The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

Feels this may backfire.

Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

So they're pissed that a guy whose pretty much only job is to cast tie-breaking votes, is casting tie-breaking votes?

s2s2s2: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

Yeah! The Republicans were only trying to have the Florida legislature decide who got their electoral votes.

s2s2s2: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

I mean when a right-wing Supreme Court, not the American voters, not the electoral college, put Dubya in office and closed down the recount, which Gore would have won.

For those who may not live in Virginia (and know nothing about the present makeup of the state Senate), it is presently at a 50/50 split. The Republicans are demanding that they be given majority status (because the Lt. Gov., Bill Bolling has stated he will vote in lockstep with the Republicans).

It's a load of horseshiat, and that is why they are going to the courts over it. Just because the Lt. Gov. can vote with his party, doesn't mean that the Republican party should be given majority status. The real reason is that they want to rubber stamp every crazy ass idea that Cuccinnelli and Gov. McDonnell decide to come up with before McDonnell has to leave.

FTFA:But Democrats argue that Bolling's voting power is limited, and does not extend to judgeships, the budget and organizational matters such as committee appointments. Democrats say the parties should share power, as they did in the 1990s, the only other time the 40-seat chamber was split down the middle.

Either a fark mod is dumb as hell (likely), or is trying to appear unbiased (even more likely).

s2s2s2: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

You're doing the "I'm just this dumb guy" thing again. Take it from somebody who never believed "Bush stole the election."

potterydove: So they're pissed that a guy whose pretty much only job is to cast tie-breaking votes, is casting tie-breaking votes?

From how the article read, I think that in certain cases his tie-breaker shouldn't be used because of separation of powers, checks and balances, etc...

jehovahs witness protection: But sometimes laughing at butthurt is fun.

Especially when you have absolutely no clue what you're laughing at.

Democrats say the parties should share power, as they did in the 1990s, the only other time the 40-seat chamber was split down the middle.

Hmm, I wonder why the Republicans were ok with splitting power in the 90s...

Oh, that's right! Because a Democrat was Lt. Governor at the time.

F*cking power grabbing scumbags.

thamike: Take it from somebody who never believed "Bush stole the election."

And Bush sure never killed a lot of people with a lie either....
/sarcasm
//pure blatant obvious sarcasm

When the legislature is split and democrats would have the tiebreaking vote, they should share power.
When the legislature is split and republicans would have the tiebreaking vote, the republicans should control everything.

Why? Because shut up.

That is a fair point that I've never felt has been given enough weight by politicians. In most elections, be they state senate, congress, gubernatorial, presidential, etc, there's usually a huge population of people who voted for someone else (most often the opposite party), but the winners enter office feeling like they've been appointed by God to do what they (and occasionally what those who voted for them) want, and not what the other half of their constituents might want.

Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

Do you really actually BELIEVE that ?
You honestly believe the court-maneuveriong to 'grab' power in that election was a Republican initiative ?

stlbluez: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

Do you really actually BELIEVE that ?
You honestly believe the court-maneuveriong to 'grab' power in that election was a Republican initiative ?

As if the vote was right down party lines... oh wait.

The lieutenant governor gets to vote on regular legislation, not on things like the budget. Our education and social services budget have already been gutted, this is a huge deal for Virginians that he not be allowed to cast the deciding vote on certain important matters. Bolling decided that, against all precedent, he could do it because Jesus Socialism Amurrica Freedom.

I can't wait to leave this miserable embarrassment of a commonwealth.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia: The Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the Senate but shall have no vote except in case of an equal division.

That's the only thing that the Virginia Constitution says about the matter. It does not restrict the Lieutenant Governor's voting power on account of the type of bill being voted on, only on account of the breakdown of votes. Given that, I'd say the GOP is actually right on this one. The entire point of having the Lieutenant Governor on the Senate is to break ties -much as it is the point of having the Vice President on the U.S. Senate- so let him break the tie already.

Kibbler: s2s2s2: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

I mean when a right-wing Supreme Court, not the American voters, not the electoral college, put Dubya in office and closed down the recount, which Gore would have won.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought it was Gore's legal team that lost him the case. Gore cherry picked heavily Democratic counties and only asked for recounts of them, instead of a whole state recount. It was on the bases of Gore asking for a partial and biased recount that the Supreme court decided for Bush, which seems valid. However, Gore would have won a total recount and would probably have been a better president. Still, I think the Supreme court decision was sound.

Kibbler: s2s2s2: Kibbler: The GOP never uses the courts to get its way, for example, in the 2000 presidential election, there was no recourse to a court to grab power.

You mean when Al Gore brought a case to the Supreme Court and lost?

I mean when a right-wing Supreme Court, not the American voters, not the electoral college, put Dubya in office and closed down the recount, which Gore would have won.

It's only been 11 years. It's some for you to read what the decision actually was. There were two parts to it, neither even close to your pretended slight.

Hint: equal protection as Gore only sought to count heavy democratic districts was one.

Hint 2: not allowing the rules to be changed post election just because you are losing.

Wellon Dowd: Yeah! The Republicans were only trying to have the Florida legislature decide who got their electoral votes.

Ok.

Kibbler: I mean when a right-wing Supreme Court, not the American voters, not the electoral college, put Dubya in office and closed down the recount, which Gore would have won.

Yeah, too bad Al Gore didn't think of that before bringing the case to them. Also, no, he would have only won had Bush succeeded at ruling out all but clearly punched ballots.

thamike: You're doing the "I'm just this dumb guy" thing again. Take it from somebody who never believed "Bush stole the election."

You believe a Texas Governor stole an election from a sitting vice president and I'm the dumb guy. Good call, thamike.


Aexia: You *do* know that it was the Bush campaign that ran crying to the courts to stop all the votes from being counted, right? That's why they're listed first in "Bush v. Gore", they're the plaintiffs.

Wiki:
Most of the post-electoral controversy revolved around Gore's request for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced she would reject any revised totals from those counties if they were not turned in by November 14, the statutory deadline for amended returns. The Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline to November 26, a decision later vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sorry. The only way Gore would have won was to have allowed Bush to get his way in eliminating all of the ballots with "hanging chads".

LeftOfLiberal: However, Gore would have won a total recount

Kibbler: which Gore would have won.

where do you people come from ? (new window)

I hate this farking state sometimes. Between Cuccinelli, McDonnell & Cantor, they keep electing assholes.

/Did not vote for anyone
//Not legally able to (Legal Permanent Resident status aka Green Card not a citizen)

Wendy's Chili: Democrats say the parties should share power, as they did in the 1990s, the only other time the 40-seat chamber was split down the middle.

Hmm, I wonder why the Republicans were ok with splitting power in the 90s...

Oh, that's right! Because a Democrat was Lt. Governor at the time.

F*cking power grabbing scumbags.

So the Democrats are OK with splitting power when the Senate is split and the Lt Gov is a Dem, the Republicans are not OK with it in the inverse situation, and your take away from that is that Democrats are "power grabbing scumbags"?

Admittedly, I do think the SCOTUS didn't choose well in 2000, but the choice I think would have been right also probably wouldn't have changed the outcome.

After the third or fourth inconclusive recount, given that Florida explicitly awards its votes in a winner-take-all fashion and the winner could not be accurately determined, I would have declared Florida's electoral votes inconclusive and unable to be awarded. That would have left neither candidate with a majority, and so it would have gone to the House per standard procedure. Given the makeup of the House at that time, Bush would still probably have won, but I believe this would have been the more Constitutionally-correct thing to do.

thurstonxhowell: and your take away from that is that Democrats are "power grabbing scumbags"?

I doubt that.

stlbluez: LeftOfLiberal: However, Gore would have won a total recount

Kibbler: which Gore would have won.

where do you people come from ? (new window)

The place where Gore would have won if a full recount of Florida ballots had occurred. Your link comes from that place, too.

stlbluez: LeftOfLiberal: However, Gore would have won a total recount
Kibbler: which Gore would have won.
where do you people come from ? (new window)

You should really read your own link before posting in and making some silly comment intended to knock a person's view of reality.

s2s2s2: Wellon Dowd: Yeah! The Republicans were only trying to have the Florida legislature decide who got their electoral votes.

Ok.

Panel To Decide Whether Legislature Will Pick Florida Electors (new window)

thurstonxhowell: Wendy's Chili: Democrats say the parties should share power, as they did in the 1990s, the only other time the 40-seat chamber was split down the middle.

Hmm, I wonder why the Republicans were ok with splitting power in the 90s...

Oh, that's right! Because a Democrat was Lt. Governor at the time.

F*cking power grabbing scumbags.

So the Democrats are OK with splitting power when the Senate is split and the Lt Gov is a Dem, the Republicans are not OK with it in the inverse situation, and your take away from that is that Democrats are "power grabbing scumbags"?

No.

Wellon Dowd: s2s2s2: Wellon Dowd: Yeah! The Republicans were only trying to have the Florida legislature decide who got their electoral votes.

Ok.

Panel To Decide Whether Legislature Will Pick Florida Electors (new window)

I wasn't disputing what you said. Relax.

s2s2s2: Wellon Dowd: s2s2s2: Wellon Dowd: Yeah! The Republicans were only trying to have the Florida legislature decide who got their electoral votes.

Ok.

Panel To Decide Whether Legislature Will Pick Florida Electors (new window)

I wasn't disputing what you said. Relax.

Apologies.

thurstonxhowell: The place where Gore would have won if a full recount of Florida ballots had occurred. Your link comes from that place, too.

No it doesn't. Why do you feel the need to lie?

FTL:
The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including "overvotes" - ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line

Under our election system, the only way Gore would have won is by manipulation of the system. He tried that, and he failed.

Wendy's Chili: thurstonxhowell: Wendy's Chili: Democrats say the parties should share power, as they did in the 1990s, the only other time the 40-seat chamber was split down the middle.

Hmm, I wonder why the Republicans were ok with splitting power in the 90s...

Oh, that's right! Because a Democrat was Lt. Governor at the time.

F*cking power grabbing scumbags.

So the Democrats are OK with splitting power when the Senate is split and the Lt Gov is a Dem, the Republicans are not OK with it in the inverse situation, and your take away from that is that Democrats are "power grabbing scumbags"?

No.

Hmmm. I should probably learn how to read.

The other guy I replied to was saying something ridiculous, right?

Wellon Dowd: Apologies.

I think I'd have rather seen Gore elected. I didn't feel that way for a long time. I can thank you wonderful Farkers for a lot of the change in my beliefs.

Thanks, wonderful Farkers!

Because preventing a Lt. Gov. from overreaching his power in allying with his party when the Dems would just as easily share power is butthurt?

kronicfeld: Perspective from another article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-democrats-sa y -they-will-sue-to-share-control-of-the-state-senate/2011/11/21/gIQAtcO TjN_story.html

A legal scholar who was chief draftsman of the state constitution when it was revamped in 1971, Howard was tapped to help the Senate organize itself in 1996, the only other time the chamber was evenly split.

The lieutenant governor has, by custom and tradition, always cast the tie-breaking vote on ordinary legislation, Howard said. But the Virginia constitution states that some bills - on appropriations, taxes, judges and amending the constitution - require approval by a majority of the members elected to the Senate and House.

"The natural assumption is the lieutenant governor is not elected to the Senate and, therefore, he doesn't get to vote," Howard said.

But Howard said he later concluded that the lieutenant governor had unlimited voting authority. He based that not on state case law - there was none - but on the assumption that government won't work any other way.

So throw out the rule of law because of the unofficial two-party system? Brilliant. Sounds like America in a microcosm.

RexTalionis: kronicfeld: Millennium: That's the only thing that the Virginia Constitution says about the matter.

Except that there are places where the the Virginia Constitution references votes by elected members. It is arguably ambiguous, and given the importance both immediately and in the future, I don't see the harm in having it resolved by the Virginia Supreme Court - or, if the legislature doesn't like that result, by a clarifying amendment.

The whole case doesn't really amount to a hill of beans anyway. The whole thing is over a vote in the senate to determine who the Senate majority party is. The senate is tied with the Lt. Governor as the tie breaker.

Even if the Republicans don't get a technical vote designating themselves as the Senate Majority party, they'll have defacto control over the Senate anyway.

It comes down to committees.

If the Lt. Gov. has a say, they will all be chaired by Republicans. If not, they'll have to strike deals like they did in 1996 when the Democrats were foolish enough to play nice with them.