posted on December 12, 2000 07:56:56 PM new
doesn't seem very supreme to me at the moment. Their opinions are all so separate and confusing. Some of them didn't even sign their opinions.
They have done nothing but cause more distrust in our government and our laws. I have to go watch more of this to try to understand it.
The only thing I know for sure is Bush will be our president.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:23:36 PM new
Allow me to paraphrase. Basically they said,
"The recount you ordered is unconstitutional, you can't do it that way, you better come up with a better way. But you have to get it done by Dec. 12th. Oh wait! It IS Dec. 12th. You have a couple hours..see if you can come up with something. But you'll never come up with something in time if you want to make that constitutional "safe harbor" deadline. But if you wanna try, be our guest. Nevermind, you're screwed, bub!"
posted on December 12, 2000 08:35:40 PM new
julesy...but the recount could not have stood up because of the lack of a state-wide standard. With each county using different guidelines, it would not provide equal protection.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:35:59 PM new
Yeah, Julsey, and THIS way they THINK they can't be accused of deciding who the next President is going to be. Basically they set a standard for the Florida Supreme Court that is impossible to meet. And they knew it. Unbelievably slimey.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:39:50 PM new
Hi njrazd --
But didn't the counties ask the courts for guidance many weeks back, on how to recount? Couldn't Katherine Harris have stepped in and offered guidelines? (of course not, so you have to wonder)
Let's face it, they were stalled and thwarted, over and over, and are now being told, "Sorry, you're outta time!."
I don't even like Gore, but this smells really bad.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:41:39 PM newWith each county using different guidelines Yeah well the Florida Legislature set it up this way. If they wanted uniform guidelines, they could have spelled it out, but chose to leave it vague and up to the INDIVIDUAL canvassing boards. This ruling is going to come back someday and bite them in the ass. I can't wait.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:55:47 PM new
julesy...statewide standards could have been set, but only 4 counties were requested to have a hand count. Had a full state handcount been asked for, with equal standards applied, then it would have been fair across the board.
katyD...yes, the guidelines were vague and now the state has been put on notice by the USSC that these rules violate equal protection. I'm sure each state will be taking this into consideration.
These state supreme courts can only stand to get their hands slapped so many times.
posted on December 12, 2000 09:16:22 PM new
It stinks so bad that O'Connor and Kennedy wouldn't even put their names on it. I just wish they had the guts to SAY something about it, although their "silence" speaks volumes.
posted on December 12, 2000 09:34:54 PM new
What a seething decision.
KatyD Jesse Jackson was the first to speak volumes about it....
The Supreme Ct in essense just appointed the president.
I will stand behind Bush, because I am an American, but I will never support his ethics for achieving the office.
posted on December 12, 2000 09:41:47 PM new
The conclusion of Stevens' dissent:
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.
posted on December 12, 2000 10:36:45 PM new
Have y'all read the brief? It's posted(I read it through Yahoo). Interesting reading, even if it is in legalese.
I'm not so sure the decision was as close as the TV types would have one think. Seven justices had problems with the constitutionality(is that a word? ) of the recount. It was their opinions on the remedy that caused the sharp division. And they really had no kind words for the state supreme court...Yow.
posted on December 13, 2000 04:07:55 AM newKatyD - "The recount you ordered is unconstitutional, you can't do it that way, you better come up with a better way. But you have to get it done by Dec. 12th. Oh wait! It IS Dec. 12th. You have a couple hours..see if you can come up with something. But you'll never come up with something in time if you want to make that constitutional "safe harbor" deadline. But if you wanna try, be our guest. Nevermind, you're screwed, bub!"
You hit the nail right on the head. If they could have met Saturday, the FL Supreme Court could have responded Sunday and there might have been a chance to get the recount done. They deliberately threw the election.
What's really sad is how much damage the Supreme Court has done to itself. I've lost a LOT of respect for the whole institution.
posted on December 13, 2000 05:35:20 AM new
Why is it that you are all so quiet about the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court who tried to throw the election to Gore? Maybe you are sore losers too!
posted on December 13, 2000 06:47:31 AM newWhat's really sad is how much damage the Supreme Court has done to itself. I've lost a LOT of respect for the whole institution.
Geraldo was saying the same thing last night but I don't think the Supreme Court has done any harm to itself. How can it? They're untouchables. Those are lifetime appointments. I think the idea behind the lifetime appointments was to ensure that the justices wouldn't be beholden to those who elect/appoint them, but what it's really created is an free-reign environment for egos and personal agendas. The Supreme Court should never have gotten involved in the first place, but the justices' vanity just couldn't resist the limelight. Have they hurt the institution? People may think so this week, but next week no one will care. Nothing will change. So in the end, no, they haven't hurt themselves or the institution.
After this election, it's become pretty apparent to me that America will condone all sorts of wrongdoing so long as there is a political party behind it. The wrongdoers in this election knew it. They counted on it. And it paid off. In any other country, people would take to the streets to protest such a blatant rape of the public trust. But here, those who speak for us go on the evening news, nod sagely and say how wonderful it is that we're so civilized (read tamed, apathetic, etc.) and that we allow the courts to handle matters. What a joke. This very nation was founded on insurrection. On revolution. Two hundred some odd years later you can't even find a good burning-in-effigy anymore.
The bad guys count on this. They use it to their advantage. They act with the knowledge that no matter what they do, as long as it is done in the name of politics, and as long as the bad acts can't be traced back to a single person, there's a great likelihood that they will not be held accountable.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:20:49 AM new
The US Supreme Court had problems with the FL Supremes merely shifting a deadline so as to allow conflicting provisions of FL law to work together. They worried that that was writing new law.
Yet they insist that the same Court should've filled in the blanks on the legislature's vague standards for recounts? That WOULDN'T have been writing new law? Give me a break.
If uneven standards across the various counties of FL was an equal protectin problem, it's also got to be an equal protectin problem for there to even BE different methods of capturing votes (punchcards versus optical scanners), since punchcards yield up to 5 times as many undervotes as optical scanners. Funny that they didn't see any problem with that, isn't it?
They just found some handly legal hooks for doing what they wanted, as far as I'm concerned.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:54:50 AM new
Just as with OJ - it is all the same. With the courts or politics you are who you know and how much money and power you have. OJ got off because of money and this whole election has been one payoff after another.
Did anyone see the news last night where they outlined all the ties the supreme court had with each candidate? This one owes that one because they were the first ... appointed. Several children or spouses were directly related to Bush and his family or campaign etc. The reporter said exactly what would happen as they all had to payback who they owed.
Our legal and political systems are a joke. Power and money will always prevail. Why teach anything else in school as everything I learned is not how it works in the real world. My older son sure learned a lot during this election.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:18:17 AM new
I haven't seen this said around here, so I'll say it, as briefly as possible. George W. Bush may be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long, long time. Both parties, regardless of the emotions of their constituents, have taken increasingly centrist positions on critical issues. The Democratic Party has seen a steady erosion of support from its traditional base, for good reason, but I just can't see a viable third party emerging anytime soon.
Anyhoo, on the bright side, I believe we're likely to have a serious economic downturn in the next few years, for a raft of reasons. The next administration will have to weather that, and I think its record will be negatively colored, however unfairly, by events beyond its scope. If I'm right, the country will be ripe for a New Dealer saviour in 2004. And it won't be Al Gore.
posted on December 13, 2000 11:11:36 AM newPareau --
I agree, it is a turning point for the Democratic party, and hopefully they will seize the opportunity. The only way to do that, though, is to address the issue of why people are leaving the party, which is a topic they seem to avoid.
I hope they realize they can't avoid it any longer.
posted on December 13, 2000 11:17:38 AM new
Who would have (ever) thought that this unrefined, clownish looking, uneducated (formally)person would be...............
"Of course when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the Rule of Three; but that was all. I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity."
posted on December 13, 2000 11:56:04 AM new
The point about Lincoln, and extremely poor analogy, is not at all a point. Lincoln was looking out for THE PEOPLE, not for a handful of VERY RICH, VERY POWERFUL SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS....
What does Mr. Bush plans for the good of America? What plans does he have for the minority groups? For Social Security? For fair and affordable Medical Care? for MINIMUM WAGE? Would he live on 5.25 p/h?
Given a chance, would he ABOLISH Slavery?
It is one thing to look "clownish"...It is another to look like an A--s, and BE one.
********************
Gosh Shosh!
