|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Questions #6 & 9
| 
Dec 5 08:46 UTC 2000 |
The Florida legislature, soon to perhaps have something to do with the
current USA presidential election is refered to in the media as
'republican dominated' with only 2/3s of members identified as such.
Yet the Florida Supreme Court with 0 republicans is never refered to in
the media as 'DNC dominated'? News media types delight in pointing out
that Florida Secretary of State Kathy 'the bod' Harris worked on the
Bush campaign yet nobody notices that Robert Butterworth, the Florida
Attorney General was the chairperson of the Gore campaign for the state.
GW Bush graduated with an MBA from Yale while Al-the-pal 'dropped out'
of any advanced degree yet 'dubya' is seen as the idiot. (dubya -v-
bubba, what a contest...)
Well over 90% of 'working journalists' voted for Clinton.
|
| 14 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 14:
|
Dec 5 12:30 UTC 2000 |
So why didn't those "liberal" journalists take Bush to task for:
1. His horrible environmental record (Texas #50 in nation)
2. His horrible record on education (Texas either #49 or #50)
3. The very suspicious way he made all those millions of $
4. The creepy look of glee he has on his face when he talks about executions
(and the list goes on).
The "Liberal press" is an outright lie, designed to prevent the media from
ever questioning the right wing. In truth, pretty much all mass media is
owned by less than a dozen huge companies. And the owners are pretty hardcore
Republicans.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 2 of 14:
|
Dec 5 14:16 UTC 2000 |
The judiciary is non-partisan, although appointed by the partisan executive
and approved by the partisan legislature (when they are not approved by the
electorate at large). Nonetheless, I've yet to see a news article that
has not reminded that the Florida State Supreme Court justices were *all*
appointed by Democratic governors.
The legislature's bread and butter is partisan politics. So they get painted
with the partisan brush.
The Bush camp has made a VERY good case for any action the legislature takes
being thrown out without even opening the envelope: They have argued
strenously that the Florida State Supreme Court's decision rewrote election
law after the election. And how else could the legislature appoint its own
electors, without rewriting the election law after the election?
|
polygon
|
|
response 3 of 14:
|
Dec 5 15:58 UTC 2000 |
I thought that one of the seven Florida justices was originally
appointed by a Democrat, and reappointed by a Republican. I presume
that they don't have life terms, and are subject to replacement by
the Governor as their terms expire.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 4 of 14:
|
Dec 5 16:54 UTC 2000 |
Re: #2: The law that would allowe the FL legislature to select its own slate
of electors is already on the books. There is no "new law" being made.
But nice spin - you should seek a job with the DNC.
|
aaron
|
|
response 5 of 14:
|
Dec 5 16:57 UTC 2000 |
They have retention elections - where they can be voted out of office.
One of the justices was selected before Jeb Bush took office, and Bush
allowed his appointment to continue.
Joe - the problem is, it is not clear that the Supreme Court agrees that
the law cited by the Republicans in fact does anything more than create a
"safe harbor" - that is to say, if states do everything the law requires,
they can be assured that Congress won't challenge their electors. While it
would be hypocritical for the Republicans to advance a different meaning of
the statute in litigation over the legislative appointment of electors, it
is not apparent that the statute in fact prohibits that action. Further,
to the extent that it does limit action by the legislature, it may be
unconstitutional.
|
aaron
|
|
response 6 of 14:
|
Dec 5 16:57 UTC 2000 |
Kevin - what law is that?
|
carson
|
|
response 7 of 14:
|
Dec 5 17:27 UTC 2000 |
"GOP legislators point to a 1948 federal law allowing a state legislature
to appoint electors if election results are inconclusive."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/30/fla.legislature/index.htm
l
(beats me what the text of the law is, although with several spare hours,
I could likely find it. I can't find the Christian Science Monitor
article I read which outlines the problems with using the law, but I do
recall that there are some unclear passages within the law subject to
interpretation.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 8 of 14:
|
Dec 5 17:44 UTC 2000 |
That's not *state* law. The laws of the state indicate that the results of
the popular election dictate who may be appointed as electors, and further
the U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority to dictate how the state
legislatures select electors.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 9 of 14:
|
Dec 5 17:45 UTC 2000 |
I would start with http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/FedLaw.html
If you want to slip into lawyer bully mode, feel free, but I won't come out
and play.
|
aaron
|
|
response 10 of 14:
|
Dec 5 17:54 UTC 2000 |
Asking for the basis of somebody's legal argument is not "legal bullying".
Certainly my request that you provide a simple reference to the statute
upon which your argument rests is not "legal bullying." If you don't feel
comfortable defending your assertions of law, I suggest you couch your
arguments in different terms. If you can't support your positions, and
choose to make baseless insults when called upon to do so, do feel free to
make good on your threat to take your ball and go home.
|