|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
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?
|
aaron
|
|
response 376 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:26 UTC 2000 |
The concurrence is an expansion upon the per curiam decision. It
starts, "We join the per curiam opinion." The per curiam decision does
reflect the position of a majority of the Court.
Stevens wrote a dissent, which Ginsburg and Breyer joined. Breyer also
wrote a separate dissent, which Stevens and Ginsburg joined in full, and
which Souter joined in part.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 377 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:27 UTC 2000 |
And here it is:
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the
Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in
the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the
critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their
position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by
the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical
appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence
in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the
true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to
that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing,
however, is certain. 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 rule of law.
Amen, Brother Stevens.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 378 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:28 UTC 2000 |
Thanks, Aaron. I suspect I'm about to get to Justice Breyer's dissent.
|
aaron
|
|
response 379 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:36 UTC 2000 |
Oops. In scrolling through PDF, I skipped over the Ginsburg dissent,
joined by Stevens, and in part by Breyer and Souter. (I was trying to
determine the nature of the 5:4 split, before reading the full text.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 380 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:50 UTC 2000 |
I'm reading Justice Souter's dissent right now, in which Justice Breyer joined
and Justices Stevens and Ginsberg joined "in regard to all but Part C", which
I haven't gotten to yet.
|
bru
|
|
response 381 of 409:
|
Dec 13 13:05 UTC 2000 |
well, I guess if the supreme court can amke new law on things like abortion
and voting rights, they can make new law on voting proceedure. (?)
Hell, I won't even try to understand beyond the fact that the SCOFLA tried
to change state law regarding elections and the SCOTUS said, "it ain't
happenin' baby!"
|
sno
|
|
response 382 of 409:
|
Dec 13 14:10 UTC 2000 |
While I applaud the decision which, in effect, enforces the original
deadline result (if not the actual numbers), I have to wonder if we
are headed for a serious "States Rights" litigation sequence.
|
scott
|
|
response 383 of 409:
|
Dec 13 14:26 UTC 2000 |
So Bush wins, I guess.
I'm actually glad for that. I'd *hate* to be on the "winning" side at this
point.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 384 of 409:
|
Dec 13 18:06 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the State Supreme Court did NOT change the election law; it merely
interpreted conflicting clauses and then reset the clock, allowing no more
time than would have been available if the courts had not been asked to
intervene.
The United States Supreme Court's actions are harder to understand. I
strongly suggest that anyone interested read the opinions. Yesterday's
is only 65 pages.
|
aaron
|
|
response 385 of 409:
|
Dec 13 23:24 UTC 2000 |
Joe is correct, with regard to bap's error. In the most recent Supreme Court
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court basically held that Florida's Supreme Court
violated the Equal Protection Clause, because it did *not* make new law.
They essentially want it both ways - you can't make new law, but you also
can't fashion a remedy without making new law, under their two decisions.
|
senna
|
|
response 386 of 409:
|
Dec 15 06:07 UTC 2000 |
Indeed, being on the losing side, especially in as meangingless an
election as this, is probably better for one's long term political
prospects. Gore, naturally, made a full concession and called for
everyone to support Bush. As an "average" voter, I found it
heartening. Naturally, having a brain, I can see the sort of ground
Gore can make up in public opinion with such a move. He looks really
good.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 387 of 409:
|
Dec 15 06:08 UTC 2000 |
Why "meaningless"?
|
janc
|
|
response 388 of 409:
|
Dec 15 15:47 UTC 2000 |
I thought Gore did OK. I'd said earlier that someone would have to deliver
"the mother of all concession speeches" when this was over, and he came up
with a reasonable approximation. Very little whining (though he did say he
disagreed with the result). No doors left open. Good enough.
|