![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 Second, although the right to vote is paramount, we rountinely installed outdated and defective voting systems and tabulating equipment at our polls prior to the present election.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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Myron writes:
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. I see...... So, how many recounts, in your estimation, should it take? Bush won every single one, including the sneaky one where we counted only the ballot from a predominately Democrat county. It was and continues to be a total farce. There is no way better than a machine to tally the vote on a ballot designed to be read by a machine. The networks eventually got all the ballots and counted them and guess what? Bush still won. There were only those disenfranchised voters who were too stupid to pick the correct candidate. Do you believe there were disenfranchised voters in Florida for this election? I don't believe so. In the 2000 election, the liberal networks called the state *before* the panhandle had a chance to vote. Lots of folks (most of them military or military retired) never got to vote. They *did* vote this time. Myron, it is over and like Kerry himself has said, let us unite behind the president and get the miserable job done. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Myron writes:
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. I see...... So, how many recounts, in your estimation, should it take? Bush won every single one, including the sneaky one where we counted only the ballot from a predominately Democrat county. It was and continues to be a total farce. There is no way better than a machine to tally the vote on a ballot designed to be read by a machine. The networks eventually got all the ballots and counted them and guess what? Bush still won. There were only those disenfranchised voters who were too stupid to pick the correct candidate. Do you believe there were disenfranchised voters in Florida for this election? I don't believe so. In the 2000 election, the liberal networks called the state *before* the panhandle had a chance to vote. Lots of folks (most of them military or military retired) never got to vote. They *did* vote this time. Myron, it is over and like Kerry himself has said, let us unite behind the president and get the miserable job done. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|