Achebe -- First off, the Florida Supreme Court is all Democrats. Now, if you're naive enough to think that an all-Republican Supreme Court would've made the same ruling, I guess all I can say to that is "no wonder you're a democrat". You may 'respect the justices' (why wouldn't you, they told you what you wanted to hear), but the bottom line is they're all democrats, and their ruling reflects it. You probably think an all-white jury would've acquitted OJ Simpson too, right? Second -- I'm not a republican. Third -- I don't have a 'side', so quit referring to 'my side'. Fourth -- if my argument is so 'completely invalid', perhaps you can tell me what's fair about an election being decided by manual recounts in 3 heavily democratic counties in Florida. It shouldn't be that hard. Go ahead and let us know how that would be a legitimate election. Oh, and try to do it by telling us what you think, not the courts. Tell me how you think it's fair that someone in Duval county doesn't get their vote counted, but someone in Broward county does. Let me go ahead and say that because George Bush didn't ask for their votes to be recounted within 72 hrs, doesn't make it fair to the citizens of other counties or across the country. It doesn't change the fact that some counties are being weighed more heavily than others. Tell us what's fair and legitimate about that. Go ahead and talk about how 'accuracy' in 3 counties should be valued over fairness for all. I'd love to hear your take on that, without mentioning George Bush or the courts in your answer. In this country, which are we guaranteed, a fair election, or an accurate one? Tell me how the contention that selective manual recounting to determine an election is unfair, is a 'completely invalid' argument. ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
Originally posted by mrpaige: "I meant it more on the Supreme Court level anyway. Their ruling says the hand counts must be included in the totals and went on and on about the will of the people being paramount, shouldn't they have then decided that the will of the people in the other 64 counties was paramount, too? I mean, if you're going to make a decision, shouldn't your decision have an internal logic and be consistent? Besides, VP Gore doesn't really have the power to order counties to take up manual recounts. Since the statuatory deadline has passed for Bush to ask for the handcounts, the court would have to rule that these counts must be undertaken. Just because Gore says it's okay, doesn't mean that the law will be overturned and the counting will start." Actually the Florida Supreme court was willing to address the issue of recounts in other counties. I think Bush missed the opportunity for a fair way to resolve the selected hand count issue. Well, at lease at the Florida Supreme Court level. http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/resources/fla.sc.opi nion.pdf A note at the bottom of page 40 "At oral argument, we inquired as to whether the presidential candidates were interested in our consideration of a reopening of the opportunity to request recounts in any additional counties. Neither candidate requested such an opportunity." ------------------ [This message has been edited by rblh (edited November 22, 2000).] [This message has been edited by rblh (edited November 22, 2000).]
Again, TheFreak, 2 of the justices were appointed by Republicans, yet the vote wasn't 5-2. Just because you say they are all Democrats over and over won't make it true. ------------------
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that he said he "trusts people . . . unless they are Democrats" People mention it over and over mostly because it's funny. It was a meaningless sound bite to get uneducated voters to say, "wow! Bush trusts me! Whatever that means?" Now he has shown that he was full of $#!+, in the first situation where he would actually have to trust the people. You are correct that the counters are probably politically motivated. After all, each ballot is seen by a counter of whatever party, followed by a Democrat and a staunch Republican. Three different people with 3 different political outlooks have to verify each ballot, and somehow, Bush doesn't trust them? Not even the Republican counter? I'd love to try to make every slam on Dubya, "lame" or not, but there'e just too much material to work with ------------------
Florida Supreme Court Justices: Chief Justice Charles T. Wells -- appointed in 1994 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles Leander J. Shaw -- appointed in 1983 by former Democratic Gov. Bob Graham Major B. Harding -- appointed in 1991 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles Harry Lee Anstead -- appointed in 1994 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles Barbara Pariente -- appointed in 1997 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles R. Fred Lewis -- appointed in 1998 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles Peggy Quince -- appointed in 1998 by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles and Jeb Bush, is a 52-year-old Democrat Let's not argue this point anymore, ummkay? ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
1.) Unsound. The court is not all democrats, as has been mentioned in this thread. Two of the justices were republican, one of the democrats was assigned during a transition period by both the demo governor and Jeb. 2.) I have complete respect for the justices. If they had ruled against Gore, I would have tucked my tail between my legs, recognized their ultimate authority and posted on this board that Gore should concede. 3.) Please refer to #1. Then recognize that the justices' ruling was unanimous, and then tell me why there ruling was biased again. 4.) I'm all white, and I think that O.J. did it. I would have also voted to acquit O.J. after the Mark Furman evidence was ruled in. Don't you have any respect for the law? Also, why bring race into this? Why be a separatist? 5.) Sorry, I just liked danilo's joke. Would it be more appropriate for me to adjust it to say "you're so misinformed, no wonder you're a libertarian."? 6.) The side I was referring to deals w/ the fact that you keep posting stuff that is either unsound or invalid... either of which make an argument illogical. That side in this particular issue seems to support Bush's seizure of the presidency (w/o going through due process and listening to the will of the people). 7.) I thought it was four. Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volsomethinga. Does Volsomethinga being complete make its vote more valid? 8.) I glazed over when reading your rules, so hopefully this suffices Frau Freak. It isn't fair to only have 3 (or 4 ) counties out of 67 have their votes recounted. Al Gore's team (counties? I'm not sure) called for the manual recount b/c of irregularities in counties that were brought to his attention. I'll go one step further: There should have been a statewide recount. Unfortunately for your 'side' the courts couldn't rule on it (oops, I said 'court' in an argument you made against a court, naughty me) because they weren't asked to. That doesn't make their 5 demo/2 rep unanimous any less legitimate. As an aside, can someone show me this b.s. 72 hour clause? The justices were talking about 'up until the 7th day' all throughout the hearing on Monday. In short, the onus is on both sides though to protect their own interests... by exercising their rights. I can't force Bush to f@#$ing ask for a manual recount. What should Gore have done? You tell me Freak. Should Gore have said.. "oh, Bush, is it okay if I ask for a manual recount? Oh, you like the result, my bad I guess the election stands". What a bunch of bull****. When will the party of 'responsibility' recognize that responsiblity lies in their own damn hands? Twice now courts have said "why haven't you called for a recount", and the bush team answer "we don't like them". WTF? It's Florida's damn law! It's Bush's damn law! When will the party of 'local government' quit trying to trump the state courts in federal courts? What a bunch of f#@$ing hypocrites. ------------------ It just goes to show how skewed our priorities are when Mo Taylor makes millions of dollars while some high school teacher, that can actually rebound, scrapes to make a living. If Mo were half the power forward that Charles Barkley was, he'd be 3'2" and still board more than he does now.
So you're willing to say that every Justice ever appointed by a governor or president always reflects the views of their appointer? Obviously this is b.s.. ------------------ It just goes to show how skewed our priorities are when Mo Taylor makes millions of dollars while some high school teacher, that can actually rebound, scrapes to make a living. If Mo were half the power forward that Charles Barkley was, he'd be 3'2" and still board more than he does now.
Thank you. By the way, the justices are all Democrats. ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
if my argument is so 'completely invalid', perhaps you can tell me what's fair about an election being decided by manual recounts in 3 heavily democratic counties in Florida. It shouldn't be that hard. Go ahead and let us know how that would be a legitimate election. Freak, Do you consider the current non-recounted election results fair? Keep in mind that several counties both in Florida and across the country have used hand-counts. Others have used machines. Some use paper ballots. Some use computers. Some use punch-cards. Some accept only exactly accurate responses. Others determine the intent of the voter where possible. In different states, there are different regulations for what is a vote. In individual counties, multiple decisions are made based on human judgement. In individual counties across every state, members of each canvassing board are members of particular political parties. Now, is the current election process "fair" by your definition? If so, why is it suddenly not fair if a few of the machine-counted counties were done by hand instead? By the way -- the election is not being decided by the votes of 3 counties. Those counties' final results are being determined by a hand-count (again, as is done all over the country). If those votes change the outcome of the election, so be it. However, they are not deciding the election in and of themselves. They are just going through their legal right to vote and to have their vote counted as determined by governing bodies. The Florida Supreme Court consists entirely of Democratic appointees. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Secretary of State being not only a Republican, but a Bush campaign chair. At that time, if I recall, you said "She was just doing her job under the law". By that logic, the Supreme Court was "just doing their job under the law" which is to interpret law and clarify conflicting law. What's the difference? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
hehe, thanks Achebe. He's actually grown up to be a handsome dude. then now [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited November 22, 2000).]
geez, sometimes you really can tell when they're young. 'Wow'. LOL. ------------------ It just goes to show how skewed our priorities are when Mo Taylor makes millions of dollars while some high school teacher, that can actually rebound, scrapes to make a living. If Mo were half the power forward that Charles Barkley was, he'd be 3'2" and still board more than he does now.
Really, TheFreak. You should pick up a newspaper sometime, so you'll actually speak in facts sometime But let me get you started by giving you the political breakdown of the Florida Supreme Court. "The court judges are: Wells, 61, formerly a private lawyer who was appointed in 1994, and who local newspapers have described as generally a conservative. Shaw, 70, appointed in 1983, viewed as a liberal and known as the proponent of a 1989 decision upholding the right to privacy in abortion cases. Harding, 65, a Republican who was appointed by Chiles in 1991. Anstead, 63, a former appeals court judge in West Palm Beach, appointed in 1994. Described by local newspapers as a firm critic of Florida's use of the electric chair. Pariente, 51, appointed in 1997 after serving on the West Palm Beach appeals court and viewed as having center to liberal tendencies. Lewis, 52, appointed in 1998 and viewed as a centrist. Quince, a former appeals court judge. She has been a sharp conservative on criminal justice and death penalty issues. Experts say she is a moderate who leans right. Notice, Wells is described as a conservative and is typically considered a Republican here in Florida. Harding is also a Republican. That's 2 out of 7. I could include Quince, but she is really a moderate on most issues, so I left her with the other moderates, Lewis and to a lesser degree, Pariente. So that leaves 2 Republicans, 3 moderates, and 2 liberals. A pretty fair distribution in any court. Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth at your own convenience ------------------
Launch Pad -- you're really starting to become annoying. From CNN.com: "Chief Justice Charles T. Wells, a 61-year-old Democrat, was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 1994 by late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. Justice Major B. Harding, the only independent on the bench, was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 1991 by late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles." Okay, so we have 6 Democrats and 1 independent, all of which are Democratic appointees. There are no Republicans on the Florida Supreme Court. ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
So I guess you have to decide who you trust more, ABC or CNN. I just don't understand how some can claim that a Secretary of State (whose position is being eliminated) who ran Bush's campaign can be unbiased, but seven widely-respected justices can't be. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit 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 November 22, 2000).]
TheFreak, Well, I'll try to be nice here, by noting that I can't technically say that you're "starting" to get annoying. Congratulations on visiting a news site. Of course, they seemed to be making the same assumption that you are (i.e. since a Democrat appointed him, he must be a Democrat). That's odd considering that the major Floridian newspaper of his own home-town describes him "as the court`s top conservative". So the ABC News article I quoted above that called him a Republican was clearly wrong, eh? Darn, I guess the Orlando Sentinel also screwed up, when they labeled him a "Republican" too, right? You're still coming up with 6 Democrats and 1 Independent, eh? No wonder Republicans don't trust the ability of people to count. [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 23, 2000).]
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone in this thread, and anyone else I may have argued with recently (or not argued with).
You too, and everyone else. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
