Re: OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:47:13 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

> "Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

<snip>

> It was not only 7 members of the US Supreme Court, it was 3 members of
> the Florida Supreme Court, Judge Sauls, and Gore's Florida campaign
> chair (Florida's attorney General Bob Butterworth). It was Butterworth
> who quit Gore's campaign and then sent a letter to the Palm Beach County
> Canvassing Board telling them that their recount was a violation of
> equal protection.
>
>
>
I've stated there was a violation of equal protection. There were lots of
violations of equal protection. Justice Kennedy decided to pick this
particular one, at this particular time. Clearly, by doing so, they were
choosing sides. Otherwise, they would have objected to the far greater
equal protection issues inherent in the differences between polling
procedures in poor rural counties as opposed to rich republican counties.
They also wouldn't have made this ruling inapplicable to any other
situation. This was a court that was almost, but not quite completely
disinterested in any equal protection law, up until, and, coincidentally,
after this time.

You pick the bits of republican party disinformation you've chosen to use,
and ignore the broader issues. These issues include the importance of
settling the matter; the importance for the supreme court not to appear
partisan; the importance of states rights, and the rights of the
electorate in a particular state to chose their method of recount. You
also ignore the obvious fact that the recounts were proceeding fairly. All
of these issues were brushed aside by the court in order to prevent the
recount from continuing. Using the equal protection clause was a
calculated ploy to checkmate the FSC. They are, after all, brilliant men
and women. It worked. Their guy is president, despite the possibility that
it would go otherwise.

> The numbers are overwhelmingly in support of the
equal protection
> argument. 12 bi-partisan judges along with Butterworth vs. 6 Democrat
> judges.
>
>> Thus, they were ruling that the procedures outlined were invalid. It
>> was also not possible for the FSC to come up with any new criteria,
>> since it would be overturned due to having been decided after the
>> election.
>
> Correct, that is why the FSC should have ENFORCED the existing counting
> standards. That would have solved their 3 U.S.C. section 5 problems.
>
>> Thus, the FSC, who were attempting to uphold the constitution by
>> ensuring that all votes were counted was checkmated by an evil, self
>> serving legal strategy.
>
> Yet they violated Florida Code, and both the Florida and Federal
> Constitutions by endorsing an uneven counting standard.
>
>
>
The FSC clearly believed that the counting standards being used were
sufficient. I agree. I believe that having both a republican and a
democrat deciding, together, that a vote is valid is going to give a
better indication of the desire of the voter than a counting machine
would.

>> Because of this, all the votes were not counted, particularly votes in
>> poorer areas of Florida, which are predominately black, and thus
>> predominately Democratic. This obvious violation of equal protection
>> was, of course, not a problem for the supreme court.
>
> All the votes were counted at least twice. Gore never made a claim that
> the ballots were not tabulated.
>
>> That is a crass misuse of their power.
>
> As demonstrated by 4 members of the Florida Supreme Court.
>
>
>
You are saying that the 4 members who were trying to prevent the court
from mortgaging its reputation to assure a victory for GW Bush were
misusing their power? That would be laughable if it weren't so obviously
wrong.

<snip>

> The majority of the election boards in Florida were controlled by
> Democrats. The DEMOCRATS make the final decision on what would be
> counted as a vote.
>
>
>
This does not matter. There were republican and democratic observers. The
republicans were, of course, told to make as much trouble as they could,
to slow the process. However, the vote was slowly inching towards the
proper result. Remember the "Brooks Brothers" riots? Republican
congressional staffers, intentionally flown down to disrupt the
proceedings, and thus slow things down?

>> > As Justice Souter noted, "I can conceive of no legitimate state
>> > interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of
>> > voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary."
>> >
>> >
>> Right. He wanted to apply uniform standards. He also wanted to continue
>> the recount. He was overruled by the Bush supporters on the court.
>
> Because the court upheld the 7-0 Florida Supreme Court's ruling. Between
> the two courts, the numbers here are 12 bi-partisan justices vs. 4
> Democrat justices.
>
>
>
This makes no sense. It's impossible to call any of the 5 justices on the
conservative block bi-partisan.

The FSC also can't be counted as among those who supported this. Perhaps I
misunderstand. It voted 4 to 3 to continue the recount, as was proper.
They were attempting to prevent James Baker and his gang of thieves
(including Kathleen Harris) from certifying the election in order to
support a partisan cause. They prevented one illegal attempt at
certification, and then demanded that all votes be recounted. Seems like
the right decision to make given the situation. Only a partisan supreme
court, bent on installing their chosen candidate, would think otherwise.

<snip>

>> > http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/ele­ction/floridahouse.pdf
>>
>> Partisan nonsense. Saying one thing, then changing their minds when it
>> looks like they are going to lose.
>
> The only place they can lose is in Congress, not the courts. What codes
> do you believe that they quoted incorrectly?
>
>
>
Again, you stick to the same tired legal argument. Given a Gore victory in
Florida, the electorate would have demanded that he be sworn in as
president, regardless of what the congress wanted. The 1887 statute was
nonsese. Nobody considered it even worthy of debate. There would have been
mass demonstrations, and they would have eventually bowed to the will of
the people. This is obvious. The supreme court ruling was a brilliant
checkmate of the Gore people, the FSC, and the American people.

<snip>

>> Again, this whole line of reasoning is self serving. Saying that you
>> can't count the votes because a) you weren't prepared for a huge
>> recount before the fact, and thus didn't come up with reasonable
>> procedures,
>
> They had 30 days, Gore did not support a full recount (he never filed
> for one), thus he wasted the time needed. 3 U.S.C. section 5 has been on
> the books since 1887. Gore knew the deadline.
>
>
>
This was the Gore folk's real mistake. They should have immediately pushed
for a statewide recount. However, that was not really possible, due to
Florida law. They would have had to wait until certification to request a
statewide recount. By then, they would have lost the momentum.

> >and b) you
>> have to have it done on an arbitrary date, far before the numbers are
>> required, are sly legal ploys (which smell like Jim Baker) to prevent
>> the votes from being counted. There really wasn't any good reason to
>> stop the recount.
>
> Why do believe that two identically marked ballots do not mean the same
> thing??
>
>
>
The same can be said of any hand recount, unless all ballots are counted
by the same individual at the same exact moment. This is clearly
impossible. The nature of the problem was such that there were a broad
variety of personalities and interpretations of the law. This is
inevitable.

However, again, and again, there were checks in place. By asserting (as
you do below) that the democrats were in control, you imply the democrats
were cheating. This is unfounded, and is also revisionist. It was the
republicans who flew in hundreds of supporters to harass election
officials.

> Article II is the very reason why the recount should have
been stopped.
> A recount with an arbitrary counting standard does not settle the issue.
>
>> There were adequate procedures in place.
>
> The Florida Supreme Court IGNORED those procedures.
>
>
>
Actually, they were attempting to continue the recount. The recount was
clearly, and finally, the right thing to do. Even if Gore lost, it was the
right thing to do. Because of the SC's rash partisan ruling, we can have
these kinds of arguments without ever really knowing what would have
happened.

>> There were monitors from
>> both parties.
>
> But that does not change the fact that the majority of the canvassing
> board were controlled by Democrats.
>
>
>
This makes no difference. If there are both republican and democratic
observers, the intention of the voter can easily be established. That was
the point of the FSC ruling, which was overturned. Any attempt to
influence things one way or another was immediately challenged.

>> Letting the recount proceed would have settled the question once and
>> for all.
>
> Using an arbitrary counting standard does NOT settle the question.
>
>
>
You seem to believe that counting standards are uniform. This has never
been the case. There are as many standards as there are polling places.
The idea that a single, uniform standard is in place elsewhere is absurd,
and given the nature of the issue, can only be construed as a
rationalization for the 5 majority justices' partisan ruling.

>> The ONLY reason to stop it is that the count was getting too close
for
>> comfort.
>
> Bush already had 271 electoral votes committed to his election. It was
> NOT too close, it was OVER. The reason to stop the recount was to keep
> the Florida Supreme Court from rewriting Florida Election Code.
>
>
>
Yes, there was a rush by the obviously partisan Kathleen Harris to certify
the election results. This was nonsense, given that there were active
recounts. Kathleen Harris, appointed by the republican candidate's
brother, Jeb Bush, was the election official responsible for this. She
was, up until election day, a Co-Chair of the campaign for George W Bush.
Hardly a non-partisan. Her attempts to certify the election results were
stopped by the FSC. Jim Baker and the gang were outraged, and attempted to
force the issue by getting the legislator to pledge their electors
prematurely, before the hand recounts. They were trying to cheat the state
out of a recount in a presidential election that hinged on 500 votes.

>> > Gingsburg and Beyer are wanting to have it both ways. The
>> ruling from
>> > the Florida Supreme Court should be respected, but if it stops a
>> > recount by the safe harbor date, the FSC is wrong.
>> >
>> > From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris,
>> > 11/21/2000.
>> >
>> > "Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is
>> > appropriate only if the returns submitted the Department so late that
>> > their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral
>> > process in either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector,
>> > or taxpayer from contesting the certification of an election pursuant
>> > to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from
>> > participating fully in the federal electoral process." (reference to
>> > footnote 55)
>> >
>> > "Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."
>> >
>> > The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.
>> >
>> > http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/ele­ction/sc00-2346.pdf
>> >
>> >> and that because of this, the results du jour should stand. This
>> >> amounted to an appointment of GW Bush as president of the united
>> >> states.
>> >
>> > You are using a false premise.
>>
>> Actually, I'm not.
>
> Clearly you are wrong. You are ignoring the ramifications of the
> Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the make up of Congress on 1/6/2001.
>
>
Again, you appear unwilling or unable to understand my point. This law is
irrelevant, and was never really considered by either the FSC or the US
SC. It was yet another historical anomaly, like laws against spitting on
the sidewalk. The recounts were proceeding, and the result would be
binding, because the electorate would demand it. This was a special
situation, and only those bent on preventing any kind of recount would
even consider invoking that law, particularly since the legislature was
usurping the will of the people in attempting to pledge their electors.

>> > Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the courts could not remove
>> > Bush's slate of Florida Electors. If the recount had been completed,
>> > Gore was ahead, Bush would still hold 25 Florida Electors with the
>> > signature of the state's executive. The court cound NOT change this
>> > fact.
>> >
>> >
>> Whatever website you are digging this stuff out of is wrong on this.
>> The fact that there was an ongoing recount made this moot.
>
> I don't need a website, all I need is the law. 3 U.S.C. section 15 does
> not allow for a court to remove a slate of electors. Only Congress has
> that power.
>
>
Yawn. Sure thing bub.

>> > Again, with or without Bush v. Gore, Bush holds Florida's Electors
>> > with the signature of the state's executive. No court ruling can
>> > change this fact. No recount can change this fact.
>> >
>> Wrong again. Your site is obviously in error.
>
> 3 U.S.C. section 15 proves you to be in error.
>
>
>
Again, it's beside the point.

>> > The SCotUS cannot give Bush a electors that he already has, nor can
>> > they take them away.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, this whole line of reasoning is moronic.
>
> You hang your hat on the dissent of the US Supreme Court, then you call
> their opinions moronic. I have given the law as laid out by Justice
> Breyer's dissent.

Actually, I hang my hat on the idea that

a) the recounts were proceeding in a reasonable fashion.

b) there were checks and balances in place to ensure that any counted
ballot reflected the 'clear intent of the voter'.

c) The recount was inching towards a Gore victory.

d) if the recount had overturned the election result, the congress would
have had no choice but to acquiesce.

e) The supreme court knew this. Scalia attempted get the court to stop the
recount even before hearing Gore's arguments prove this.

f) A supreme court justice would NEVER use such strong language, as was
used by Justice Stevens, without real cause. BTW, Stevens is a republican.

g) The supreme court was packed with conservatives. In particular, Scalia,
Kennedy, and O'Connor were, according to leaked admissions of clerks,
acting inappropriately through the whole situation. O'Connor believed,
without real evidence, that the FSC was 'stealing the election', and thus
made up her mind to prevent the recount early. She expressed her dismay
over an apparent Gore victory publicly. Scalia was openly partisan through
the entire thing, sending scathing memos to Stevens. Rehnquist and Thomas
are both very conservative. Kennedy's clerks were vetted by republican
hardliners for him, so he wouldn't stray from the straight and narrow.
This block of conservatives was able to bring the matter before them, and
rule on it, without even consulting the other justices. They attempted
to do this quietly, while the other justices were ON VACATION, to
the utter astonishment of clerks, the press, and the media.

get a clue:

http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm



.

Quantcast