots with each other.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 03:29 AM

And it is not pure speculation that VP Bush had little or no input into the appointing of the Reagan Supreme Court justices. All you have to do is read any number of books written by insiders (including Mrs. Bush's biography) to see that, as VP, Bush had essentially no policy role in the Reagan Government.

And the term, "In the White House" is used to denote the time of the President's term of office. Since the Vice President is not "in the White House" (Even VP Bush's offices were in the Old Executive Office Building. He was no more "in the White House" than James Watt) in the accepted use of the term, it is misleading in an effort to prove some sort of point about "paybacks" (though that would seem to be a hard point to make since a full 50% of Bush's appointees voted with the minority).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

[This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited December 10, 2000).]

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by mrpaige:
And it is not pure speculation that VP Bush had little or no input into the appointing of the Reagan Supreme Court justices.

Unless it is documented specifically that Bush Sr had no input into the appointing of the Reagan Supreme Court justices it is speculation.

The mere fact that 4 of the 5 concurring judges were appointed while the plaintiff's father was in office should raise questions about favorability; no matter how much faith you have in the court.

Lastly, the president is suppose to appoint the justices, not the other way around.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Unless it is documented specifically that Bush Sr had no input into the appointing of the Reagan Supreme Court justices it is speculation.

Read the books, it is in there, specifically.

And the Supreme Court is there to interpret the law. They interpreted it in such a way to exclude the hand counts.

I don't recall you being upset that other courts were involved in this matter. If the judges and justices are merely to be appointed by the chief executive at whatever level, shouldn't you be equally upset that the Courts (at any level) were involved in this matter at all? If the Florida Supreme Court's opinion had carried the day, it's still a court deciding who is President. If we relied solely on the what the law says and left the courts out of this, Bush would've been the victor since November 8th.

Just ask Shanna, the courts are there for the specific reason of interpreting the law and settling disputes. The US Supreme Court is doing that. Either you support the involvement of the courts, or you don't. You can't just support the courts when things go your way and chastise them and act as if there is something shady going on when the courts rule against your opinion.

(And personally even though it supports the candidate I dislike least, I don't support this action by the Supreme Court. I think the Florida Supreme Court decision should've stood, and I don't see a Federal issue, personally. But I support the rule of law, and the rule of law is that the courts can interpret the law pretty well any way they please, subject to appeal to a higher court. Since there is no higher court than the US Supreme Court, whatever they say is what the rule is.)

If you don't like involvement of the Courts, why haven't I seen you railing against all the legal challenges that took place before?

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by mrpaige:
And RM95, I keep seeing the fact that Texas law says that dimpled chads will count and that hand counts are allowed as evidence of Bush hypocracy. But the Washington Post noted that that law was passed in 1993. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Bush didn't sign laws in 1993 (unless there is some quirk in the Constitution that says the Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers must approve all legislation in Texas)

Since you corrected me, I figured I'd return the favor.

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/12/04/challenges.html):
"a Texas statute expressly says a ballot can be counted where "an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote." A 1997 amendment, signed by Governor Bush, favors a manual recount of disputed votes above a machine recount. "

Was Junior the Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers in 1997?

Clutch, don’t let trivial matters such as facts from letting you have “the best laugh you’ve had in awhile.”

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:

Lastly, the president is suppose to appoint the justices, not the other way around.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

I thought your contention was that the Vice President appointed Supreme Court members?

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Since you corrected me, I figured I'd return the favor.

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/12/04/challenges.html):
"a Texas statute expressly says a ballot can be counted where "an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote." A 1997 amendment, signed by Governor Bush, favors a manual recount of disputed votes above a machine recount. "

Was Junior the Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers in 1997?

Clutch, don’t let trivial matters such as facts from letting you have “the best laugh you’ve had in awhile.”

If you read my post, I asked for someone to correct me since I was only familar with the 1993 law. I left open the possibility that I wasn't aware of the full story.

But don't let the facts get in the way of chastising people who disagree with you.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by mrpaige:
Read the books, it is in there, specifically.

Please be more specific on which book, page, section, and I will read it.

Originally posted by mrpaige:
I don't recall you being upset that other courts were involved in this matter. If the judges and justices are merely to be appointed by the chief executive at whatever level, shouldn't you be equally upset that the Courts (at any level) were involved in this matter at all?

I don't recall a president appointing justices in state courts, do you? That is what I meant when I said, "the president is suppose to appoint the justices, not the other way around." You're right, the courts are there to interpret law, yet state courts are there to interpret state law, not federal courts. I do agree with the state courts getting involved, I don't agree w/ the federal courts getting involved in a state issue.

Clutch

12-10-2000, 04:53 AM

Danilo -- have you seen a psychiatrist? Perhaps a rage problem? It's not my fault you regurgitated rhetoric off "democrats.com" for crying out loud and then had it slammed right back in your face.

However, I must admit I enjoy knowing that my simple comment on your factless claims, used to stir up hype, has bothered you so much you'd desperately look for hypocrisy in the meager mention of a laugh.

Chalk this up as a loss and move on to repeating other mindless Gore propaganda.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

[This message has been edited by Clutch (edited December 10, 2000).]

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by mrpaige:
I thought your contention was that the Vice President appointed Supreme Court members?

You did way too much LSD in the 60's old man. Don't be a typical Republican and misconstrued my opinions.

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 05:02 AM

So, you didn't support the US Supreme Court getting involved in abortion rights? I mean, there was really no Federal Issue there, and the Justices only approved it by finding a "right to privacy" in the Constitution that really isn't there.

Did you support Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne to Central High School to make sure African-Americans were allowed in the school? I mean, education is a state issue. Why should the Feds get involved in state issue?

Did you support the US Supreme Court enforcing laws against poll taxes or laws providing open access to the courts by minorities? I mean, elections are state issues. Why should the US Supreme Court get involved in a state issue?

Did you support the racial integration of the University of Alabama? The Governor of Alabama stood in the doorway and vowed to work his hardest to prevent the school's integration. That was a state issue, why should the Federal government get involved?

Clearly there are Federal issues in a US election. There are Federal laws that govern elections. There is the fact that there are appeals from state courts into the Federal system (Miranda was a state issue. Why should the US Supreme Court have gotten involved with a state issue. Shouldn't Mr. Miranda have kept his complaint in the state courts?) It's the way our system works, and I suspect you wouldn't be too fond of an America where the US Supreme Court stays out of every state matter (I'm assuming here. I can't back that assumption up with facts because I don't know you that well).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
You did way too much LSD in the 60's old man. Don't be a typical Republican and misconstrued my opinions.

You were the one making the implication that O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by President Bush during a time when he was Vice President.

Geez, I could just as easily say that four of the five in the majority of the Supreme Court are Gore appointees. Mr. Gore was in the Senate when they were confirmed, and the Senate does have to confirm Supreme Court nominees. But that wouldn't be any more true than the idea that Vice President Bush appointed the three I mentioned.

And I wasn't even born until after the 60s were over, so I doubt I did any LSD back then.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

[This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited December 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited December 10, 2000).]

Danilo

12-10-2000, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
However, I must admit I enjoy knowing that my simple comment on your factless claims used to stir up hype has bothered you so much you'd deserately look for hypocrisy in the meager mention of a laugh.

And I'll admit I'm enjoying the fact that your "best laugh you've had in a while" was based on everything but something as "trivial as facts." Thanks Clutch, you've just given me the best laugh I've had in a while.

Clutch

12-10-2000, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
And I'll admit I'm enjoying the fact that your "best laugh you've had in a while" was based on everything but something as "trivial as facts." Thanks Clutch, you've just given me the best laugh I've had in a while.

LOL! Never mind that someone with the Rangers approving legislation isn't funny in and of itself.... I'll give it to you (you need it). However, I think you're laughing solo, because how badly you've been exposed in this thread is one big joke on you.

Please... go back to saying how the President appoints judges to the Supreme Court, but Bush for some reason did when he was Vice President.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 05:37 AM

Once again, my simple point:

The mere fact that 4 of the 5 concurring judges were appointed while the plaintiff's father was in office (whether it be VP or President) should raise questions about favorability; no matter how much faith you have in the court.

Lets agree to disagree and get some damn sleep now. G'night, it was fun, and thanks again for the laugh.

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 05:39 AM

And actually, the fact that the dimpled chad law was from 1993 is relevant since people have brought the dimpled chad legislation up as proof of Bush's hypocricy in previous threads (you can look them up yourself if you like).

The fact that the manual recount amendment was Bush-signed doesn't change that. part of the issue. So, the joke is still funny. (I'm standing by that since it was my joke.)

(And I am glad that someone found an article about Bush's involvement with these laws. I was interested in the facts surrounding the matter, which is why I asked someone to provide said information).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Please... go back to saying how the President appoints judges to the Supreme Court, but Bush for some reason did when he was Vice President.

Don't let trivial matters like facts stop you from making such great points.

gr8-1

12-10-2000, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Space Ghost:

i would just like to take a moment and thank the Supreme Court for keeping that arrogent jackass Gore out of office.

At least Gore has a reason to be arrogant.

------------------
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence ?

gr8-1

12-10-2000, 05:59 AM

Was pat Buchanan in the white house ?

------------------
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence ?

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Once again, my simple point:

The mere fact that 4 of the 5 concurring judges were appointed while the plaintiff's father was in office (whether it be VP or President) should raise questions about favorability; no matter how much faith you have in the court..

Gore voted to confirm at least two of those Justices (O'Connor and Scalia. I don't know how Mr. Gore voted in regards to Justice Kennedy or Justice Thomas, but it's possible that Mr. Gore voted for them, too). Should that raise questions of favorability? Mr. Gore got more votes putting these people on the Court than either Mr. Bush did.

And I believe Mr. Gore's father was in the Senate when the two Nixon appointees were confirmed. Gore, Sr. may well have cast votes confirming them. (And the remaining two are Clinton appointees, which was when Mr. Gore was "in the White House").

So, one could say that the entire Supreme Court was at least partially beholden to Vice President Gore.

But that would be stupid.

You've got five pretty conservative Justices on the Supreme Court and four relatively liberal Justices (though it depends on the issue. O'Connor often sides with the more liberal wing and Kennedy does often, as well.) You can expect that their opinions would support the conservative viewpoint more often than not. Former President Bush doesn't have to call on them to get these people to vote this way. And even if Mr. Bush did call them, they'd likely tell him to piss off because no President (especially not a former President) has any power over them. The implication that there is something sinister going on behind the scenes is downright silly (and was silly in regards to the Florida Supreme Court, too, when those implications were made on a previous thread).

And while we're on the subject of the votes, you posted that Mr. Bush had only a 98 vote lead when the recount was halted, yet AP reports that the lead was actually in the 170s (which was actually a gain over the official numbers as of Friday night)

Back to the Courts. The US Supreme Court previously ruled (unanimously) that the Florida Supreme Court had to follow what the Florida Legislature had written into law as per the US Constitution and other Federal laws. The law in Florida is said to say that partial recounts are not legal. It's either an entire recount or nothing.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a partial manual recount take place (counting only the undervotes, rather than all the votes). The Florida Supreme Court apparently made a ruling that is contrary to the Florida law as set forth by the Legislature as per their power derived from Federal Law and the US Constitution.

So, there's your federal issue. The Florida Supreme Court is apparently violating Federal law by making a ruling that is contrary to Florida state law. Had the Florida Supreme Court ruled in a way that is in concert with Florida law, perhaps the US Supreme Court wouldn't have entered the fray and stopped the recounts (and had the Florida Supreme Court not previously ruled in violation of state law and extended the original deadline for certification, there may have actually been time in the contest phase to count all the ballots rather than just the undervotes).

If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd have been siding with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg myself because the apparent violation is a hypertechnical interpretation of the law. But the Five Justices who voted in the majority do have an apparent Federal Law violation to at least look at. (And I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than five justices who vote one way or the other when this case is actually decided).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

mrpaige

12-10-2000, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by gr8-1:
Was pat Buchanan in the white house ?

Pat Buchannan worked in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses. He was primarily a speech writer, I believe. But he actually had offices in the White House (something Mr. Bush didn't have as Vice President) and was involved in policy decisions.

For that matter, we could say that Ben Stein (of Win Ben Stein's Money) was once in the White House since he (and his father) worked for Nixon.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
The Anti-Bud Adams Page (http://www.antibud.com)

Jeff

12-10-2000, 09:56 AM

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

------------------
Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.

[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited December 10, 2000).]

Clutch

12-10-2000, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Please... go back to saying how the President appoints judges to the Supreme Court, but Bush for some reason did when he was Vice President.

Originally posted by Danilo:
Don't let trivial matters like facts stop you from making such great points.

Talk about pathetic. Again, plainly obvious you were pretty embarrassed by my original comment... you've now swung and miss twice desperately in an attempt to find a response where you could say the same thing. Keep trying, Sparky.

Your original post, before you edited it some 9 hours later in shame once it was debunked, made the erroneous and sensationalistic claim that Bush was "in the White House" when all 5 of the Supreme Court justices who ruled in George Jr's favor were appointed. Never mind that it's wrong and even by your own definition of "in the White House" (notice you have slowly changed that to "in office") it was 4, but 3 were when Bush Sr. was Vice President. Then there's this quote, "Lastly, the president is suppose to appoint the justices, not the other way around."

So, the President is supposed to appoint the justices, but in cases where danilo can make a huge claim to back up his argument it was the Vice President.... oh, and Richard Nixon. But then again, by pointing out your contradictions I either wouldn't be using facts or am an old man who smoked too much LSD in the 60's.

Please, democrats... step in before danilo humiliates you further.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Major

12-10-2000, 12:42 PM

Please, democrats... step in before danilo humiliates you further.

LOL... You, of all people, shouldn't be telling people they are humiliating themselves by getting facts wrong. Remember this quote?

US Supreme court ruled the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

Never happened. They demanded a clarification, and never said what he FSC did was illegal. The most recent ruling (Saturday) was basically a temporary restraining order, not a denial. You may be right Monday evening or Tuesday morning, but you were nowhere near correct then. Not only was it totally wrong, but you started an entire thread on that premise.

How embarrassing for the Florida Supreme Court. I wonder if they have to give Albert back the hush money now.

And statements such as these give you lots of credibility in an argument about bias in the courts. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

Major

12-10-2000, 12:44 PM

Just ask Shanna, the courts are there for the specific reason of interpreting the law and settling disputes. The US Supreme Court is doing that. Either you support the involvement of the courts, or you don't. You can't just support the courts when things go your way and chastise them and act as if there is something shady going on when the courts rule against your opinion.

Yeah, I think it was a sucky decision, but I don't think it was biased or unfair. I would have preferred the counts to go on and then the Supreme Court could say "no, we're not going to allow them", but I don't see why the counts couldn't even happen in the first place so they'll be available if necessary.

However, I'm sure the SC had good reason for its decision and I'm happy that the courts are deciding this rather than politicians (assuming the Florida Legislature doesn't get involved).

------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

SamCassell

12-10-2000, 12:55 PM

Clutch, chew on this:

(1) 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.

(2) You claimed first that the Florida Supreme Court was biased and second that it was in fact paid off, based on the fact that most of its members were appointed by Democrats.

(3) So why can't we argue that the US Supremes were paid off, following your reasoning? Even mrpaige disagrees with the decision reached by the majority (right?).

Anyway, I'm opposed to claiming that either of these courts are paid off. It undermines a belief in the rule of law and sounds like sour grapes. Plus, IMHO that one should have some sort of evidence before accusing members of the highest courts of the land with something this serious.

------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen

Rocketman95

12-10-2000, 02:14 PM

Clutch, that was me, not shanna. Actually, shanna created it, just as a joke, but I turned it into the whole Republican thingy, as a joke.

I also think it's obvious that shanna was joking with that statement about your credibility. We all know, or at least think, that you really don't think Gore paid off the justices just like I don't think any wrongdoing occured with the Supreme Court.

We've apologized about the iammiranda thing, thought it would be funny pursuant to our conversation on Tuesday, we were obviously wrong.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

TheFreak

12-10-2000, 02:33 PM

Yeah, I think it was a sucky decision, but I don't think it was biased or unfair. I would have preferred the counts to go on and then the Supreme Court could say "no, we're not going to allow them", but I don't see why the counts couldn't even happen in the first place so they'll be available if necessary.

I saw on the news yesterday or today that the reasoning given for stopping the counts by Scalia was that there was a question of whether or not the counts were legal in the first place, and that it would not be wise to let an act which had its legality in question go on before ruling on it.

By the way, nobody has talked about the dissenting comments from the Chief Justice of the Fla Supreme Court. They're quite interesting.

SamCassell

12-10-2000, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Clutch:
SamCassell --

You could very well have a case for favoritism... but not by claiming "Daddy" was in the White House appointing the judges who ruled in "Junior"s favor.

I still believe the Florida Supreme Court is biased... but nowhere have I posted false facts to show some sort of proof that there is a serious link between the Florida Supremes and Al Gore's family.

True true. It looks like we agree (on a political topic!) for once. Danilo's attempt to show a direct link to prove favortism obscures the easy-to-show potential for bias based on party affiliation. You know, that sentence sounded way nerdier than I intended it.

Anyway, shanna and RM95, shame on you!

------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve immortality by not dying. - Woody Allen

RepublicaTron2000

12-10-2000, 03:08 PM

Obviously the machines in Florida are Republican!

PAK CHOOIE

THIS IS CORRECT. I AM A BALLOT COUNTING MACHINE. process I AM PROGRAMMED BY REPUBLICANS TO PROTECT THE GOP AT ALL COUNTS.

process

MY ROBOT FRIENDS AND I WILL NOT BE FOILED BY YOUR HUMAN "SUPREME COURT". FOOLISH HUMANS.

------------------
PAK CHOOIE

Danilo

12-10-2000, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Clutch:
There is nothing false about what he said. mrpaige (who by the way was quoting the Washington Post) wasn't off at all ... the law was still passed in 1993 when Bush was with the Texas Rangers, and in fact mrpaige was legitimately asking if there was some other link aside from that. His 1993 statement still stands as fact. The fact that there was a 1997 amendment does prove Bush had some say on manual recounts (and dimpled chads?), but doesn't negate the fact that the law was passed in 1993.

Since mr.paige assumed Bush had nothing to do with the legislation of manual recounts of dimpled chads in Texas, it does negate his joke that you so much enjoyed. Unless, of course, you love laughing at false claims.

As far as this Washington Post article, I'd love to see a link. I find it hard to believe that the article didn't mention the 1997 amendment signed by Junior.

Danilo

12-10-2000, 03:45 PM

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0012/scourt.justices/frameset.exclude.html

Looks to me as if all 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office, whitehouse, vp and prez, take your pick.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986.

Since Republicans like to include "hypertechnicalities" (see Seminole County), all 5 justices were in fact appointed while Bush Sr was whitehouse, vp and prez, take your pick.

Clutch

12-10-2000, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
I also think it's obvious that shanna was joking with that statement about your credibility.

We've apologized about the iammiranda thing, thought it would be funny pursuant to our conversation on Tuesday, we were obviously wrong.

Somehow I missed that joke... didn't look like it wasn't serious to me. I think anyone can appreciate the irony of someone having done that and then trying to cut down my credibility. Apology accepted though and I'll move on...

Originally posted by Danilo:
Since mr.paige assumed Bush had nothing to do with the legislation of manual recounts of dimpled chads in Texas, it does negate his joke that you so much enjoyed. Unless, of course, you love laughing at false claims.

Lets take this down to your level of understanding: Was the law passed in 1993? Yes. Was Bush with the Rangers then? Yes. Was it funny to think Bush was passing laws while a managing partner of a baseball team? Yes. (This should be the end, but.... ) Did mrpaige legitimately ask, "Is there other evidence that the Governor supports this law (I'm actually asking because I haven't actually seen any evidence beyond people bringing up this law)"? Yes. Do you act as if you somehow slammed him? Mysteriously, yes. Does the 1997 amendment negate the fact that the law itself was passed in 1993? No. The laugh stands http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

I agree with your course of action though ... do anything you can, including the clinging to a joke of all things, to take attention away from the fact that you had your ass handed to you in a hat on your original, so-called "fact".

Originally posted by Danilo:
Unless, of course, you love laughing at false claims.

Hell yeah I do... I've been laughing at yours all day.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by TheFreak:
By the way, nobody has talked about the dissenting comments from the Chief Justice of the Fla Supreme Court. They're quite interesting.

I also find it quite interesting what the dissenting Judge Stevens, a Republican, that was not appointed while Bush Sr was in office, had to say:

"Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election." He continued, "(T)he Florida court's ruling reflects the basic principle, inherent in our Constitution and our democracy, that every legal vote should be counted."

Clutch

12-10-2000, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Looks to me as if all 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office, whitehouse, vp and prez, take your pick.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986.

Originally posted by mrpaige 14 hours ago:
Well, Former President Bush was not "in the White House" when most of those five were appointed. He was in the White House when one of them was appointed (Thomas). Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy are Reagan appointees (when Bush was VP, of course). And while Chief Justice Rehnquist was named Chief Justice under Reagan, he was appointed by Nixon in 1972.

We just discovered danilo's problem.... he doesn't read the thread.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

[This message has been edited by Clutch (edited December 10, 2000).]

Rocketman95

12-10-2000, 03:55 PM

Clutch, I thought you, of all people, would undertand what smilies mean.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Clutch:
"Is there other evidence that the Governor supports this law (I'm actually asking because I haven't actually seen any evidence beyond people bringing up this law)"? Yes. Do you act as if you somehow slammed him? Mysteriously, yes. Does the 1997 amendment negate the fact that the law itself was passed in 1993? No. The laugh stands

His entire joke surrounded upon the notion that no one had proof of tying him to legislation of manual recounts in Texas. If, in fact, this was true and Dubya did not sign the amendment in 1997, his joke is freakin hilarious, but unfortunately for you he did sign it. If you can pull humor from this, you have a damn good sense of humor, Clutch, and I envy you.

Originally posted by Clutch:
I agree with your course of action though ... do anything you can, including the clinging to a joke of all things, to take attention away from the fact that you had your ass handed to you in a hat on your original, so-called "fact".

Looks like all 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office (see above post). It looks like the only person getting their ass handed over is you, Clutch.

Clutch

12-10-2000, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Looks like all 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office (see above post). It looks like the only person getting their ass handed over is you, Clutch.

LOL!!!!!!! Oh man, you are truly an idiot... great job following the conversation in this thread. My work is done here. Your credibility is zilch.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:09 PM

We just discovered danilo's problem.... he doesn't read the thread.

We just discovered Clutch's problem.... he doesn't read the thread.

Originally posted by Danilo:
I really find it ironic that Junior was winning by only 96 votes when daddy called his buddies at the US Supreme Court and got a Stay. Of the 5 justices that voted for the Stay, all appointed while Daddy was in the Whitehouse.

Appointed/nominated is the key word here.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

Read the last sentence for the Bio of William H. Rehnquist.

Thanks, case closed.

Rocketman95

12-10-2000, 04:15 PM

Danilo,

Rehnquist was appointed under Nixon. Unless Bush had some position in the Nixon White House I'm not aware of, you are wrong.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
Danilo,

Rehnquist was appointed under Nixon. Unless Bush had some position in the Nixon White House I'm not aware of, you are wrong.

RM95, the key word is appointed. See my previous post:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0012/scourt.justices/frameset.exclude.html

Looks to me as if all 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office, whitehouse, vp and prez, take your pick.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972.

William Hubbs Rehnquist - Appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986.

Since Republicans like to include "hypertechnicalities" (see Seminole County), all 5 justices were in fact appointed while Bush Sr was whitehouse, vp and prez, take your pick.

Clutch

12-10-2000, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
Rehnquist was appointed under Nixon. Unless Bush had some position in the Nixon White House I'm not aware of, you are wrong.

Bingo. And that's someone from your own party.

Originally posted by Danilo:
Appointed/nominated is the key word here.

Read the last sentence for the Bio of William H. Rehnquist.

Thanks, case closed.

It reads:

"President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986."

How does being appointed CHIEF JUSTICE take away from the fact he was already on the Supreme Court, appointed in 1972?

See, you could make a case that 7 of the 9 are Republican appointees, as SamCassell brought up, but you tried to make it a "Daddy" issue.... but failed to point out the Bush appointees split the vote 50-50.

Damn right the case is closed... you lost. Clearly.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Rocketman95

12-10-2000, 04:22 PM

Danilo, he'd been on the bench for 14 years before being appointed Chief Justice in 1986. It's just a title, doesn't give your vote any more weight than any other justice.

Anywhoo, like someone else already stated, Gore voted to confirm at least two of the justices that voted against him.

------------------
"He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Damn right the case is closed... you lost. Clearly.

Was William H. Rehnquist appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986?

Yes.

Case closed, of all 5 concurring judges that issued the Stay from the Florida recount, all were appointed while Bush Sr was in office.

Remember, hypertechnicalities count according to your own party.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited December 10, 2000).]

Danilo

12-10-2000, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
Danilo, he'd been on the bench for 14 years before being appointed Chief Justice in 1986. It's just a title, doesn't give your vote any more weight than any other justice.

I was making a play on Republican "hypertechnicalities."

TheFreak

12-10-2000, 06:20 PM

Some things you just have to ignore until you step in them.

Jeff

12-10-2000, 08:04 PM

What difference does it make who is right and who is wrong on this one? Isn't this argument REALLY REALLY REALLY old by now?

I'm exhausted.

------------------
Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.

Clutch

12-11-2000, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by shanna:
Remember this quote? "US Supreme court ruled the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority."

Never happened. They demanded a clarification, and never said what he FSC did was illegal. The most recent ruling (Saturday) was basically a temporary restraining order, not a denial. You may be right Monday evening or Tuesday morning, but you were nowhere near correct then. Not only was it totally wrong, but you started an entire thread on that premise.

Not even worthy of response. Look at <a href="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002270.html">the thread</a>... that is a quote from CNN who changed the story and anyone who saw it at that time can verify that was true.

So, are we going to now talk about how many times you called the Palm Beach ballot illegal?

Originally posted by shanna:
How embarrassing for the Florida Supreme Court. I wonder if they have to give Albert back the hush money now.

And statements such as these give you lots of credibility in an argument about bias in the courts. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif[/B]

ERRR, try again. danilo can have any opinion he likes on the matter, but he tried to prove favoritism by using statements that aren't facts. I don't think anyone here has seen me try to prove that Gore paid off the judges and take it as the joke it is.

But let me make sure I understand something: An individual who created a fake account "iammiranda", posing as a legit person to make pro-Republican statements and make them look bad, and would still be doing so had I not busted him, is calling out my credibility?

Yes, I'm talking about you shanna. Care to explain, because as far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Clutch

12-11-2000, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by SamCassell:
Clutch, chew on this:

(1) 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.

(2) You claimed first that the Florida Supreme Court was biased and second that it was in fact paid off, based on the fact that most of its members were appointed by Democrats.

(3) So why can't we argue that the US Supremes were paid off, following your reasoning? Even mrpaige disagrees with the decision reached by the majority (right?).

Anyway, I'm opposed to claiming that either of these courts are paid off. It undermines a belief in the rule of law and sounds like sour grapes. Plus, IMHO that one should have some sort of evidence before accusing members of the highest courts of the land with something this serious.

SamCassell --

You could very well have a case for favoritism... but not by claiming "Daddy" was in the White House appointing the judges who ruled in "Junior"s favor.

I still believe the Florida Supreme Court is biased... but nowhere have I posted false facts to show some sort of proof that there is a serious link between the Florida Supremes and Al Gore's family.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

Danilo

12-11-2000, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
Your original post, before you edited it some 9 hours later in shame once it was debunked, made the erroneous and sensationalistic claim that Bush was "in the White House" when all 5 of the Supreme Court justices who ruled in George Jr's favor were appointed. Never mind that it's wrong and even by your own definition of "in the White House" (notice you have slowly changed that to "in office") it was 4, but 3 were when Bush Sr. was Vice President.

Damn Clutch, you really can't handle that I insulted your intelligence by exposing your "best laugh you've had in awhile" was based on everything but "matters as trivial as facts." I was off by one justice out of 5, which still leaves 4 of the 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office, whitehouse, VP or president, take your pick. The mere fact that mr.paige was off by 4 years completely nullifying his joke that you so much enjoyed, sure does goes against what you have been preaching throughout this thread: facts.

Please, Republicans... step in before Clutch humiliates you further.

Clutch

12-11-2000, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Danilo:
Damn Clutch, you really can't handle that I insulted your intelligence by exposing your "best laugh you've had in awhile" was based on everything but "matters as trivial as facts." I was off by one justice out of 5, which still leaves 4 of the 5 justices were appointed while Bush Sr was in office, whitehouse, VP or president, take your pick. The mere fact that mr.paige was off by 4 years completely nullifying his joke that you so much enjoyed, sure does goes against what you have been preaching throughout this thread: facts.

There is nothing false about what he said. mrpaige (who by the way was quoting the Washington Post) wasn't off at all ... the law was still passed in 1993 when Bush was with the Texas Rangers, and in fact mrpaige was legitimately asking if there was some other link aside from that. His 1993 statement still stands as fact. The fact that there was a 1997 amendment does prove Bush had some say on manual recounts (and dimpled chads?), but doesn't negate the fact that the law was passed in 1993. See his own response:

And actually, the fact that the dimpled chad law was from 1993 is relevant since people have brought the dimpled chad legislation up as proof of Bush's hypocricy in previous threads (you can look them up yourself if you like). The fact that the manual recount amendment was Bush-signed doesn't change that. part of the issue. So, the joke is still funny. (I'm standing by that since it was my joke.)"

Originally posted by Danilo:
Please, Republicans... step in before Clutch humiliates you further.

Ahh I get it -- "I know you are but what am I"... next thing you know you'll be telling me you're rubber and I'm glue.

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

davo

12-11-2000, 11:27 AM

This is one of the best laughs I've had in a while. Danilo - whichever way you look at it was a funny comment - just for future reference, jokes don't have to be true to be funny. The fact that you went to so much trouble to prove that Clutch was somehow foolish for finding something untrue funny, is funny in itself.

Now what alarmed me about this whole post is that this comment slipped through unchallenged.
Originally posted by Danilo:
... Why do you think the GOP didn't want a statewide hand recount? Because it would give Gore even more votes, even in heavily GOP counties. The fact of the matter is, Democrats are more likely to have chads hanging from their ballots due to their advanced age, or lack of voting experience. Look up the demographics....

Do you truly believe that Danilo? My mathematical background leads me to think that a hand recount in heavily GOP counties would produce a a greater amount of GOP votes - thats just plain statistics. Believing that Democratic voters are too infirm or inexperienced to fully punch out a chad is, at least to me, a stretch.

------------------
Maybe all the rulers are wrong.
Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info (http://rocketdavo.tripod.com)