|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 351 of 409:
| 
Dec 11 19:02 UTC 2000 |
Try to think about the issues and what's fair and right, the way we
expect and hope the judiciary branch to do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 352 of 409:
|
Dec 11 20:25 UTC 2000 |
It does happen that what *I* think is fair and right agrees with my
liberal perspective. I suspect that is true for those with an illiberal
perspective. So, I still don't understand what you think those involved
should do other than what they are doing. Do you really expect any
of the Republicans (Democrats) to flip perspectives just because it
has come down to the crunch?
|
scg
|
|
response 353 of 409:
|
Dec 11 21:56 UTC 2000 |
I suppose the interesting question is how many of us would change our views
on vote counting if it were Gore, rather than Bush, who was ahead in the
current count.
|
mdw
|
|
response 354 of 409:
|
Dec 11 22:02 UTC 2000 |
Hey, I think Gore is *way* far from ideal. In some ways, I think he's
more dangerous, because he's smart.
I think the Bush supporters should have been much more keen on having
the votes counted by hand - there's every chance they could have run
even with a hand-count, and now, as matters stand, with the large cloud
of dust they've managed to raise, it may be that nobody will ever really
believe Bush won fair & square.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 355 of 409:
|
Dec 12 02:22 UTC 2000 |
What was that quote I heard on television this weekend? "Is she like that
because she's /x/, or is she /x/ because she's like that?"
I'm fairly certain that if Bush were calling for a full recount and Gore were
stalling, I'd be backing Bush.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 356 of 409:
|
Dec 12 05:07 UTC 2000 |
I've decided that the Bush argument that manual recounting of undercounted
ballots is bad because there are not uniform standards among the counties -
is specious. If there had been a request for just one county's undercount to
be counted manually, the argument could not be used, so the recount would
have proceeded and the results would have been accepted. But if the
manual recount of one country is acceptable, then the recount of all the
counties must be also, as *each* county is subject to its own standards.
That is, the recounting standards of a single county are themselves "not
standard", but yet would be acceptable.
|
jep
|
|
response 357 of 409:
|
Dec 12 19:22 UTC 2000 |
The uniformity of the split, with *all* of the Gore supporters here on
Grex thinking Gore's arguments are better, and *all* of the Bush
supporters thinking Bush's arguments are better, leads me to believe our
support is not based on what is fair and right, but rather, what outcome
we would rather have. I don't think any but the blindest of partisans
could seriously contend that the other side (either "other side") has
nothing to support it's arguments.
In response to #352, yes, I do expect serious people to try to
understand the viewpoint of the opposite side, and to not go around
saying things like "If *my* guy doesn't win the election, it's proof of
corruption" and other unintelligent things like that.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 358 of 409:
|
Dec 12 20:02 UTC 2000 |
I can't believe that they were doing manual counts without following a
standard! What a bunch of bloomin idiots. (Or, is there a reason for
starching this out?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 359 of 409:
|
Dec 12 20:34 UTC 2000 |
What if just one (1) county was at issue, and they did the manual recount
of undercounted votes in accord with procedures adopted by the canvassing
board. Would that be OK? If that is OK, then that should apply to
all the counties doing manual recounts, each in their own way. Since *each*
recount would be done by acceptable procedures for that county, every
county will be recounted be acceptable procedures. There is no logical
reason to have the procedures identical for all the counties, if each
recount is acceptable on its own. This is a false issue invented by
the Bush camp to prevent recounts of all counties as called for by the
Florida supreme court.
The reason for starching it out, of course, is to keep everything in
good shape.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 360 of 409:
|
Dec 12 22:31 UTC 2000 |
Gore losing this election is NOT proof of corruption or any other malfeasance.
I believe Ms. Harris' decision to reject the manual recounts, out of hand,
*was* misfeasance. Culpable misfeasance, even. I think the Bush's campaign
arguments about the lack of 'standards' to be smoke screen. (I don't credit
Bush with the ability to come up with any such arguments.) I think we will
get what we deserve with the next Bush Administration.
|
aaron
|
|
response 361 of 409:
|
Dec 13 01:16 UTC 2000 |
re #357: Perhaps you could do me the favor of explaining what you believe
"Gore's arguments" to be, and what you believe "Bush's arguments"
to be, as that will help me test your thesis.
|
aaron
|
|
response 362 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:08 UTC 2000 |
The Supreme Court has reversed the Florida Supreme Court, 5:4. Details
are just now being released.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 363 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:15 UTC 2000 |
Was the first announcement of 6-3 in error?
|
krj
|
|
response 364 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:17 UTC 2000 |
Looks like they ram Bush into place on an utterly incoherent decision.
I'm shocked by what I'm hearing on television.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 365 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:19 UTC 2000 |
Yeah. Seven Justices concurred that a "constitutional recount" could not
be completed by December 12. Well, yeah, *especially* after you stopped
the count.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 366 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:27 UTC 2000 |
It *sounds* like the U.S. Supreme Court just did what they were asked to
censure the Florida Supreme Court for doing: rewriting election law after
the election. They want a "single, uniform standard", apparently declaring
the standard in Florida law, "clear intent of the voter" to be invalid.
So it was 7-2 to reverse and remand, 5-4 to stay the recount.
And I'm just regurgitating CBS News, while waiting for
http://www.supremecourtus.gov
to load.
|
krj
|
|
response 367 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:29 UTC 2000 |
Funny, I thought "intent of the voter" was the Florida law before
the election.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 368 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:36 UTC 2000 |
It was. But the Supreme Court seems to feel that is not a standard at all.
And thus rewrites the legislation.
|
wh
|
|
response 369 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:44 UTC 2000 |
Didn't Boies say "intent of the voter" is written into election law
in 33 states during his argument Monday? Is the Supreme Court really
opening the door to lawsuits in many states against that principle?
Doesn't this create a precedent for citizens in all those states to
take those suits to federal court in the future?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 370 of 409:
|
Dec 13 04:02 UTC 2000 |
Congress should challenge and reject *any* slate for electors from the state
of Florida. And the challenge should come from the Republicans.
Yeah, right.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 371 of 409:
|
Dec 13 04:11 UTC 2000 |
The opinion is at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
|
aaron
|
|
response 372 of 409:
|
Dec 13 04:36 UTC 2000 |
The most peculiar part of the decision, from my perspective, was its
reliance upon the Equal Protection Clause to hold that ballots must be
treated in a uniform manner. If that is true, it seems that any state that
has different ballots or voting machines in different counties has an
unconstitutional structure for counting votes. It seems that any time
there is a hand recount in a state that relies on machine counting, it
must be state-wide under uniform standards. As others have indicated, it
would have required the Florida Supreme Court to provide a non-
legislative framework to the statute in order to follow the statute.
(Obviously, they would have reversed had the Florida Supreme Court
enunciated a standard not set forthy by the legislature, as well - as
post-election change to the law.)
The second-most peculiar part of the decision is the extent to which the
U.S. Supreme Court substitutes its own opinion of what Florida laws mean
for the opinions of the Florida legislature.
In its decision, the Supreme Court bravely went where no Supreme Court has
gone before, creating a wholly new body of Equal Protection law, and
perhaps setting the stage for a (previously) unprecedented level of
intrusion into state interpretations of their own laws.
Considering that the conservative majority claims to follow original
intent, to decry judicial activism, and to respect state rights.... I
guess this is a fine illustration of what the more cynical among us have
known for years: Those positions are asserted because they support the
agenda of those Justices, and are quickly abandoned when they fail to
serve their purpose. The Supreme Court, for example, vastly expanded
sovereign immunity this year through its "conservative majority" - Remind
me - where can I find a word about sovereign immunity in the Constitution?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 373 of 409:
|
Dec 13 04:47 UTC 2000 |
They strained hard to justify a court establishing a standard as
'interpretation' of the legislation. I think they failed.
I'm up to page 18 (of 65), where Justice Rehnquist is justifying the
U.S. Supreme Court substituting its interpretion of State law for that of
the State's Supreme Court. At least he has some case-law to cite.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 374 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:08 UTC 2000 |
Nine Justices. Three sign a concurring opinion, and three sign a dissenting
opinion. That leaves three for the unsigned per curiam ("for the court")
opinion. Is this a normal practice? Three justices speaking for the court?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 375 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:11 UTC 2000 |
And before someone asks:
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS
join, concurring
and
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG AND JUSTICE BREYER
join, dissenting
That leaves Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor on the per curiam opinion,
doesn't it?
|