We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramount consideration

We are all gonna die one day and this won't matter anymore

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), November 21, 2000

Answers

"We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramount consideration"

Except for the Republican Nazis who dragged this thing into court in hope of omitting the votes of thousands of American citizens.

-- (WE@not.republicans), November 21, 2000.

The will of the people? In that case I guess a total hand recount of the entire state, if not the entire nation, is in order.

One quick point. A talking head on the TeeVee said that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that the rules governing an election cannot be amended during the election. Since this election is not over, and since the rules in Florida most definately HAVE been amended, I think we will see this mess go to the US Supreme Court.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 21, 2000.

No rules in Florida have been changed, yet. I hope this does go to the US Supreme, because they will hopefully have the power to straighten out all these corrupt practices used by Republicans in fucked up Florida.

-- (jeb@bush.sucks), November 21, 2000.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 21, 2000.

This just in.

James Baker has just stated the same thing, the rules were changed midstream. Supreme Court here we come.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 21, 2000.

Unc: >> Since this election is not over, and since the rules in Florida most definately HAVE been amended, I think we will see this mess go to the US Supreme Court. <<

Don't hold your breath, Unc. While you believe this decision constitutes a change of the rules, the Supreme Court of Florida believes (unanimously) that this is a rectification of rule that are inherently in conflict and an interpretation of laws that cannot be reasonably followed without some serious disambiguation.

Faced with what they beleved to be hopeless ambiguity in the Florida statutes, the justices have ruled according to the principle they find to be most compelling - that votes that are certified need to be counted accurately. They have relegated the principle of timeliness to second place in this competition of guiding principles.

I believe it is far more likely we will see the Florida Legislature intervene to name the electors according to their own (Bush-leaning) desires than that we will see the US Supreme Court overrule the Florida Supreme Court on the interpretation of Florida law.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 22, 2000.

Oh, that's right, I forgot James Baker was God. What he says is the way it is.

Gee, you don't suppose God might be biased do you?

-- lol (oh.supreme.one@enlighten.us), November 22, 2000.

I really feel sorry for Baker. It's no secret that there's no love lost between he and W.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 22, 2000.

Brian,

As to Sec of State Harris' deadline, that is a messy point. There are two statutes that address the date for certification, yet the wording differs.

The far clearer point is that dimpled chads have not EVER been counted as a vote in Florida before. The rules are changing midstream. Hand recounts because the loser did not like the outcome have been denied in the past, machine failure or fraud was needed as a reason in PALM BEACH COUNTY! Those rules too have been amended. Lots of recounting rules have been changed in these Democratic counties SINCE the election. W has a good case, in fact he has a very strong case.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 22, 2000.

If Dubya has a strong case, why has his team of lawyers lost every important decision?

The FLorida Supreme Court did NOT tell any one to count dimpled chads. Florida law leaves it up to the canvassing boards to ascertain voter intent. This court upheld the inherent right of the people to govern which is in the state constitution-the will of the people OVERRIDES any statute which has such ambiguities.

READ the 43 pages before comenting. DO NOT listen to the talking heads and let them make the decisions for you.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), November 22, 2000.

>> W has a good case, in fact he has a very strong case. <<

Shrug. We can't both be right, but there's a clear chance we could both be wrong. Only time will tell.

-- Brian Mclaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 22, 2000.

And you too should find out just what is going on here on the local level with regard to recount rules FS, before you open YOUR mouth.

;-)

But I will say this, we will see whether the "will of the people", as expressed in the laws written by their duly elected representatives, overides the will of the people as determinded by a subjective interpretation of the "will of the people" who cast ambiguous ballots.

That is, I think, what it will finally come down to. Are you allowed to change how you count the votes and enforce the rules while you are in the midst of an election? If so, I think Gore will get the nod, if not, I think Bush will.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 22, 2000.

The only thing that Florida law says is that the "intent" of the voter must be determined and counted. Pregnant chads, dimpled chads, whatever... if the intent of the voter is clear to BOTH Republican and Democrat observers, the vote will be counted. If the intent is NOT clear, it won't be counted. Now, if the Republicans would just shut the fuck up and start counting, we might finally get this thing over with!

-- (sheeesh@quit.whining), November 22, 2000.

The general feeling in New Zealand is that Gore will win this election. The manner in which he just keeps on changing the rules as matters progress (with the backing of his Deocratic judges) show that it would be almost impossible for him to lose.

However although he may win the election, he will almost certainly lose the respect of many political leaders from around the world.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), November 22, 2000.

"However although he may win the election, he will almost certainly lose the respect of many political leaders from around the world."

You said a mouthful there Malcolm,he's been tainted here in the states for quite some time now but now that he's coming into world view the picture *IS* getting clearer to all.And to be fair and honest,Bush ain't much,if any,different.They are both "elite,political silver spooners" trying everything they can to take this election and rise to power and stature.It's just a shame that honesty and integrity weren't requirements for the position.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 22, 2000.

In complete agreement with you Cap'n Fun. Shrubby is just a little whiny silver-spoon fed cry baby. Gore will pobably be the best president we've ever had...if we can keep Dee DUBYA Eye from stealing the election.

-- Gore in (2000@and.2004), November 22, 2000.