"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

Read this:
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/

The Fed Supremes did not select Bush. They ruled that the Fla Supremes
could
not change the rules in mid-stream, that the Fla Supremes could not make
law.
Every single re-count ended up with Bush as the winner, and there were NO
disenfranchised voters. The recounts were stopped because of Florida LAW,
not
because of anything the Fed Supremes ruled.


Ummm, did you actually read the Fed Supremes ruling? The gist of it was that
the Florida law on 'legal votes' was vague and inconsistent, and the laws
governing recounts were so poorly written that it would be impossible to
give the Florida voters a fair voice as the laws were written, but the laws
had to stand. In other words, the Law in Florida was basically illegal, that
there were PLENTY of disenfranchised voters, and that there was no way
around it according to the details of law. I quote from the Fed Supreme
ruling:
.................................................. ......
"Admittedly, the present situation is surreal: All the king's horses and all
the king's men could not get a few thousand ballots counted. The
explanation, however, is timeless. We are a nation of men and women and,
although we aspire to lofty principles, our methods at times are imperfect.

'First, although the untabulated Florida ballots may hold the truth to the
presidential election, we still--to this day--cannot agree on how to count
those ballots fairly and accurately. In fact, we cannot even agree on IF
they should be counted. Second, although the right to vote is paramount, we
rountinely installed outdated and defective voting systems and tabulating
equipment at our polls prior to the present election. And finally, although
the rule of law is supreme, the key legal text in this case--i.e., the
Florida Election Code--is fraught with contradicitons and ambiguities, and
the key legal ruling--i.e., the Unites States Supreme Court's final decision
in Bush vs. Gore-- was denigraded and rejected by nearly half the members of
that Court."
------------------------------------
Hardly an endorsement that there were 'no disenfranchised voters'.

Now, as to the statement that the recounts were stopped because of Florida
LAW:

In trying to guide the recount during the 'challenge' phase, the Fla
Supremes realized that the law was (as the Fed Supremes stated) vague and
ambiguous. So they providing definitions of what a 'legal' vote was and gave
the oversight to a single judge for continuity, and started the recounts.
The Feds stopped them immediately on Dec. 9 saying that their guidlines
needed to be more specific. Then on Dec. 12 at 10pm the Fed Supremes said
that a Florida-mandated deadline was passing, so the entire discussion was
moot. Then they decided that the Fed 10 deadline was probably not binding,
but that the Florida Supremes probably couldn't provide clear enough
guidelines. Then they said that, by trying to provide guidelines, they
overstepped their bounds, so the Fed Supremes said that the bad situation
had to stand. This is hardly a case of 'changing rules midstream' in the
spirit of deceipt or manipulation. This is hamstringing a court that was
trying to do the right thing in a bad situation.

To make it worse, Katherine Harris had looked at the law which stated that
the state had the responsibility to determine the voter's intent in any
legal vote, and determined that a 'legal vote' was one that did not have any
ambiguity: in other words, that the thousands of untabulated ballots did
not count because they did not count. Sort of like a 'lifetime guarantee'
that expires because the item broke.

Anyway, its not as simple as you stated, and by obstructing the Florida
ballot count through strange legal twists and turns, the Fed Supremes did,
indeed, hand the election to Bush.

--riverman