If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Former SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor now thinks that her vote to end the Florida recount in Bush v Gore might have been a mistake. Wow, ya think?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 159
    More: Obvious, Florida Recount, Sinead O'Connor, U.S. Supreme Court, justice Sandra, mistakes, justices  
•       •       •

2410 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 02:07:05 PM

nekom: FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.

I don't know why you think he would have stopped 9/11.  He would have inherited the same intelligence paradigm that Bush did, and I don't recall hearing any Gore campaign promises that would have changed that.

Iraq, well that's a no brainer, even any other GOP President wouldn't have got us into Iraq, that was all Bush and Cheney right there.


Bush inherited an intelligence paradigm that he and his team not only chose to ignore, but dismantle.  Clinton was aware of OBL and was tracking him (Wag the Dog, anyone?).  No reason to suspect Gore would have done differently.
 
2013-04-29 02:19:07 PM

olderbudnoweiser: "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it...'"

[images.thevine.com.au image 591x376]


They did.  Every time Florida did anything, the Supremes said, "Not good enough.  Try again."  They never bothered to give any guidelines to do the job "acceptably", just kept rejecting any results they didn't like.
 
2013-04-29 02:31:29 PM

El Pachuco: GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.

You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.


A lot of what you said just isn't true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
 
2013-04-29 02:31:33 PM

acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.


This is what's meant by the phrase "Votes have consequences, elections have consequences."

My condolences to you and their families. I wish my country had done better in November 2000.
 
2013-04-29 02:34:12 PM

Barfmaker: EyeballKid: Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.

What are you referring to here?


Picture it: Firdos Square, Baghdad, Iraq, 2003; The U.S. Army has arrived and is jazzed beyond all belief getting to avenge the terror of 9/11 on the man who had absolutely no role in it whatsoever. The soldiers rig an M88 armored recovery vehicle to a 12 meter statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and pull it down in real time for cable news broadcasters, signifying the fall of an empire to, what the news reports are saying, streets full of cheering, grateful Iraqis.

Oh, but pull back the angle from said statue removal, and it turns out there are few Iraqis in attendance after all. Add on top of that, the L.A. Times reports that an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians, had decided to topple the statue; and that an Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired.

But, it played out on American TV as the Iraqis staging this takeover, joining the U.S., greeting us as liberators, and being oh-so-grateful for our coming to their rescue. Likely they wanted to strike back at the terrorists who killed Pat Tillman.
 
2013-04-29 02:40:56 PM

Barfmaker: EyeballKid: Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.

What are you referring to here?


Long article explaining it:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/10/110110fa_fact_maass

Wiki of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

Relevant bit:

"The event was widely publicized, but allegations that it had been staged were soon published. One picture from the event, published in the London Evening Standard, was allegedly cropped to suggest a larger crowd.[3] A report by the Los Angeles Times stated it was an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians who had decided to topple the statue; and that a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired.[4] According to Tim Brown at Globalsecurity.org: "It was not completely stage-managed from Washington, DC but it was not exactly a spontaneous Iraqi operation."[5]

The 2004 film Control Room deals with the incident in depth and indicated that the overall impression of Al Jazeera reporters was that it was staged. The Marines present at the time, 3rd Battalion 4th Marines as well as 1st Tank Battalion, maintain that the scene was not staged other than the assistance they provided.[6]

Robert Fisk described the event as "the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima"."
 
2013-04-29 02:41:40 PM

FlashHarry: cman: And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?


Understood by whom? Some pundit?

Seriously, why do you keep repeating these lies and speculation from some Internet expert?
 
2013-04-29 02:42:25 PM

Diogenes: Well, saying, "We shouldn't have accepted it" is significantly different than saying, "Our decision,  after accepting it, was wrong."


Shhhhhh.
Let them have their fantasies.

They get made when you give th facts
 
2013-04-29 02:52:21 PM
If you want to apologize Justice O'Connor, why not start here:

www.arlingtoncemetery.net
 
2013-04-29 03:01:12 PM

EyeballKid: Barfmaker: EyeballKid: Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.

What are you referring to here?

Picture it: Firdos Square, Baghdad, Iraq, 2003; The U.S. Army has arrived and is jazzed beyond all belief getting to avenge the terror of 9/11 on the man who had absolutely no role in it whatsoever. The soldiers rig an M88 armored recovery vehicle to a 12 meter statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and pull it down in real time for cable news broadcasters, signifying the fall of an empire to, what the news reports are saying, streets full of cheering, grateful Iraqis.


i87.photobucket.com

Oh, but pull back the angle from said statue removal, and it turns out there are few Iraqis in attendance after all. Add on top of that, the L.A. Times reports that an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians, had decided to topple the statue; and that an Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired.

i236.photobucket.com

But, it played out on American TV as the Iraqis staging this takeover, joining the U.S., greeting us as liberators, and being oh-so-grateful for our coming to their rescue.


[Added pictures to your post.]
 
2013-04-29 03:01:41 PM

BMulligan: Clinton was extraordinarily popular, which is why Gore's efforts to distance himself from Clinton were so ill-advised. That's just one example of the many unforced errors on Gore's part which led to his loss;


I'm not sure that was an error though. Not because Clinton was unpopular, but because I don't think Clinton wanted Gore to win in 2000. They wanted to set Hillary up to possibly run in 2004, and they knew that couldn't happen against a Democratic incumbent. I think Gore knew that, and I think he figured Bill Clinton would "help" him in ways that undermined his campaign.

But I also want to remind you that Gore won the national popular vote, and if we're measuring actual likely voter intent, he probably won the popular vote in Florida too. Pat Buchanan himself acknowledged that voters in the heavily Jewish county which gave him roughly 3000 unexpected votes probably meant to vote for Gore. Assuming only 2000 of them did--remember that Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic--that would have been more than enough to tilt the election under any of the recount scenarios.

The success of Alan Lichtman's model has convinced me that presidential elections are decided by historical forces almost entirely outside of any candidate or campaign's control anyway.1 He predicted 2000 would go to Gore, and the national popular vote did. Maybe factors like whether the incumbent candidate endorses his party's nominee factor into the margin of victory or defeat. But I don't think they're ever outcome determinative for the national popular vote.

1Though the press will never admit this, lest they lose 80% of their business in election years.
 
2013-04-29 03:05:58 PM

nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.


What are you going to manufactor when scrub lists cleared out 10s of thousands of minoirity voters thanks to Katherine Harris of FLA?

The judicial branch was either complacent or complicit through their own stupidity.

We were robbed of eight years of what the USA holds dearest.  O'Connor, you suck.
 
2013-04-29 03:06:23 PM

heap: when you're the guy proclaiming that only 1 side tried to game to their own benefit, i get to laugh at you. that's my cookie, and it was delicious.


Especially with the "the guy who won didn't sue first, so that proves that the guy with a stake in changing the result suing first means he's a doodyhead" sauce.

I honestly struggle to discern what his point is.  Why would a winner initiate a suit?
 
2013-04-29 03:07:19 PM

runin800m: A lot of what you said just isn't true.


Actually your link just confirms what I wrote, and does not dispute any of my points.

Perhaps you yourself can refute anything I said?  Go for it, sparky.
 
2013-04-29 03:08:40 PM

runin800m: El Pachuco: GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.

You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.

A lot of what you said just isn't ...
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/



Your link does nothing to disprove anything the poster said.  Hell, it only address one of the points: Whether Gore would have won a statewide recount.  And on that point it was ambiguous:

"Gore might have reversed the outcome - by the barest of margins - had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount. "
 
2013-04-29 03:09:01 PM
Oh let's wander down memory lane a little more, shall we?

i213.photobucket.com

static3.businessinsider.com

thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2013-04-29 03:11:54 PM

Testiclaw: Thanks for the information regarding the "Brooks Bro's Riot"...

Can't believe it wasn't all over the news.

Damn liberal media.


It was all over the news, at least it was here in the DC Metro area, where electioneering is a spectator sport.
 
2013-04-29 03:14:11 PM
It was a mistake to say: "There were rules, the rules were followed, you can't change them after the fact"
 
2013-04-29 03:18:35 PM

FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.


Had the recount not been stopped and Gore been elected, O'Connor would not have been replaced by Alito and a more liberal Justice, and Rehnquist replaced not by Roberts but a more liberal Chief Justice. That would have knocked Kennedy out of the "swing vote" position, and hell eliminated the "swing vote" for some time as the Court would have been comprised of six liberals, and three conservatives.
 
2013-04-29 03:21:40 PM

SomebodyElsesShoes: Your link does nothing to disprove anything the poster said.  Hell, it only address one of the points: Whether Gore would have won a statewide recount.  And on that point it was ambiguous:

"Gore might have reversed the outcome - by the barest of margins - had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount. "


Thank you, and I'll even go on the record to note:

From the study of possible recounts, the Gore team's recount request - with only selected counties - would most likely have resulted in a Bush win.  As said earlier, Gore was within his rights, per FL law, to request recounts for one county, a few counties, or all counties.

However, FL law at the time required that a close election automatically requires a full recount - all ballots, all counties.  The FL SC said, guess we gotta do a full recount then.

The recount study shows that most full recounts would have shown Gore to have won FL.  But a full recount was never completed - it was stopped by the USSC Bush v Gore decision.

Since the initial impression was that Bush had won, the Bush team very understandably did not want anything to happen that might change that.  They used every means available, legal or not, ethical or not, truthful or not, to stop the recount.
 
2013-04-29 03:23:14 PM

SomebodyElsesShoes: runin800m: El Pachuco: GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.

You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.

A lot of what you said ...


More generally, it's clear the majority of Florida voters went to the polls in 2000 and intended to vote for Gore. I appreciate that for legal purposes, we can't count ballots other than how they're cast. But for assessing the moral legitimacy of the Bush presidency, the fact that he lost the national popular vote is damning by itself. The fact that he only won Florida on technicalities and help from a partisan Republican activist Supreme Court cinches the case.

Bush was not a morally legitimate president. The laws he signed are lack moral legitimacy. The Supreme Court Justices he appointed do not belong on the Court.  illegitimate laws. The decisions they issue have no moral legitimacy. This Supreme Court has no moral authority. None.
 
2013-04-29 03:24:02 PM
And Justice O'Connor, since Bush won't ever be apologizing for Iraq, would you kindly say something to this effect on behalf of yourself and Bush.

Mauldin's account of Gen. Truscott's speech at Nettuno cemetery in WWII is the best record we have of that day. He recalled the general taking the stand and then turning his back on the audience in order to address the buried corpses arrayed behind him. "It was the most moving gesture I ever saw," Mauldin said.

In his heavy rasp, Truscott told the dead men that he was sorry for what he had done. He said that leaders all tell themselves that deaths in war aren't their fault, that such carnage is inevitable. Deep down, though, if they're honest with themselves, he said, commanders and politicians know it's not true. Truscott admitted he had made mistakes, perhaps many.
Then he asked the dead to forgive him. He was requesting the impossible, he knew, but he needed to ask anyway.

Finally, Truscott debunked the idea that there was glory in dying for one's country. He saw nothing glorious about men in their teens and twenties getting killed, he said. He then promised the men buried at Nettuno that if he ever ran into anybody who spoke of the glorious war dead, he would "straighten them out." "It is the least I can do," he concluded.


Please apologize for unleashing Bush/Cheney onto the youth of America who only volunteered to go and kill the murderers whom Bush/Cheney allowed to murder. It is the least you can do, Justice O'Connor.
 
2013-04-29 03:25:08 PM

bugontherug: Bush was not a morally legitimate president. The laws he signed are lack moral legitimacy. The Supreme Court Justices he appointed do not belong on the Court. illegitimate laws. The decisions they issue have no moral legitimacy. This Supreme Court has no moral authority. None.


And this paragraph lacks editorial legitimacy. Pardon me.
 
2013-04-29 03:42:47 PM

randomjsa: It was a mistake to say: "There were rules, the rules were followed, you can't change them after the fact"


What a perfect description of exactly what didn't happen. Huzzah!
 
2013-04-29 04:02:55 PM

EyeballKid: Barfmaker: EyeballKid: Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.

What are you referring to here?

Picture it: Firdos Square, Baghdad, Iraq, 2003; The U.S. Army has arrived and is jazzed beyond all belief getting to avenge the terror of 9/11 on the man who had absolutely no role in it whatsoever. The soldiers rig an M88 armored recovery vehicle to a 12 meter statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and pull it down in real time for cable news broadcasters, signifying the fall of an empire to, what the news reports are saying, streets full of cheering, grateful Iraqis.

Oh, but pull back the angle from said statue removal, and it turns out there are few Iraqis in attendance after all. Add on top of that, the L.A. Times reports that an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians, had decided to topple the statue; and that an Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired.

But, it played out on American TV as the Iraqis staging this takeover, joining the U.S., greeting us as liberators, and being oh-so-grateful for our coming to their rescue. Likely they wanted to strike back at the terrorists who killed Pat Tillman.


Okay thanks. I heard a bit of this at the time. I actually watched the event unfold from its beginning on an open video feed.
 
2013-04-29 04:40:55 PM
Meanwhile, on Earth-2...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-29 04:59:30 PM
Gore wouldn't have started a war to show his father up
 
2013-04-29 06:10:05 PM

that bosnian sniper: FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

Had the recount not been stopped and Gore been elected, O'Connor would not have been replaced by Alito and a more liberal Justice, and Rehnquist replaced not by Roberts but a more liberal Chief Justice. That would have knocked Kennedy out of the "swing vote" position, and hell eliminated the "swing vote" for some time as the Court would have been comprised of six liberals, and three conservatives.


of course. so, yeah... a huge difference.
 
2013-04-29 06:35:46 PM
FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)
 
2013-04-29 06:48:07 PM

pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)


Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?
 
2013-04-29 06:50:28 PM

FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.


Certainly? Bullshiat. Gore was calling for Saddam's removal for years. He even praised Bush for putting them in the "axis of evil" and said Saddam needed a "final reckoning."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/world/nation-challenged-democrat-g or e-championing-bush-calls-for-final-reckoning-with.html
 
2013-04-29 07:07:40 PM

Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)

Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?


Appellate courts do this all the time.  The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published."  Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published.  However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision.  They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."
 
2013-04-29 07:25:31 PM

Target Builder: Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?


If Gore had asked for a second full statewide recount right at the start then Bush v Gore never would have happened. Gore wanted to break the state laws that existed before the election by targeting only three counties for a recount even though the first recount didn't show a significant difference, specifically counties that he thought that he had the best chances of eeking out enough votes to win (it turns out that those three counties recounts later on gave Bush even more votes). The laws in place only allowed for a statewide recount which Gore specifically said that he didn't want. The Florida Supreme Court said that he could do that contrary to what a fairly clear law said. That's when it finally went to the USSC where they stopped the recount and said that they had to accept the original vote tally.

The reasoning behind this was that the Gore team had drawn out the recount battle for so long that there wasn't enough time left for a statewide recount and to allow the Florida Sec. State to certify the results, she had a hard deadline date set by law that was fast approaching, plus the recount was messing with the turnover in the White House as no Presidential level classified material could be presented to either side until it was known who had won. Arguably this may have been one of the reasons that the Bush White House didn't place as much emphasis on terrorism prior to 9/11.

Testiclaw: Ideally, no, of course smack-dab in the middle of an election isn't an optimal time to fine tune said election process, bbut, honestly now, what are/were the chances that improvements would take place at some other time?

We depend on a functioning electoral process for our government, and while during the election might not have been optimal, the entire Presidency (and thus, the direction of the country) hung in the balance. In context, making it as good of time as any.


The thing is that the Gore team was trying to make a touchdown out of a fumble at the one yard line. You don't change the rules of the game after the game has been played so that you win. In any other context that would be called cheating. If you don't like the rules then get them changed before the game starts.

El Pachuco: You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.


Incorrect. First there had to be a statewide recount and that recount had to be significantly different from the first result. That recount was done on election night and the tally was not significantly different from the first count. Therefore under the laws in place at the time the recounts that Gore requested were not provided for. Also there had to be a minimum of three counties in any manual recounts requests. Not "Any one county" as you claimed.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

Incorrect. There was already one recount done on election night with no significant changes in the results. The second statewide recount was stopped due to time constraints and unequal recounting methods across the various counties hence the 7-2 ruling on the Equal Protection Clause.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

Several other media organizations came to the opposite conclusions, including that right wing rag The New York Times.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

The second court ordered statewide recount was stopped due to time constraints and unequal counting methods. The Florida elections were already not following existing state laws (which is why the FSC had to get involved in the first place). It was the Florida state supreme court who were interpreting the laws incorrectly, as the USSC said to them repeatedly during the whole fiasco.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.

Of course. This is why she waited 6 years after the elections to retire right?

Most of what you have said was refuted right in your first link to the Wki article. If you had bothered to read it you would've saved yourself the embarrassment of being so wrong on so many things in one comment.
 
2013-04-29 07:34:33 PM

jigger: FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.

Certainly? Bullshiat. Gore was calling for Saddam's removal for years. He even praised Bush for putting them in the "axis of evil" and said Saddam needed a "final reckoning."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/world/nation-challenged-democrat-g or e-championing-bush-calls-for-final-reckoning-with.html


There is a near-zero chance that Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.

Gore was not a signer of the Project for a New American Century, the plan for, seriously, US global domination using a "Pearl Harbor" -like event as a catalyst.  Many people who were with the PNAC were in positions of power in the Bush administration, whereas there were few or no PNAC members who would have been in a Gore administration.

Gore most likely would have continued the Clinton policy of containment and monitoring Iraq, even if he disliked Saddam.
 
2013-04-29 07:38:15 PM

Radioactive Ass: Most of what you have said was refuted right in your first link to the Wki article. If you had bothered to read it you would've saved yourself the embarrassment of being so wrong on so many things in one comment.


Then it'd be super-easy for you to provide citations that support your claims, no?  Otherwise you sound like the last hit-and-run guy that claimed I was wrong, but failed to show how.
 
2013-04-29 07:38:44 PM
Or maybe Al Gore could have just won his home state of Tennessee?  The state that elected him as a Representative, Senator, but then took a long look and said "We don't want this guy to be President"?

THAT win would have made Florida irrelevant.
 
2013-04-29 07:42:57 PM

Cataholic: Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)

Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?

Appellate courts do this all the time.  The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published."  Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published.  However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision.  They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."


Perhaps you could point to an example of another such Supreme Court opinion?
 
2013-04-29 07:57:29 PM

El Pachuco: Then it'd be super-easy for you to provide citations that support your claims, no? Otherwise you sound like the last hit-and-run guy that claimed I was wrong, but failed to show how.


You have forgotten your own fricking link? Read it. Especially the part about the timeline

NYTimes article saying Bush would have won a recount.
 
2013-04-29 08:01:23 PM

jigger: FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.

Certainly? Bullshiat. Gore was calling for Saddam's removal for years. He even praised Bush for putting them in the "axis of evil" and said Saddam needed a "final reckoning."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/world/nation-challenged-democrat-g or e-championing-bush-calls-for-final-reckoning-with.html


Iran, more likely, considering the toad he picked for VP.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:13 PM

cman: EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.

What about Kelo?


Kelo said that state and local governments get to decide what is or is not public use for the purposes of eminent domain. I don't think corporate giveaways are a good public use, but what Kelo said was merely that your elected officials get to make that call. Which, as a matter of law, seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 
2013-04-29 08:15:56 PM

Radioactive Ass: El Pachuco: Then it'd be super-easy for you to provide citations that support your claims, no? Otherwise you sound like the last hit-and-run guy that claimed I was wrong, but failed to show how.

You have forgotten your own fricking link? Read it. Especially the part about the timeline

NYTimes article saying Bush would have won a recount.


You're doing the same thing as the last guy - posting a link to a long article and implying that it somehow supports your claim that I'm wrong.  That's not a citation that shows anything either way.

I was originally replying to:

GoldSpider: Back on-topic, I don't understand how Al Gore's attempt to change Florida election law DURING THE FARKING ELECTION, got as far as SCOTUS in the first place.


and showed that Gore DID NOT attempt to change Florida law.  The right wing immediately tried to claim that Gore's recount request for 4 counties was an attempt to cherry-pick places where he'd gain votes, and so was illegal.  But AS YOUR OWN DAMN POST CONFIRMS, he had the right to ask for a recount of 3 or more counties, and was not obligated to request a state-wide recount.

The NYT article confirms what I said earlier as well - that Gore's recount request most likely would have still given the win to Bush, but a statewide recount, as was eventually ordered by the FL SC, would have shown Gore to have received the most FL votes.

So either get specific or shut up, mmmkay?
 
2013-04-29 08:37:12 PM

El Pachuco: You're doing the same thing as the last guy - posting a link to a long article and implying that it somehow supports your claim that I'm wrong. That's not a citation that shows anything either way.


I'm posting your own fricking link and gave you a place to start reading. What do you want, a cut and paste of the thing that you yourself linked to? Your only link in your whole post says differently than what you said here. If you have a complaint about someone posting a link that goes to a long article without pointing to where it says what you are saying go look into a mirror and talk to that guy instead

.

El Pachuco: But AS YOUR OWN DAMN POST CONFIRMS, he had the right to ask for a recount of 3 or more counties, and was not obligated to request a state-wide recount.


What part of "No significant difference" did you not understand. The laws at the time required a significant difference to trigger the recounts that Gore wanted. The night of the election there was a recount of all ballots in all counties and there was no significant difference between the two counts therefore the call for selected counties to be recounted manually was against Florida law at the time. This is why it went to the Florida supreme court who then had to reinterpret the existing laws (which were already pretty clear on what would trigger the recounts) to allow for the recounts. That is changing the rules after the game has already been played.

Read your own damned link, mmmkay.
 
2013-04-29 09:01:38 PM

El Pachuco: The NYT article confirms what I said earlier as well - that Gore's recount request most likely would have still given the win to Bush, but a statewide recount, as was eventually ordered by the FL SC, would have shown Gore to have received the most FL votes.


It would have gone to Gore if the existing manual methods used by the counties set down before the election were followed, however Gore didn't want that (the equal protection part of the lawsuit in case you have forgotten, which went 7-2 against Gore). He wanted to change how the votes were counted in a way that he thought would benefit himself. If those methods had been used then he would have lost the recount, as the article states. The first paragraph sums it up.

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

In other words if Gore had gotten the recount as he requested (and the USSC stopped) he would have lost the recount under his own methods or counting. In addition, the US Constitution requires that the Electoral votes be counted on the 18th of December (for 2000) and Florida had state laws that required the Sec State to certify the election results no later than the 15th (for 2000). The recount would not have been completed by the 15th (it was the 12th when it was stopped) making the whole manual recount moot anyway. The Sec State cannot certify an election that is still being counted, She would have had to go by the last recount from election night where Bush won anyway.

So in all scenarios that were playing out at the time Bush would have won.
 
2013-04-29 09:04:58 PM
i72.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-29 09:37:15 PM
How does she feel about giving Bush a free SC appointment?
 
2013-04-29 11:11:59 PM
 
2013-04-29 11:59:56 PM
Sometimes, it's best to end something even if it ends up being the unpopular decision.  For instance, Ford pardoning Nixon.  It was a very unpopular decison but put a lot of things to rest that would have torn the nation apart even worse than it was.  I'm sure most justices have something they were sorry they ruled on in their careers, thos with a concience and thinking brain.
 
2013-04-30 12:30:08 AM

BMulligan: Cataholic: Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)

Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?

Appellate courts do this all the time.  The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published."  Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published.  However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision.  They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."

Perhaps you could point to an example of another such Supreme Court opinion?


With a few spare hours and my Westlaw account...I probably could.  None of them would be worded as bluntly as this one, but the sentiment is there.  Sometimes it would manifest itself in a terse per curium opinion.  As the saying goes, "bad cases make bad law."
 
2013-04-30 01:21:53 AM

Cataholic: BMulligan: Cataholic: Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)

Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?

Appellate courts do this all the time.  The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published."  Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published.  However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision.  They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."

Perhaps you could point to an example of another such Supreme Court opinion?

With a few spare hours and my Westlaw account...I probably could.  None of them would be worded as bluntly as this one, but the sentiment is there.  Sometimes it would manifest itself in a terse per curium opinion.  As the saying goes, "bad cases make bad law."


So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.
 
2013-04-30 02:03:57 AM

BMulligan: So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.


That call was quite cromulent. By saying that this case should not be used as a precedent allowed for future cases with similar issues to be fast tracked to the USSC in the future like this one was should they occur. Otherwise some lower level judge might be able to cite it and derail the process according to his or her own political prejudices. By making it clearly beyond citation the USSC reserved the sole right (properly in my opinion) to settle disputes over federal elections and conflicting state or appellate level judgements.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report