Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 4, 2008 16:21:31 GMT -4
Sure. Go read the Supreme Court's opinion again. Florida Statute required that all counties provide the election results to the Scretary of State by November 14. The Florida Supreme Court changed that deadline to November 26. That's a change of election law. And the Florida Supremes became well aware of that when the US Supreme Court vacated that order and they ignored the higher court and imposed the same date again.
Then they ordered that partial recounts can include whatever new votes were determined by November 26 in new vote totals, despite the recount not yet being finished. Big change from election law there.
Then they also ordered that recounts that had not been completed until after November 26 could be included in the vote totals. Again, a change of election law.
There's three examples right there.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 4, 2008 17:00:55 GMT -4
And here is what the United States Supreme Court says about your theory: The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support - Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens opposed) www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/bg.shtml
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 4, 2008 17:16:43 GMT -4
And... In election contest actions, the Florida Legislature has specifically conferred this judicial authority to “fashion such orders as [the court] deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.” Fla. Stat. § 102.168(8). The circuit court exercised that authority here to establish orderly procedures for a statewide manual count of undervotes throughout Florida. Tr. of Hearing Before the Hon. Terry Lewis (Dec. 8, 2000); Order on Remand (Dec. 9, 2000).www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/12-10_gorebrief.pdf
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 4, 2008 17:32:40 GMT -4
The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support - Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens opposed) First of all, I didn't see that in the opinion I linked to earlier. It didn't have the dissenting opinions with it, and I suppose this bit might have been in there. Do you have the documentation to back that up? Second, So what? It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court believes the Florida Legislature would have supported the actions of the Florida Supreme Court - they were still exercising a power in re-writing the statute that they didn't actually have. Certainly this isn't proof that the Florida Legislature really would have changed the statute to allow these recounts, and the reforms that occurred after the 2000 election moved away from punchcard ballots entirely, not towards providing for hand recounts. Third, the recounts were declared unconstitutional, the equivelent of illegal (if the Constitution is the highest written law of the land, then something that is unconstitutional breaks the highest written law of the land, and is therefore for all practical purposes the same as being "illegal"). So if the legislature would have supported an unconstitutional act they would themselves be guilty of having acted unconstitutionally.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 4, 2008 18:37:13 GMT -4
I found a version of the decision that does have the dissenting opinions, and as far as I can tell after a read through only four justices wrote opinions that stated that the Florida Supreme Court had not exceeded it's authority - Stevens, Ginsberg, Bryer, and Souter.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 5, 2008 13:58:05 GMT -4
It was Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion that dealt with alleged impropriety of the Florida State Supreme Court: www.zprc.org/legal/00-949.c.htmlNote that only two other Justices (Scalia and Thomas) join in the opinion. Here is an explanation: The battle cry that the Florida Supreme Court had been guilty of changing the state legislature’s definition of a lawfully cast vote or of the applicable deadlines, perhaps for partisan rea-sons, after the polls had closed and thus violating due process or Article II of the Constitution13—the principal claim that had been used to make a federal case out of it from the outset—had, in the end, proven too weak to persuade more than three of the Court’s nine Justices.www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/03-33.pdf
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 5, 2008 15:13:24 GMT -4
Okay, so that's three justices writing opinions that the Florida Supreme Court did exceed their authority, and four that didn't. That's not 6-3, it's 3 for, 4 against, and 2 not saying either way.
Needless to say, I agree with the 3.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 5, 2008 15:48:54 GMT -4
But Rehnquist's concurring opinion is not part of the Bush V. Gore decision. Therefore, the view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected. So any claims that the Florida Supreme Court helped enable Al Gore to try to "steal" the election are patently absurd.
Jason, I think your view of how US law works is very wrong. Your speeding analogy is a prime example. A better example would be that Al Gore was driving down a road where the posted speed limit signs read "55 MPH." Al Gore drove between 50 and 55 the whole way. The US Supreme Court later ruled that those speed limits were unconstitutional, due to the terrain and other reasons and the speed limit should never have been set above 45. However, Al Gore was following the speed limit as set at the time he passed through. That the speed limit was LATER determined to be incorrect does not in any way make Al Gore a criminal or a law breaker.
You don't like Al Gore. Fine. Attempting to cast his legal actions as tantamount to "stealing" an election is just partisan whining and attempted character assassination and has NO basis in reality.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 5, 2008 16:10:44 GMT -4
Moving discussion over to "Dirty Tricks." Carry on with "Reporters and War."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 5, 2008 18:23:45 GMT -4
But Rehnquist's concurring opinion is not part of the Bush V. Gore decision. Neither was the idea that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the Florida Legislature - that issue was touched on but not decided in the decision. In the concurring opinions 3 agreed that it had, in the dissenting opinions 4 believed it had not, and 2 justices decided not to express any official opinion on the subject. Therefore it was neither rejected nor agreed to by a majority of the court. It was left undecided because it was not necessary to the final decision - the equal protection violation was sufficient to decide the case. [/i] So any claims that the Florida Supreme Court helped enable Al Gore to try to "steal" the election are patently absurd.[/quote]Not at all. The Supreme Court didn't decide the matter either way. And I think it works just fine. No he didn't. He asked for extra measures beyond the law. He wanted to speed, and tried to convince the court that he had a valid reason to do so. The Florida Supreme court thought his reason was good enough to break the limit and told him to go ahead, the US Supreme Court said those reasons weren't good enough, and forced him back under 55. They didn't say anything about the limit being wrong in the first place, but that the Florida Supreme Court couldn't let Al speed without breaking the law. Why don't you tell me what you really think? I don't like Al Gore mostly because he tried to convince a state supreme court to ignore the rules in his favor and almost got away with it. Before then I merely thought he was a dull speaker and that he had the wrong positions on some issues. The attempt to change the election result and his indifference to the damage it caused the country's confidence in elections in general is what initially convinced me that his character was flawed as well. His hypocrisy and cavalier attitude towards science with the Global Warming issue since the 2000 election has merely added to that distaste. So no, I'm not a fan, but it's not really a partisan issue. It's more of a personal revulsion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 5, 2008 18:24:24 GMT -4
Moving discussion over to "Dirty Tricks." Carry on with "Reporters and War." I'll agree to move it to "Dirty Tricks" if you agree with me that Gore was the one perpetrating the Dirty Trick in question.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 15:05:40 GMT -4
Well, again -- I think your view of US Law is fundamentally flawed. And since the US Supreme Court did not rule that the Florida Supreme Court acted against the will of the legislature, then legally the Florida Supreme Court did nothing wrong, as it was not rebuked by the US Supreme Court. The Florida Legislature gave wide latitude to the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that elections were held fairly and that every effort should be made to determine the intentions of Florida voters. By not ruling against the Florida Supreme Court on those grounds, the US Supreme Court affirms the attempts by the Florida Supreme Court to ensure the standards set by the Florida Legislature were met.
So you have no legal grounds to make any claim about Al Gore "stealing" anything, nor can you make any valid legal claim that he was trying to convince the Florida Supreme Court to do something illegal, as the US Supreme Court did not make that ruling. The three vote concurring opinion has as much legal force as the four dissenting opinions: none.
So the dirty trick here is that George W. Bush used the US Supreme Court to stop a valid state-mandated recount that legally followed the intentions of the Florida State Legislature.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 15:21:34 GMT -4
A ruling that the recounts were unconstitutional is a ruling that the Florida Supreme Court ordered an illegal action (an unconstitutional action by definition breaks the highest law of the land, and is therefore also illegal). Ordering an illegal action is itself illegal, therefore the Florida Supreme Court did act illegally. Not in a fashion that makes them criminally liable for anything, however.
The US Supreme Court did not act illegally in stopping the re-counts.
I think I've made it very clear that the legality of Gore's actions aren't the issue - it's whether he was morally correct in attempting to overturn the legal election result that troubles me. So this endless harping on "Al Gore did nothing illegal" is an attack on a strawman.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 15:49:36 GMT -4
In many cultures (this one, also, I believe) "stealing" is an illegal act. So you were claiming that Al Gore performed an illegal act when you first claimed that he tried to "steal" the election. Don't get after me for showing you that you were completely wrong.
I have shown you every which way that Al Gore did nothing illegal and acted within what Florida law allowed. I provided clear evidence, with quite a bit of detail, that your claim is rubbish.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 16:00:12 GMT -4
"Stealing" is a word with a moral component as well as a legal one. It's not just illegally taking what isn't yours, but also wrongfully taking something. When I said that Al Gore tried to steal the election I meant it in the moral sense, not the legal one.
EDIT: And I believe I've already made that abundently clear. I have a suspicion that you're obsessing over the legal sense because you don't have any way to argue that Al Gore was morally correct.
|
|