So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 17 Feb 2008 17:44:31 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

Bush *did* carry Florida. After a recount and a recount, followed by
recount, recount, recount, he won. Florida law stated that the
results of an election had to be tallied by such and such a date.
That date came and the Florida Supremes wanted to *make* law by
entending the date. No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it. Bush *won* Floriduh and he did it
legally after many recounts. Live with it instead of crying about it.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:
No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it.




uh...ever heard of the "common law"?

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:11 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

uh...ever heard of the "common law"?

Of course, but the Florida Supreme's were not ruling on "common law",
but were changing an existing law to suit their political party -- all
of them were appointed by Democrats, and all *except* the Chief
Justice realized they could not do that. Fortunately the Fed Supremes
ruled against them, otherwise they would still be counting votes in
Floriduh.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:11 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:


uh...ever heard of the "common law"?


Of course, but the Florida Supreme's were not ruling on "common law",
but were changing an existing law to suit their political party -- all
of them were appointed by Democrats, and all *except* the Chief
Justice realized they could not do that. Fortunately the Fed Supremes
ruled against them, otherwise they would still be counting votes in
Floriduh.



this was your statement:

No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it.

it was an incorrect statement...but one heard frequently as part of
republican sloganeering...usually in conjunction with the pejorative use
of "liberal" in reference to a judge's or judicial nominee's
decision-making.

and...uh...you do know that the supremes were "making" law just as much
as, if not more than, the florida court, don't you? it was a political
act as much as a judicial act, and reconfirmed the insightful comment
that "No matter whether th' Constitution follows th' flag or not, th'
Supreme Coort follows th' illection returns."

jeff

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:05:25 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

it was an incorrect statement...

Well, I stand corrected, counselor.

but one heard frequently as part of
republican sloganeering...usually in conjunction with the pejorative use
of "liberal" in reference to a judge's or judicial nominee's
decision-making.

and...uh...you do know that the supremes were "making" law just as much
as, if not more than, the florida court, don't you? it was a political
act as much as a judicial act, and reconfirmed the insightful comment
that "No matter whether th' Constitution follows th' flag or not, th'
Supreme Coort follows th' illection returns."

The Florida law stated that election returns had to be counted by such
and such a date. Where not the Florida Supremes "making" law by
saying, "That doesn't count. We will allow the recount to continue?"
(In essence that is what they did.) I belive THAT is making law and
has NOTHING to do with Common Law. Hell, the most liberal of the
Florida Supremes, the Chief Justic himself, did not go along with it
knowing that it was against the Florida law.

When should the recount have stopped? When Gore was *finally* ahead?
They tried that, over and over and over, pregnant chads and all, but
Bush still came up the winner every time. In a futile attempt to hang
on to a possible win by Algore, the Supremes *attempted* to change the
law. There was all kinds of conspiracy stories, but bottom line is
that Bush won after many, many recounts, both electronic and manual.

Now, ask ME a question about laser/fiber optics - or at least
laser/fiber optics of 17 years ago when I retired. d;o)

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Now, ask ME a question about laser/fiber optics - or at least
laser/fiber optics of 17 years ago when I retired. d;o)

Dave







that the supreme court majority on the main issue declared the opinion
would have no precedential value is a clue to what a clusterf**k it
really was. it was "a big bowl of wrong" all around.

and, uh, laser/fiber optics...isn't that like, uh, magic? i doubt i'll
ever have a question about either, except "damn, how did he/she do
that?" i'm just one of those guys in the stupefied section of the audience.

jeff