WANTED for TREASON: Five Criminal Justices

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Exerpted from an essay by veteran prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi

Sometimes the body politic is lulled into thinking along unreasoned lines. The "conventional wisdom" emerging immediately after the Court's ruling seemed to be that the Court, by its political ruling, had only lost a lot of credibility and altitude in the minds of many people. But these critics of the ruling, even those who flat-out say the Court "stole" the election, apparently have not stopped to realize the inappropriateness of their tepid position vis-à-vis what the Court did. You mean you can steal a presidential election and your only retribution is that some people don't have as much respect for you, as much confidence in you? That's all? If, indeed, the Court, as the critics say, made a politically motivated ruling (which it unquestionably did), this is tantamount to saying, and can only mean, that the Court did not base its ruling on the law. And if this is so (which again, it unquestionably is), this means that these five Justices deliberately and knowingly decided to nullify the votes of the 50 million Americans who voted for Al Gore and to steal the election for Bush. Of course, nothing could possibly be more serious in its enormous ramifications. The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen--pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals.

Since the notion of five Supreme Court Justices being criminals is so alien to our sensibilities and previously held beliefs, and since, for the most part, people see and hear, as Thoreau said, what they expect to see and hear, most readers will find my characterization of these Justices to be intellectually incongruous. But make no mistake about it, I think my background in the criminal law is sufficient to inform you that Scalia, Thomas et al. are criminals in the very truest sense of the word.

Essentially, there are two types of crimes: malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, more popularly called "civil offenses" or "quasi crimes," such as selling liquor after a specified time of day, hunting during the off-season, gambling, etc.; and malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes. The latter, such as robbery, rape, murder and arson, are the only true crimes. Without exception, they all involve morally reprehensible conduct. Even if there were no law prohibiting such conduct, one would know (as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime) it is wrong, often evil. Although the victim of most true crimes is an individual (for example, a person robbed or raped), such crimes are considered to be "wrongs against society." This is why the plaintiff in all felony criminal prosecutions is either the state (People of the State of California v. _______) or the federal government (United States of America v. _______).

No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. But if what these Justices did was not "morally reprehensible" and a "wrong against society," what would be? In terms, then, of natural law and justice--the protoplasm of all eventual laws on the books--these five Justices are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and just world belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived. Of course, the right-wing extremists who have saluted the Court for its theft of the election are the same type of people who feel it is perfectly all right to have a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in a federal penitentiary for some poor black in the ghetto who is in possession of just fifty grams of crack cocaine, even if he was not selling it. [§ 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A)(iii)]

....

Under Supreme Court rules, a stay is supposed to be granted to an applicant (here, Bush) only if he makes a substantial showing that in the absence of a stay, there is a likelihood of "irreparable harm" to him. With the haste of a criminal, Justice Scalia, in trying to justify the Court's shutting down of the vote counting, wrote, unbelievably, that counting these votes would "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush]...by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." [Emphasis added.] In other words, although the election had not yet been decided, the absolutely incredible Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election--indeed, had a right to win it--and any recount that showed Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency. Only a criminal on the run, rushed for time and acting in desperation, could possibly write the embarrassing words Scalia did, language showing that he knew he had no legal basis for what he was doing, but that getting something down in writing, even as intellectually flabby and fatuous as it was, was better than nothing at all. (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy, naturally, joined Scalia in the stay order.)

The New York Times observed that the Court gave the appearance by the stay of "racing to beat the clock before an unwelcome truth would come out." Terrance Sandalow, former dean of the University of Michigan Law School and a judicial conservative who opposed Roe v. Wade and supported the nomination to the Court of right-wing icon Robert Bork, said that "the balance of harms so unmistakably were on the side of Gore" that the granting of the stay was "incomprehensible," going on to call the stay "an unmistakably partisan decision without any foundation in law."

....

In yet another piece of incriminating circumstantial evidence, Scalia, in granting Bush's application for the stay, wrote that "the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantial probability of success." But Antonin, why would you believe this when neither side had submitted written briefs yet (they were due the following day, Sunday, by 4 pm), nor had there even been oral arguments (set for 11 am on Monday)? It wouldn't be because you had already made up your mind on what you were determined to do, come hell or high water, would it? Antonin, take it from an experienced prosecutor--you're as guilty as sin. In my prosecutorial days, I've had some worthy opponents. You wouldn't be one of them. Your guilt is so obvious that if I thought more of you I'd feel constrained to blush for you.

...

Perhaps nothing Scalia et al. did revealed their consciousness of guilt more than the total lack of legal stature they reposed in their decision. Appellate court decisions, particularly those of the highest court in the land, all enunciate and stand for legal principles. Not just litigants but the courts themselves cite prior holdings as support for a legal proposition they are espousing. But the Court knew that its ruling (that differing standards for counting votes violate the equal protection clause) could not possibly be a constitutional principle cited in the future by themselves, other courts or litigants. Since different methods of counting votes exist throughout the fifty states (e.g., Texas counts dimpled chads, California does not), forty-four out of the fifty states do not have uniform voting methods, and voting equipment and mechanisms in all states necessarily vary in design, upkeep and performance, to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country.

This, obviously, was an extremely serious problem for the felonious five to deal with. What to do? Not to worry. Are you ready for this one? By that I mean, are you sitting down, since if you're standing, this is the type of thing that could affect your physical equilibrium. Unbelievably, the Court wrote that its ruling was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." (That's pure, unadulterated moonshine. The ruling sets forth a very simple, noncomplex proposition--that if there are varying standards to count votes, this violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer to prior decisions of this court." Of the thousands of potential equal protection voting cases, the Court was only interested in, and eager to grant relief to, one person and one person only, George W. Bush. Is there any limit to the effrontery and shamelessness of these five right-wing Justices? Answer: No. This point number six here, all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President.

...

These five Justices, by their conduct, have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct.

Why, one may ask, have I written this article? I'll tell you why. I'd like to think, like most people, that I have a sense of justice. In my mind's eye, these five Justices have gotten away with murder, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure that they pay dearly for their crime. Though they can't be prosecuted, I want them to know that there's at least one American out there (and hopefully many more because of this article) who knows (not thinks, but knows) precisely who they are. I want these five Justices to know that because of this article, which I intend to send to each one of them by registered mail, there's the exponential possibility that when many Americans look at them in the future, they'll be saying, "Why are these people in robes seated above me? They all belong behind bars." I want these five Justices to know that this is America, not a banana republic, and in the United States of America, you simply cannot get away with things like this.

...

The right of every American citizen to have his or her vote counted, and for Americans (not five unelected Justices) to choose their President was callously and I say criminally jettisoned by the Court's majority to further its own political ideology. If there is such a thing as a judicial hell, these five Justices won't have to worry about heating bills in their future. Scalia and Thomas in particular are not only a disgrace to the judiciary but to the legal profession, for years being nothing more than transparent shills for the right wing of the Republican Party. If the softest pillow is a clear conscience, these five Justices are in for some hard nights. But if they aren't troubled by what they did, then we're dealing with judicial sociopaths, people even more frightening than they already appear to be.

The Republican Party had a good candidate for President, John McCain. Instead, it nominated perhaps the most unqualified person ever to become President, and with the muscular, thuggish help of the Court, forced Bush down the throats of more than half the nation's voters. As Linda Greenhouse wrote in the New York Times, when Rehnquist administers the presidential oath of office to Bush on January 20, for the first time in our nation's history the Chief Justice will not just be a prop in the majestic ceremony but a player. Rehnquist will be swearing in someone he made sure would be President. Obscenity has its place in a free and open society, but it's in the seedy, neon-light part of town, not on the steps of the nation's Capitol being viewed by millions of Americans on television screens throughout the land.

That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?

...

The ruling was so bad that it was very difficult to find even conservative legal scholars who supported it, and when the few who attempted to do so stepped up to the plate, their observations were simply pathetic. University of California, Berkeley, law professor John Yoo, a former law clerk for Thomas, wrote that "we should balance the short-term hit to the court's legitimacy with whether...it was in the best interest of the country to end the electoral crisis." Translation: If an election is close, it's better for the Supreme Court to pick the President, whether or not he won the election, than to have the dispute resolved in the manner prescribed by law. Pepperdine Law School's Douglas Kmiec unbelievably wrote that "the ruling of the US Supreme Court was not along partisan or ideological lines," and that its ruling "protected our cherished democratic tradition with a soundly reasoned, per curiam voice of restraint." I won't dignify this with a translation.

...

Vincent Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials as a Los Angeles deputy district attorney, including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. His prosecution of Charles Manson was the basis for his true-crime bestseller, Helter Skelter (Bantam). He is also the author of Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder (Island). Copyright © Vincent Bugliosi, January 3, 2001.

None Dare Call It Treason



-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 13, 2001

Answers

Treason

-- Try This (link@help.com), February 13, 2001.



-- (W@nted.for treason), February 13, 2001.

Make that ‘Lauded For Reason’.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.

BTW, Vincent Bugliosi is a self-serving rabble-rouser that is all about making money for himself. I am involved with a small investment group that has worked with Bugliosi on two separate book/movie projects. He is preaching to the wrong choir on this subject as his target audience has already spent their book money on last nights ‘fix’.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.

Barry, what about the points there were addressed? Does it make any difference to the facts who the author is? Come on.. address the points. Can you?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 13, 2001.


Why would I bother Cherri? It should come as no surprise to you that I am overjoyed that the SC stepped in and stopped the liberal left from their bullshit attempt to re-count the re-count of the re-count. The ‘points’ you refer to are just more spin to me….not worthy of additional comment, IMHO. Mr. B is full of shit here and his motives are profit driven ( I did love his take on the O.J. travesty). We now have the best President this country could hope for and the Clinton white trash are on the run. Life Is Good!

-- Barry (barry@knaent.com), February 13, 2001.

Vincent, Vincent is that really you? Sharon, Amy and I have been waiting for our royalty checks. It isn't fair that Charlie & Squeaky get all the rollover money from your books.

-- The LaBiancas (home@last..), February 14, 2001.

Vincent Bugliosi is a self-serving rabble-rouser that is all about making money for himself.

But...but...but that's the 'Merican way! Look where it got Dubya!

-- Quiet (Knight@Camelot.com), February 14, 2001.


You know what we all need is more of them sunglasses. Yep, you know the ones Roddy Piper had in the flick "They Live".

Maybe even get our hands on the advanced model used by the photographer to snap the mugs of the USSC dudes above. Seems these aliens are mutating into some bizarre bozoland nightmare. Figures, they are smart the buggers, but not smart enough, wink wink.

Peace brothers, we gunna need it me thinks. Our plan is working btw, these mutantfreaks actually think we all "into" the wwfwrasling and XFL thing. Bet they would melt if they knew we plot their demise while there, hahaha.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 14, 2001.


Gosh, it's really pitiful when a formerly-famous prosecutor writes a sensationalist book in an effort to make something out of nothing, trying to get his name "back out in front".

Kind of reminds me of a certain has-been computer programmer who wrote a couple of sensationalist books a couple of years ago, for a similar purpose.

Much ado about nothing, in both cases.

-- Chicken Little (cluck@cluck.com), February 14, 2001.



You mean this guy actually had a paying job at one time? I realize with the economy the way its been it is hard to find good help, but come on, would you pay this guy?

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), February 14, 2001.

Doc, thanks for the trip down memory lane. ‘They Live’ has to be one of those obscure classics that will hang around forever and gather a cult following. I will buy it in DVD version if I can locate it. BTW, Piper was not too bad in this flick.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 14, 2001.

Typical lame responses from GOP traitors who view the disenfranchisement of 50 million Americans as just and cannot even rebut a single point Bugliosi makes, not a single point. All you can do is attack a man who has won 105 out of 106 felony trials as some kind of "loser" (laughter).

You people are absolutely shameless. Our great nation is in the hands of rank criminals who brazenly stole democracy right in front of our eyes and you say, Barry, "I'm overjoyed! I'm really glad treason was committed against Lady Liberty, I'm glad the majority of American voters were screwed over good!"

Why not move to f*ckin' Cuba you pinko traitor.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 14, 2001.


Coup-

You know these folks are only interested in the rule of law as it serves them. You know they cannot be bothered to actually research the law, read the case histories, and draw some kind of conclusions based on the rule of law.

They cannot refute anything as they refuse to look at the statutes and the case histories to see if certain judicial principles were upheld or not.

We are in machiavellian times, when folks who "got their way" in this election do not care how they got it-the end justified the means.

I am with this author. There is no getting over the injustice that was done. I continue to be politically active and will continue to fight this illegitimate president at every turn.

Yep. Call me a misguided whiner. But it is a sad day in America that the holding dear to one's own principles, as I try to do, is considered to by the province of whiners and losers(ask Flint).

Political freedom is the ability to pursue one's own beliefs at the polls, and simply decrying my agenda as the result of vacuous thinking is a terrible, terrible tactic.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 14, 2001.


"Typical lame responses from GOP traitors who view the disenfranchisement of 50 million Americans..."

Ha ha ha, better than 'disenfranchising' the other 50 million!!!!

-- (back@you.you), February 14, 2001.



"back at you," Gore won the popular vote by a margin that now approaches 700,000. Gore's huge winning margin far outshadows your "fifty million" asshole.

-- GORE WON (gop@criminals.com), February 14, 2001.

"Yep. Call me a misguided whiner."

FS, you're not a "misguided whiner." You're a well-guided winner. Your party and my party won. We know that, and Republicans know it, and even the Washington Post is reporting Gore won Florida, but these traitors continue to justify their defense of criminality and felony against the nation with absolutely nothing to back them up.

I am fighting too, very much so, on the local level. I know dozens of people who are enraged and will fight the coup d'etat. I have even read shocked letters from decent Republicans who have the honesty and courage to admit what has happened to the nation and the decency to defend Democracy over their selfish narrow interests.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 14, 2001.


Yadda, yadda, yadda.....as I said before FS and Coup, call the White House and ask for Al Gore. Have a nice day and try not to trip over your neurosis.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 14, 2001.

Man, Bugliosi's gone bug-eyed over this, ain't he?

At any rate, this stuff's been endlessly responded to, which is why, I suppose, no one's rising to this particular bait. Since I don't really post here very often, I'll have a little go at it...

Central to Bugliosi's indictment of the Supremes is the idea that they were 100% wrong to invoke "equal protection" arguments against the Florida recount because different *states* have different standards. He passes this off as a GIVEN, unworthy of discussion.

The states are allowed to make their own election laws. They need not agree from state to state - BUT they still have to pass muster constitutionally. Equal protection was violated WITHIN the state of Florida. It was flamingly obvious by the differing standards being used that the very same ballot counted in one Florida county would be thrown out in another.

If equal protection in election law were extended across state boundaries, then those laws would have to be uniform, i.e. federally mandated. I read the court's ruling as saying "each state can have its own laws, but it has to guarantee equal protection to its voters." And, as I recall, the SC vote was 7-2 on the equal protection issue (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going from memory here).

Which reminds me, the justices I really take issue with are the two who said "yes, there's an equal protection problem, but don't stop the recounts." Explain that...

Outside of that, I have to say that the collected opinions of the Supreme Court on this ruling are pretty shabbily done. I am unimpressed.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 14, 2001.


Let's see: 700,000 / 50,000,000 = 0.014

1.4% Yeah, big margin.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 14, 2001.


Yadda, yadda, yadda.....as I said before FS and Coup, call the White House and ask for Al Gore. Have a nice day and try not to trip over your neurosis.

Beach Ass: Grow up. When will you ever be able to speak without putting everyone down? You are such a dick.

-- Barry is an ass (Barry@is.anass), February 14, 2001.


(1). Grow up.

Not today

(2). Beach Ass

The best kind

(3). You are such a dick.

Refer to #2

(4). When will you ever be able to speak without putting everyone down?

Not everyone anon, just delusional liberals.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 14, 2001.


(2). Beach Ass

The best kind

(3). You are such a dick.

Refer to #2

Yeah right.

It is male ego's like yours who only wish they had it going on.

If you did have it going on, your silly ass would not be hanging on forums all day long.

Bet you dont even have a job.

-- Barry is an ass (Barry@is.anass), February 14, 2001.


Coup2k, Cherri, Doc Paulie, FutureShock, & various liberal anons,

Where you all fail in regards to your critique of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision is that you disregard the prior actions of the Florida Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court would never have been forced to rule in the way that they did, (or to rule in any way, for that matter,) if it had not been for the unconstitutional rulings from the Florida Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution states that the legislature of a state sets the rules and procedures for Presidential elections, not the judiciary. The Florida Supreme Court decided that the Florida legislature's legal deadline was not to their liking, so they took it upon themselves to rewrite the law to try and suit their (read: Al Gore's) needs.

This unconstitutional move was thwarted by the Bush camp appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had overstepped their bounds; but the Florida Supreme Court basically ignored the U.S. Supreme Court and continued pushing their agenda with their subsequent ruling. It was these unconstitutional rulings by the lower court that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule correctly (albeit awkwardly) in favor of upholding the law and the Constitution.

If you have a gripe about a court, it should be with the one in Talahassee, not the one in Washington, D.C.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 14, 2001.

Good point J - two questions I was going to add to my above post, but didn't have time:

1) If, as Bugliosi insists, the USSC was determined to "install" Bush as praesident, why did they give the Florida SC a second chance to set up a cosnstitutionally valid recount?

2) Why isn't more anger turned towards the FSC, who pissed away the last best chance to get a recount done?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 14, 2001.


“If you did have it going on, your silly ass would not be hanging on forums all day long.”

I do appreciate the humor in this statement although there is a good chance it will be lost on this anon poster. However, the wording from this person is now ringing a familiar bell, kind of a mind altered Buckeye ring to it. Can I buy a vowel? ‘U’ or an ‘E’ maybe?

BTW, the owner of our company has given me permission to visit this forum whenever I chose. He’s a great guy and he and I are like one, if you get my meaning. We are both looking forward to a sweet reduction of our tax base and perhaps we’ll go in together and purchase a new Lexus, maybe a muffler or two for good measure.

Have a very nice day!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 14, 2001.


RC, regarding your equal protection argument, let Bugliosi answer:

From the beginning, Bush desperately sought, as it were, to prevent the opening of the door, the looking into the box--unmistakable signs that he feared the truth. In a nation that prides itself on openness, instead of the Supreme Court doing everything within its power to find a legal way to open the door and box, they did the precise opposite in grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for President, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'état, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause--the Court asserting that because of the various standards of determining the voter's intent in the Florida counties, voters were treated unequally, since a vote disqualified in one county (the so-called undervotes, which the voting machines did not pick up) may have been counted in another county, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards. But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?

And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?

Gore's lawyer, David Boies, never argued either of the above points to the Court. Also, since Boies already knew (from language in the December 9 emergency order of the Court) that Justice Scalia, the Court's right-wing ideologue; his Pavlovian puppet, Clarence Thomas, who doesn't even try to create the impression that he's thinking; and three other conservatives on the Court (William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) intended to deodorize their foul intent by hanging their hat on the anemic equal protection argument, wouldn't you think that he and his people would have come up with at least three or four strong arguments to expose it for what it was--a legal gimmick that the brazen, shameless majority intended to invoke to perpetrate a judicial hijacking in broad daylight? And made sure that he got into the record of his oral argument all of these points? Yet, remarkably, Boies only managed to make one good equal protection argument, and that one near the very end of his presentation, and then only because Justice Rehnquist (not at Boies's request, I might add) granted him an extra two minutes. If Rehnquist hadn't given him the additional two minutes, Boies would have sat down without getting even one good equal protection argument into the record.

This was Boies's belated argument: "Any differences as to how this standard [to determine voter intent] is interpreted have a lot less significance in terms of what votes are counted or not counted than simply the differences in machines that exist throughout the counties of Florida." A more powerful way to make Boies's argument would have been to point out to the Court the reductio ad absurdum of the equal protection argument. If none of the undervotes were counted because of the various standards to count them, then to be completely consistent the Court would have had no choice but to invalidate the entire Florida election, since there is no question that votes lost in some counties because of the method of voting would have been recorded in others utilizing a different method.1 [Footnotes on page 7] How would the conservative majority have gotten around that argument without buckling on the counting of the undervotes? Of course, advice after a mistake is like medicine after death. And as we shall see, no matter what Boies argued, the five conservative Justices had already made up their minds. But it would have been delightful to see how these Justices, forced to stare into the noonday sun, would have attempted to avoid a confrontation with the truth.

-- You Don't Have a Leg to Stand On (your@argument.is.hollow), February 14, 2001.


Questions for Mr. Leg:

1) Is it possible for you to answer things directly, or do you only speak in cut & paste?

2) Can you not see that Vince's "coin flip" argument here is a little weak? Is this the best he's got? David Boies is not a total idiot. Do you think there might have been a REASON why he didn't argue these points in front of the Supremes?

3) Can you not see the SCREAMING contradiction in these two sentences, which are right next to each other in your C&P:

a) (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.)

b) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?

On the one hand, he pounds the table with his fist demanding "THE TRUTH".

On the other, he argues that the little inequities engendered by the differing counting standards will come out in the "wash".

There are some good, thought provoking articles out there on the problems with this election/recount process. Then there are steaming loads like Bugliosi's pinched off here. Try to C&P something better.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 14, 2001.


On the one hand, he pounds the table with his fist demanding "THE TRUTH".

On the other, he argues that the little inequities engendered by the differing counting standards will come out in the "wash".

I'm afraid I don't see the "screaming" contradiction. The truth would have come out if the votes had been counted despite the trifling differences in how various counties recorded votes.

But -- no matter. The truth is coming out now. Gore won Florida.

There are some good, thought provoking articles out there on the problems with this election/recount process.

Okay, I'll take your word on it. Just post one here by a respected trial lawyer or legal scholar (not a right-wing journalist, please) that defends the Supreme Court decision. I'll look forward to reading it.

-- No Leg to Stand on Still, RC (looking@a.leg), February 14, 2001.


J:::The U.S. Constitution states that the legislature of a state sets the rules and procedures for Presidential elections, not the judiciary. The Florida Supreme Court decided that the Florida legislature's legal deadline was not to their liking, so they took it upon themselves to rewrite the law to try and suit their (read: Al Gore's) needs. 102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties
(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
J problem types like you have is you simply are very badly uniformed on this Florida business. We spent weeks on this. I posted many links and excerpts from the exact LAWS and was badmouthed and called a loonie. You can believe any damn thing ya want. Truth however is the LAW was vague and required judicial action. Being this was a statistical tie and a Presidential election, did you expect they wouldn't?
The USSC action is completely without warrant. Their ruling is as ridiculous as ever seen. Don't believe me, do some research. Bugliosi is but one of hundreds calling this deal the joke of the century.
America is adrift. We have a President without a clue. Happy now?

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.

"He’s a great guy and he and I are like one, if you get my meaning."

Yeah, I think I get it. Some people will do anything for money. Disgusting.

-- (Ra.plays.bitch@for.paycheck), February 15, 2001.


such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.

What's vague about that?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 15, 2001.


Hey, what’s up Hawk? I would expect a dim bulb like you to miss the point. But then, that’s why you are so entertaining and predictable. What part of the ‘he and I are like one’ did you not get? ROTFLMAO

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 15, 2001.

“If you did have it going on, your silly ass would not be hanging on forums all day long.” I do appreciate the humor in this statement although there is a good chance it will be lost on this anon poster. However, the wording from this person is now ringing a familiar bell, kind of a mind altered Buckeye ring to it. Can I buy a vowel? ‘U’ or an ‘E’ maybe?

Barry IF you are 'hinting' that I said that, why not come out and ask?

sumer

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 15, 2001.


Or is it just Hawk and I who are your favorites to pick at?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 15, 2001.

Leggy,

"I'm afraid I don't see the "screaming" contradiction. The truth would have come out if the votes had been counted despite the trifling differences in how various counties recorded votes."

A vote would have been counted as valid in one county, and tossed out in another. That's "trifling"? Hard for me to imagine a more fundamental and important difference than that.

But congratulations are in order - you've just admitted that it's really NOT that important to you that EVERY SINGLE LITTLE VOTE be counted. The "truth" you're looking for is not the truth of an all-encompassing accurate recount, it's the "truth" that Gore should be Prez... which may be actually true, but is far from a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure that it's quantifiably provable under the circumstances.

I am, BTW, a registered Demmycrat, not that that means anything, but I don't troll around right-wing web sites for cut'n'paste material. It's against my religion (and I'm expecting my first big "faith-based" check any day now).

Now that I've at least attempted to address Bugliosi's bilge, maybe you'll do me the honor on commenting on a few of the questions that have been raised:

- if Bugliosi's coin flip metaphor is such a torpedo to the equal protection argument, why didn't David Boies pursue it with the USSC?

- if the USSC was so dead set on "installing" a president, why did they give the Florida SC a second chance to set recount standards that would pass constitutional muster?

- why aren't people like you more upset with the Florida SC, whose ineptitude, it seems to me, cost Gore his last chance at getting his recounts done?

- how the heck do you explain the two USSC justices who wrote opinions that there were equal protection problems inherent in the ongoing recounts, yet voted NOT to stop them?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 15, 2001.


Randy, I agree with your points and I'm amazed that liberals have a tough time with this.

The Florida SC had overstepped their bounds on this. The USSC tried to clean up their poop, patted them on the head and told them to try again. The FSC messed up once again, not only did they overturn a circuit court decision, when it couldn't be proven that something was wrong with the votes, but they also allowed vote "counts" that went beyond *their own stated* deadline.

In the USSC, Bois was asked how he would recommend counting the votes. After all we needed to have a uniform method across the state. He couldn't answer. This, in my mind, was the very heart of the debate. There is no way one can change the counting rules after an election. Any answer by the democrates wouldn't hold water. The votes were counted and recounted acccording to the rules prior to the election. Too bad Gore lost.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 16, 2001.


We watched in amazement, some of us delighted and others appalled, as the FSC ran roughshod over the lower courts, the US Supreme Court, the constitution, the law, and even *themselves* in their desire to help Gore.

So it's worth noting that the FSC judges are *elected*. In a political case, they aren't arbiters of the law, they are simply partisan politicians working to get their party into power, whatever it takes.

We are fortunate that *real* judges finally put a stop to this, but it does raise interesting issues about handling tie elections. What we did was, in essence, FORCE the courts to name the president. The result was guaranteed to be unsatisfactory, just as surely as it's unsatisfactory to let the fans vote to determine the winner of a ballgame. It doesn't matter WHO wins when the decision is in the wrong hands, it's still the wrong way to decide, and the losers have a legitimate gripe.

Changing the rules after the election in the hopes of reversing the results is the worst thing anyone can do -- *even if* the proposed new rules are entirely reasonable and clearly superior to the old ones. Those who want continued counts according to new, more reasonable standards, to determine the "real" winner are being dangerously short-sighted. They might get their approved winner this time, but they have set a precedent whereby the losing side can in the future keep changing the rules until the winner changes. This is a terrible precedent. If a decision they lose isn't final, then later a decision they win won't be final either. And THEN, and only then, will people like "coup2k" realize that if the principles don't count, the winners don't either.

We all want to call the coin *after* it's come to a stop. But none of us want the *other guy* to have this privilege. What characterizes a banana republic is that the losers, like "coup2k", refuse to accept a loss, and are unwilling to work to win the next time. We are all fortunate that our politicians (and military leaders) know better. If they believed like "coup2k", this country would consist of dozens of little dirt poor dictatorships. Food for thought.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 16, 2001.


Doc Paulie,

You wrote, "J problem types like you have is you simply are very badly uniformed on this Florida business".

I am not sure exactly what it is that you are trying to say, but I will assume that you are disagreeing with me.

Your opinion that "the LAW was vague and required judicial action", does not make it truth. Nor does my opinion that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped their bounds, make it truth.

All of you that are upset with the way things turned out can whine all that you want, and bring out hundreds or even thousands of opinion pieces claiming that the five conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices are Satan's demons in the flesh, for all that I care.

The truth is that they have ruled. What is done, is done. If you don't like it, write to your representatives that you want the "offending" justices impeached. That's your remedy. Or, if you feel so tremendously aggrieved, take up your arms and try to throw the "tyrants" out by force.

The predominately "gun control" liberal left trying to mount an armed insurrection, that I would like to see.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 16, 2001.

These recent postings are without any merit. If the Supreme Court had simply allowed Florida to count all its votes according to varying county standards, as the law allows, or even according to a single uniform standard, then we would have known who the winner was.

Actually, that has been done -- and we now know who won Florida. Al Gore is the legitimate president of the United States, legally and decisively elected by te majority of Americans. He garnered the largest popular vote of any American president ever next to Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court by any stretch of the imagination committed a crime that is beyond measure. The enormity of this treason, which we have yet to fully apprehend and digest, will resonate infamously for centuries.

Critics of the Florida Surpreme Court have been by and large all from the hard right. I will not engage in argument about the FSC because Doc Paulie has already again and again, here and on other threads, competently decimated all your bogus arguments against it. Yet you continue to whine. Read his comments, his links, and ponder the law and evidence for yourselves.

In contrast, the critics of the Supreme Court have crossed partisan boundaries -- there is simply no defense of the felonious five, even from the right. If you read the exerpts above, even the most conservative legal scholars were baffled by the total lack of historial legal basis, not to mention precendent, for the Surpreme Court's ruling. What they tried to pull out of literally thin air proved to have no relation whatsoever to their "argument." A first year law student wouldn't have gotten away with such gross intellectual incompetence and dishonesty.

RC was asked to find even ONE, JUST ONE, scholarly defense of the Supreme Court's decision, and he has to date been unable to produce it. Nor have you other traitors to Democracy. That's because a reasonable defense simply does not exist. Saying that "force" had to be employed when there was plenty of time to use the rule of law (the "Yoo argument") does not even merit comment, so preposterous and amoral is such reasoning in a democracy.

Again, move to Cuba if you think "force" is ever justified in determining democratic elections!

In any case, it's useless arguing with intellectual lightweights and those who openly -- even shamelessly -- defend what is by any reckoning flat-out treasonous. Enjoy your cramped little hell of complicity and betrayal to the United States of America folks.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 16, 2001.


Best laugh I've had in ages, Coup! Thanks!

You really DO only speak in cut & paste, don't you? Do you have any opinions of your own? You've studiously avoided responding to any of the questions raised here (dismissing them with a wave of your hand doesn't count, I think they're DAMN meritirous points)- and I don't recall Doc having addressed them, either, tho I don't have the time to read every post here - yet I'm supposed to have gone out and found you some "scholarly research". Especially trenchant, considering the crappy Bugliosi C&P you started this thread with.

I'll make you a deal - you respond as best you can to the questions above - go back to Doc's posts if you need to, but at least TRY to put them in your own words - and I will go out and try to find some written support for the USSC's ruling and bring it back here.

Deal?

RC

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 17, 2001.


(sigh)

- if Bugliosi's coin flip metaphor is such a torpedo to the equal protection argument, why didn't David Boies pursue it with the USSC?

Hindsight is 20/20. Boies was working under incredible time pressure, and did not have the luxury of thorough analysis, as did Bugliosi after the fact. Perhaps Boies is simply not as great a lawyer as Bugliosi.

- if the USSC was so dead set on "installing" a president, why did they give the Florida SC a second chance to set recount standards that would pass constitutional muster?

The whole point is that the Supreme Court did NOT give Florida a real chance to set recount standards that would work. The FSC was trying to ensure that all votes would be counted. That they were not able to fashion a perfect remedy under the time constraints is no surprise, as it is no surprise Boies did not think of Bugliosi's arguments before Bugliosi did.

Imperfection in the FSC's ruling is no excuse to shut a vote down by force, RC. You go back to the drawing table and figure out a way to count those votes. At least, that's the American way, to keep trying until you find a solution. Shutting down a vote is not the American way, though it's fitting in a totalitarian regime.

- why aren't people like you more upset with the Florida SC, whose ineptitude, it seems to me, cost Gore his last chance at getting his recounts done?

Basic difference here RC, and try to apprehend the simplicity of it: The Bush campaign argued that the Florida Supreme Court was changing the rules of the game. Gore's lawyers argued that the Court had simply reconciled statutory conflicts in a manner congruent with the entire statutory scheme; something Harris was supposed to do, but failed to do. The subtle, but significant difference between Harris's decision and the Court's was that the former was trying to prevent votes from being counted while the latter was trying to make sure that all the votes are counted.

Once the Supreme Court realized that the Florida Supreme Court had taken a page from Harris's own play book, they shut the vote down. - how the heck do you explain the two USSC justices who wrote opinions that there were equal protection problems inherent in the ongoing recounts, yet voted NOT to stop them?

It's the difference between some undervoters possibly losing a vote under differing county standards to ALL the undervotes losing their vote because they shut the vote down.

Why is this so hard to grasp, RC? These justices were willing to admit there might have been an equal protection claim at issue, but were not willing to sacrifice ALL the undercounted votes to uphold a claim that no one had made except, incredibly, Bush himself.

Of course, the real equal protection violation took place when the Supreme Court cut off the counting. Besides invalidating 60,000 undercounts in Florida, it denied 50 million plus Gore voters nationwide the right to have their votes count at all. In light of how very enormous that crime really is, the disenfranchisement not only of a rightful president but the millions of Americans who voted for him, your questions, RC, are simply trivial.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 17, 2001.


J

Clinton is no longer President, when are the extremist going to figure that one out? They may have had a beef for the entire eight years Slick was Prez, what is their reasoning now?

and you have the sheer nerve to tell the majority of voters to "get over it"? and me specifically to "deal with it"? to deal with the fact a ton of votes which would have elected Al Gore the President, were systematically tossed to perserve Junior's Fox Announced Win?

Fox being the network which spews Alien-autopsies, Fake Apollo/Moon landings, and all manner of one-sided politcal crap they claim is balanced.

It was NEVER about anything but installing GWBush as president.

"Coup2k" laid it out better than I ever could. Equal Protection? The USSC decision is beyond laughable, it is the height of arrogance is what it was.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


The claim that Supreme Court justices with whom you disagree somehow become "criminals" as a result, is a claim devoid of any intellectual content, and with all the emotional depth of a 2-year-old denied his lollipop.

The idea that we should abandon our constitution and history, in order to make ad hoc quick-fixes to keep babies from crying, is ludicrous. Anyone who feels that way needs serious professional help. Education would be wasted.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


The claim that Supreme Court justices with whom you disagree

Oh, it's not just I who disagree. It's every law professor in the country worth his or her salt. Show me a respectable article that defends what the Supreme Court did by a distinguished law professor or scholar. So far, we haven't seen a single one. Of course, there are dozens of impassioned and outraged scholarly essays that have eloquently and rightly protested the decision.

somehow become "criminals" as a result,

If abusing the power vested in you to protect and defend THE LAW merely to gain short-term political ends at the expense of the Presidency itself and tens of millions of Americans whose votes were callowly tossed aside is NOT criminal, what is it, Flint? Laudable? (laughter)

is a claim devoid of any intellectual content,

If you want "intellectual content," read the essay by Bugliosi.

and with all the emotional depth of a 2-year-old denied his lollipop.

So tens of millions of Gore supporters are now 2-year-olds? Clearly, the toddler here is traitor Flint, who cannot defend the indefensible, and therefore resorts to childish characterizations.

The idea that we should abandon our constitution and history,

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court did in ruling under no precedent, with no historical rulings as a basis, and for this case only.

in order to make ad hoc quick-fixes to keep babies from crying,

So counting all the votes is a "quick fix"? More childish ad hominem attacks from an adult baby down South. Clearly, the "quick fix" was getting Bush installed at any cost.

is ludicrous. Anyone who feels that way needs serious professional help. Education would be wasted.

Flint, you obviously are the ludicrous party here. You haven't made a serious argument to defend the court, because you cannot. What the Supreme Court did was irrational and would itself border on ludicrous if it were not so intellectually repugnant and grossly treasonous.

Under your "reasoning," the great bulk of legal academia in American needs professional help.

As for wasted education, you personify it. Next time, try making a case instead of crude ad hominem attacks.

Now run along, little Flint, back to your beer and guns and leftover Y2k supplies which you rationally stockpiled (laughter).

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 17, 2001.


coup:

I read whole rafts of legal opinions of the Supreme Court decision. My reading was that every legal scholar who voted for Gore found the decision deplorable, while those who voted for Bush all found it preferable. In general, 90% of law professors or thereabouts voted for Gore, so the liberal media quoted extensively from academics. Practicing lawyers tended toward Bush, and saw merit in that decision. Imagine that!

So OK, you and a selected group who share your opinion, disagree with the USSC. In fact, it's fairly common for some of the USSC justices themselves to disagree with their own decisions, since split decisions are common. But this doesn't make either side criminal in any way. The USSC has made decisions that I and many who agree with me have found absolutely reprehensible. But over the course of time, bad decisions get overruled or eroded away, so be patient and the pendulum will swing your way.

Otherwise, what do you propose we do about this terrible decision? Do you recommend we write ignorant rants to obscure internet fora? Do you propose that the military conquer Washington DC, execute the traitorous justices you disagree with, and install the puppet president of their choice? What if their choice isn't your choice? Can't vote out the military, you know, so be *very* careful what you wish for.

As far as I can tell, rather than make the best of what you consider a bad thing (which is actually to everyone's advantage whether they know it or not, trust me!) you seem to be rolling around the floor kicking and screaming and pounding your fists. If you have any proposals beyond acting like a baby and calling people names, let's hear them. I'd really like to know how you suggest we overrule the Supreme Court, *especially* without killing the patient to cure the hangnail. Do you have any suggestions?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


Flint:

The FSC was in a weird position. They weren't just asked to honor delays. They were asked to give their opinion on what votes counted and what votes didn't. They could easily rule in favor of a delay without violating anything, and they did. On the OTHER issue, they were faced with "defining" a vote. Had they "defined" a vote, they would be violating Florida laws stating that the rules in place at the time of the election should be honored. Realizing that there was no consistency to these rules throughout districts, they said something that equated to "People go to the polls to vote. If one can discern the will of the voter, make it so." [I know I'm taking a lot of license here in paraphrasing, but this is, essentially, what it boils down to.]

This pissed off the Bush team, and the USSC got involved. First, they looked at the FSC ruling and said that it wasn't concrete enough, so sent it back for further explanation. The FSC dragged their heels on a response, but responded with pretty much the explanation I gave above. The USSC then said that they SHOULD HAVE defined a method of deciphering votes, and since they didn't, the whole recount thing should stop. They went on in their arguments, [and I won't even go into the unworthiness of those arguments.]

Coup2K is [certainly] not the only person who noticed this, and he/she has a point on the USSC ruling regarding the folks who have commented on same. There's nary a constitutional scholar around who can look at the USSC decision and [at the very least] not balk at the suggestion that this decision only applies to this ONE time, here and now. In addition, the precedent for such a decision doesn't exist.

It's getting late, and I fear I'll start rambling on this, but the USSC has been placed in a position wherein the public has had an eye on them, and it didn't help when Sandra uttered her fears that Bush may not have won. It didn't help when folks learned that Thomas' wife was recruiting folks for the Bush cabinet, and it sure as hell didn't help when folks realized that Scalia's lawyer sons were both working for firms involved with the Bush campaign.

In a nutshell, there are legal, logical, and emotional reasons for folks to be upset about the USSC decision. Of course this is the world as *I* see it. Since I'm not a Democrat, and since I've seen folks who have been lifetime Republicans balk at this whole thing, I consider myself to be a little less interested in the "results", and a whole lot more interested in how we got there than perhaps your average person.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Anita:

Yes, there were severe structural problems in Florida and everywhere else, waiting for just such an event. This problem will always arise when our voting technology is less accurate than necessary to resolve what is essentially a tie, and no procedures are really in place to handle the situation.

It should be clear that the Florida vote was simply too close to call with any confidence of accuracy whatsoever. They could count all the votes by the same rules N times and probably each candidate would win N/2 counts just at random. You are correct that a "vote" was not defined clearly enough to resolve the conflicts we saw. So we had a catch-22: If we established a definition, we were changing the rules after the election which is a no-no. But if we did NOT establish a definition, how could we ever pick a winner the losing side (whichever it was) could possibly have any confidence in?

Anita, when the available data are insufficient to make such a determination, they are NOT SUFFICIENT! No reliable determination can be made. You can count and recount ballots until Hell freezes over, but unless you FABRICATE data, you do not have it. We did not have it. The claim that Yet Another Recount, but "more careful this time", will somehow determine the "real" winner is an illusion. It was obvious to everyone that who won depended on who was counting, and that this situation COULD NOT BE IMPROVED.

Now, the question is, is it better for the USSC to say "we have a winner, stop the counting", or is it better for them to say "come up with consistent rules, count all the votes again, and then let's start over." Because we KNEW that the "contested ballot" pile was *guaranteed* to be large enough to swing the election. Should the remedy be a lawsuit over each and every one of them?

I personally believe that given these circumstances, sooner or later we'd end up in the same position -- where the "winner", not determinable even in theory, would have to be picked by either the legislature or the courts, and MUCH preferably the legislature. But for better or worse (I believe for worse), it was the courts that finally put a stop to this process of fighting over tea-leaf reading.

But it was NEVER the ballots themselves that would have decided this election. And if the USSC had decided the other way, and the election come down to a pile of contested ballots, THEN what should have been done to satisfy the losing side that their interests hadn't been steamrolled, no matter which way the coin flip went?

Finally, let's understand that a decision was made. As far as I'm concerned, they *really could* have flipped a coin, so long as enough people agreed that was "fair" for them. But now what?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


“But now what?”

Well……………..as individuals, we can wish for President Bush the greatest of success, which will serve our own selfish interests.

Or, clinging to a loser’s angst, we can wish for terrible failures to rain down on him, which smacks of masochistic tendencies.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 18, 2001.


Ra,

Do you mean that we can either get on with life or act like the republicans and conspiracy theorists have for the lasy eight years?

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@sper.com), February 18, 2001.


Flint:

Heck...if I had a solution for the "Now What?", I'd be making tons of bucks on an A.M. radio talk show.

There's really nothing that CAN be done at this point until 2002 for folks who found the solution unsatisfactory. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Ghost:

I believe the line between loyal opposition and sore loser isn't all that difficult to see. We genuinely *need* the opposing party to do active opposing, because we always get into our worst and most inextricable problems when one party has more power than the other party can check and balance. No matter which one it may be.

We are fortunate that Bush is a centrist, and that the legislature is balanced, and that the USSC is also balanced, and so is the electorate. This is quite excellent, because nobody has enough sway to do anything of consequence, which is how government governs best.

Clinton faced an opposition legislature, so HE couldn't rock the boat. Bush was elected by a minority, and unlike Clinton he's predisposed to keep the boat steady. All the portents are positive.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 18, 2001.


Anita:

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it too. Keep your eye on who does what, and vote against those who do what you don't like. And as the default, remember H. L. Mencken's adage -- always vote against the incumbent!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 18, 2001.


Flint:

HUH?

We are fortunate that Bush is a centrist, and that the legislature is balanced, and that the USSC is also balanced, and so is the electorate. This is quite excellent, because nobody has enough sway to do anything of consequence, which is how government governs best.

I'd agree to a great deal of balance in the electorate and the legislature [assuming that I remember what those terms mean from High- School civics class]. I'd agree that Bush campaigned as a centrist, but I haven't seen centrist ideas being implemented. To ME, this means one of two things: 1) Bush is NOT a centrist, or 2) Bush has given control to those who are not. Then again, everything being relative, I suppose your idea of centrist is WAY to the right of mine.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Flint,

I would agree that a balance between parties is best because it doesn't let one strong party get into too much trouble. This is one of the underlying factors of our society which lends stability to our form of government and the nation. I also think that most people realize this fact instinctively which is why we get so many of these split party executive/legislative situations, not only on the federal level but the state level as well.

However, I would disagree with your characterization of Bush as a centrist. He does not strike me that way and the advisors he has and some of the appointments he has nominated certainly do not seem middle of the road types.

Everything will probably turn out for the best as it always seems to. What would make me feel better about the whole thing is if he just didn't seem to appear and sound so, so....... dumb (for lack of a better word). Of course a passionate Al Gore in the White House would probably get to me eventually.

I guess time will tell.

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@sper.com), February 18, 2001.


Anita and Ghost:

Bush looks centrist to many commentators, as well as to me. In fact, several editorials from sources with different reputations have been posted here, wherein the author expresses amazement that Bush isn't as arrogant as Clinton, that he appoints members of the opposing party to his cabinet, that he outdoes the Democrats in appointing blacks, hispanics, and women to important posts, that he declines opportunities to criticize the dems, that he starts with a tax proposal as bipartisan as any issue he favors, and so on and on and on. And indeed, he *must* forge alliances and make compromises if he hopes to implement anything of his program.

And as anyone could predict, the media clamp onto the more conservative appointments and turn them into "controversies", while of course the media applauded Clinton's wisdom in appointing his OWN extremists, since those people were all liberals. So the impression we are left with is that Bush has appointed one or two cabinet members, both horrible, and taken action on one or two policies, also both horrible. The rest somehow doesn't get any air time. And those who oppose Bush buy right into this depiction, and can't understand how Bush might be considered a centrist. Well, if the media focused near-exclusively on how ropy the elephant's tail was and I came along and said elephants are massive and stout, of course you'd be amazed at my distortions!

So watch and wait, and you will see. I don't give Bush my blanket support, because all my own red flags go up at anything that looks religious, which I regard as vestigial and pernicious superstition. Realistically, I recognize Bush must throw some sop to these cretins, there are enough in this country to be a voting bloc. But if it's more than lip service, I start campaigning for Gore in '04 right now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 18, 2001.


Flint:

I can certainly understand that we would have different perceptions of this administration regarding centrism. On the following, however, another candidate might be preferable to us both.

But if it's more than lip service, I start campaigning for Gore in '04 right now.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.


Coup: "Hindsight is 20/20. Boies was working under incredible time pressure, and did not have the luxury of thorough analysis, as did Bugliosi after the fact. Perhaps Boies is simply not as great a lawyer as Bugliosi."

Not a very satisfying answer, is it? The logical and statistical background of the various recount processes were sliced and diced on this very forum WEEKS before the shit hit the USSC. What a bunch of freekin' geniuses we are! Seriously, you seem to be saying that David Boies may have cost Gore the presidency (as implied by Bugliosi, too). Again, why no anger directed at him?

I'll stick to my opinion: Boies knew that, while standing under the COUNT EVERY VOTE banner, trying to dismiss the difference in vote counting standards as "trivial" was NOT a strong argument. Therefore, he hardly brought it up at all.

Coup: "The whole point is that the Supreme Court did NOT give Florida a real chance to set recount standards that would work."

They absolutely DID give the FSC a second chance to set up a constitutionally valid recount (maybe not in so many words, but even some of the stupider TV pundits saw it that way). The FSC failed to do so. The USSC then decided to apply the standing deadlines and shut down the whole process. You may argue that this was an arbitrary decision - the point is certainly debatable - but you can't deny that the FSC had the opportunity do do it right.

Coup: "The FSC was trying to ensure that all votes would be counted."

No - if they were trying to do that THEY WOULD HAVE SET THE STANDARDS BY WHICH "ALL" VOTES WERE TO BE COUNTED. You CANNOT *LOGICALLY* argue that "ALL" votes must be counted, but that, at the same time, the standards by which they are to be counted can vary from county to county. Yes, Florida law may have said that was OK, but that doesn't make it LOGICALLY correct. Nor does that make it *constitutionally* OK. THIS is the "screaming contradiction" that neither you, nor Doc, nor the brilliant Bugliosi has been able to explain away.

Coup: "That they were not able to fashion a perfect remedy under the time constraints is no surprise..."

The "perfect remedy" was to say "Here's the standard for counting undervotes on punch card ballots. Here's the standard for counting paper ballots. Knock yourselves out." There. Took me about 30 seconds. Why the FSC couldn't handle that is quite beyond me.

Coup: "It's the difference between some undervoters possibly losing a vote under differing county standards to ALL the undervotes losing their vote because they shut the vote down."

Let's keep in mind here, in every election previous to THIS one, EVERY "undervoter" *lost* their vote.

Coup: "Why is this so hard to grasp, RC? These justices were willing to admit there might have been an equal protection claim at issue, but were not willing to sacrifice ALL the undercounted votes to uphold a claim that no one had made except, incredibly, Bush himself."

So you really think noone - not one Bush voter, not the Bush campign itself - would have challenged the results of this recount had it been allowed to continue? The results would almost certainly have been thrown out (7-2 on the equal protection issue, remember?), so what was the point of allowing the recount as it was structured to go on?

I do thank you for actually responding, and I promise to do my homework and report my results.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 19, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ