RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election

RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 5:31:03 PM)
Both parties were perfectly happy with 'business as usual' levels of voter fraud and disenfranchisement as long at there was a significant margin of victory. When the 2000 election turned out to be so close, each side portrayed their 'win by any means neccessary' tactics as seeking 'twue justice'...and as in many lawsuits, only one side got what they wanted.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 5:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent concluded:[33] What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida%2C_2000 No one can say these Wikipedia reports on what happened in the 2000 election and the subsequent Supremes' ruling on Gore vs Bush is biased. There is a lot more researched and published but, I'm sure, even these two articles are too much for many peeps attention span, especially since it doesn't support their views. Did you even read the reports you linked to? There is no kind of "smoking gun" or report that says anthing about "Gore would have won". Here is the first article's conclusion: George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election. Your second article basically says exactly what I did in one of my earlier posts. It talks about the same studies and evaulations. Let me highlight some of it's comments: The NORC study was not primarily intended as a determination of which candidate "really won". Analysis of the results found that different standards for the hand-counting of machine-uncountable ballots would lead to differing results. The results according to the various standards were reported in the newspapers which funded the recount, such as The Miami Herald[16] and the Washington Post. ... Following the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision) but that Gore would have won had a full state-wide recount been conducted. After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today , show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.[19] Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. .. The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard. ... A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won.[20] However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request. All of this supports my assertions, not yours. Thanks for the assist. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 5:45:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Both parties were perfectly happy with 'business as usual' levels of voter fraud and disenfranchisement as long at there was a significant margin of victory. When the 2000 election turned out to be so close, each side portrayed their 'win by any means neccessary' tactics as seeking 'twue justice'...and as in many lawsuits, only one side got what they wanted. Spot on. Which why Scalia's "Get over it" is so appropriate. Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 6:31:43 PM)
Yes, Firm, I read the pieces in their entirety and many more. I provided links to articles that are complete and comprehensive providing context for the events that transpired. I have no need to massage and edit data to further my arguments and support my opinions. You, and others, seem to be unfamiliar with this approach. The point of the OP is, imo the Supremes' unprecedented usurpsion of letting the election process play out. After all, what is the point of having elections if the question is decided in a court rather than at the polls. Can you grasp this, sir ? The OP point, further is Scalia's arrogant retort to a perfectly legitimate question by Stahl ( and others) about the Supremes' usurpation. "Get over it", he says., The issues and smoke that you bring up to distract from the primary issue are tiresome and familiar. Who won the 2000 presidential election in Florida ? Exactly, sir.As Justice Stevens says, in the piece of his desent to the Supremes' Gore vs Bush decision: Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent. Clear ?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 7:30:22 PM)
Yeah, it's pretty clear. Your position sounds suspiciously like a whine. Scalia's comments are a perfect answer. (And you keep quoting the minority opinion on the bench.) The entire debacle of Florida was the fault of Gore. Not the Courts. Not Bush. The Court was dragged in, kicking and screaming, and made a difficult decision. The fact that it went against you, and the "lefties" is what galls you. People on your side all talk a big game of "rule of law" but when it bites you in the ass, you scream "UNFAIR!", "RIGGED!" and all kinds of shit. After intense study by several different organizations, it was determined that Bush would have pretty much won all the reasonable scenarios, and definitely would have won if the recounts were held as Gore requested. The courts would have never gotten involved if Gore hadn't been a cry-baby, and if he had the country's best interest at heart, rather than his own ego. Gore and his ego are the proximate cause of any damage done to the confidence of the nation. "Get over it." Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 8:21:38 PM)
Once again, Firm, you display your uniformed ignorance, sir. If you would carefully read the info I linked to, and others, there is plenty of reliable information for those who care to look, you would know that Gore brought the case to the FLORIDA supreme court. Scalia also distorts this fact. Y'all like to do those kinda things and rely on peoples laziness to ferret out the facts for themselves, don'tcha ? Oh , wait...you are one of those who took Scalia's word for it and didn't bother to find out for yourself, aren't you sir? It was Bush and his masters', i.e, Cheney and Baker, et al,( and their shadowy masters) who brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. And why, do ya think ? Because, they had political I.O.U.s to collect, and they did, with the resultant outcome. The 7-2 vote reflects only that. If you research and read the Supremes' decision, you will find that it is unprecedented and based on nonsense. In fact, they at least had the prudence to state, in that shameful decision, that the decision applied to THIS ONE CASE ONLY. And this, from an institution which, supposedly bases it's decisions on legal precedent. It seems that they are fine with being an "activist" court when it suits them and their masters, but "Constructionist" in other matters, when that suits them. quote: After intense study by several different organizations, it was determined that Bush would have pretty much won all the reasonable scenarios, and definitely would have won if the recounts were held as Gore requested. This is also blatantly untrue. Go back and read, in their entirety, the links I posted and this will be clear to even you.I won't do your homework for you, sir.

Owner59 -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 9:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Both parties were perfectly happy with 'business as usual' levels of voter fraud and disenfranchisement as long at there was a significant margin of victory. When the 2000 election turned out to be so close, each side portrayed their 'win by any means neccessary' tactics as seeking 'twue justice'...and as in many lawsuits, only one side got what they wanted. Well,business as usual would have been to let the state of Florida to hash it out. We know at least one party hoped for business as usual,while the other called Scalia(directly) to intervene. The reason why James Baker called Scalia, was they knew they wouldn`t survive an honest recount under the light of day. After the first (law proscribed) recount,it was clear that republican were suppressing votes and voters,(using illegal "caging"to knock legitimate voters off the rolls,outright fraud and cheating)and that a real count under the scrutiny of the public would bury them. One clue as to why this was an extraordinary intervention, was the fact that the Supreme Court stated this was a one time only law and wouldn`t set a permanent precedent.WTF`s with that? Why would any law worth it`s existence, need a "one time use only "caveat like that? Seems like the definition of unfairness and rule fixing to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Funny how republicans run on state`s rights and against judges legislating from the bench,then go against that when it suits them. But then again,what principal haven`t they abandoned?That`s why the term neo-conservative exists,to describe people who are conservative in name only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Question to neo-cons;What was the problem with Florida running there own election? And,do you see a connection between the 4000 plus dead GIs killed for nothing in Iraq and Scalia`s decision to appoint Bush president? Most Americans do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There`s no doubt that Scalia is feeling the heat and probably always will ,feeling guilty too.That`s way he`s so defensive and obstinant.

domiguy -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 9:34:59 PM)
Regardless of the end result of the election...For a Supreme Court Justice to simply state "Get over it" shows a complete disregard for a system that many people felt was corrupted and abused. "Get over it" ...It has become the catch phrase to explain the abuse of trust our freedoms and our rights. Who cares if people feel disenfranchised in the electoral process? "Get over it." You wonder why people feel that we lack compassion and grace...Just look at the rulings of our Supreme Court....Look at the decisions and actions taken by our government...The truth has never taken such a beating....Get over it. This is the world we live in. I understand that fact. Their is a smugness and callousness to Judge Scalia that is rather hard to believe. It's one thing to say the election is now in the past...It obviously is. But to suggest that people should not still be concerned about what transpired during the election is probably not in the best interests of this Country. Iraq...get over it Katrina...Get over it. Global warming...Get over it. Valerie Plame....Get over it. Fema...Get over it. $4.00 a gallon gasoline....""Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?" Maer responded: "A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline." Bush's rejoinder: "Oh, yeah? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."".... I think he meant to say, "Get over it."

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/26/2008 11:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Once again, Firm, you display your uniformed ignorance, sir. If you would carefully read the info I linked to, and others, there is plenty of reliable information for those who care to look, you would know that Gore brought the case to the FLORIDA supreme court. Scalia also distorts this fact. Y'all like to do those kinda things and rely on peoples laziness to ferret out the facts for themselves, don'tcha ? Oh , wait...you are one of those who took Scalia's word for it and didn't bother to find out for yourself, aren't you sir? It was Bush and his masters', i.e, Cheney and Baker, et al,( and their shadowy masters) who brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. And why, do ya think ? Because, they had political I.O.U.s to collect, and they did, with the resultant outcome. The 7-2 vote reflects only that. If you research and read the Supremes' decision, you will find that it is unprecedented and based on nonsense. In fact, they at least had the prudence to state, in that shameful decision, that the decision applied to THIS ONE CASE ONLY. And this, from an institution which, supposedly bases it's decisions on legal precedent. It seems that they are fine with being an "activist" court when it suits them and their masters, but "Constructionist" in other matters, when that suits them. quote: After intense study by several different organizations, it was determined that Bush would have pretty much won all the reasonable scenarios, and definitely would have won if the recounts were held as Gore requested. This is also blatantly untrue. Go back and read, in their entirety, the links I posted and this will be clear to even you.I won't do your homework for you, sir. You wrote: It was Bush and his masters', i.e, Cheney and Baker, et al,( and their shadowy masters) who brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously, you do not understand the term and meaning of "proximate cause". Proximate Cause: The active efficient cause which sets in motion a chain of events which brings about a result without the intervention of any new cause working actively from a fresh or independent source. Proximate cause is not necessarily the closest in time to the result. Gore's taking the election results to the Florida courts set in the chain of events which lead to the Supreme Court case. In other words, Gore's lawsuit was the proximate cause of the Supreme Court ruling. You wrote: Y'all like to do those kinda things and rely on peoples laziness to ferret out the facts for themselves, don'tcha ? Oh , wait...you are one of those who took Scalia's word for it and didn't bother to find out for yourself, aren't you sir? You are the one who has failed to extract any meaningful information for the massive amount of information in the links you provided. And then accuse me of doing so? The most effective (and the normal) method of argumentation is to extract the pertinent and important facts for the argument, and provide links to the source of those facts. Notice I did this. In the venacular, all you did was throw shit up against the wall, hoping that something would stick. This is generally the technique of someone who is either unaware of how to put together a concise and clear argument for their position - or someone who knows full well what they are doing and are attempting to hide the weaknesses of their position. You wrote: If you research and read the Supremes' decision, you will find that it is unprecedented and based on nonsense. In fact, they at least had the prudence to state, in that shameful decision, that the decision applied to THIS ONE CASE ONLY. And this, from an institution which, supposedly bases it's decisions on legal precedent. It seems that they are fine with being an "activist" court when it suits them and their masters, but "Constructionist" in other matters, when that suits them I don't think you realize how complex the case was in both a political and a judicial sense. I'm not particularly interested in educating you, so I'll try your technique. Try this link. THE AUTHORITATIVE LAWSAYING POWER OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: CONFLICTS OF JUDICIAL ORTHODOXY IN THE BUSH-GORE LITIGATION You wrote: This is also blatantly untrue. Go back and read, in their entirety, the links I posted and this will be clear to even you.I won't do your homework for you, sir. Gee ... I'd call this a blatantly unsupported statement. Please provide your sources and your reasoning, as this statement contradicts all the facts and sources I've already provided. In other words, a bald, unsupported statement such as you are making here - which flies in the face of all the other already provided facts - doesn't hold much weight. Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 7:12:51 AM)
Firm , thanks for your irrelevant explanation of "proximate cause". Just more smoke. Do you think that cases come to the Supreme Court as a result of some magical thinking ? No, a petiyioner must bring the case to the Court. That's why he/she/ they are called "the petitioner. In this case Bush, et al. In fact, the petition was brought to the Supreme Court in a rush and the Supremes acted in a rush in order to make sure that they rendered a decision before the December 20th deadline to varify the Florida vote count. They didn't know, obviously, that Gore would choose not to fight the decision. quote: The most effective (and the normal) method of argumentation is to extract the pertinent and important facts for the argument, and provide links to the source of those facts. Notice I did this. In the venacular, all you did was throw shit up against the wall, hoping that something would stick. I disagree with you on methodology here. I have a contempt for argument that cherry pick statements and take them out of context in order to advance an argument. I prefer to quote sources in their entirety and let folks make up their own minds based on all the relevant facts. I know, some of y'all find this tiring and hard work and prefer sound bites and pundits like Rush, O'Riley and other Fox luminaries to digest the material for you and then regurgitate it back into your waiting mouths like baby chicks. Well, to each their own. In the spirit of citing comprehensive views and arguments in the context in which they are meant to be considered, consider this, if you wish, or, save yourself the time and effort and just tune in the Sunday morning pundits. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 9:47:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Firm , thanks for your irrelevant explanation of "proximate cause". Just more smoke. Do you think that cases come to the Supreme Court as a result of some magical thinking ? No, a petiyioner must bring the case to the Court. That's why he/she/ they are called "the petitioner. In this case Bush, et al. In fact, the petition was brought to the Supreme Court in a rush and the Supremes acted in a rush in order to make sure that they rendered a decision before the December 20th deadline to varify the Florida vote count. They didn't know, obviously, that Gore would choose not to fight the decision. quote: The most effective (and the normal) method of argumentation is to extract the pertinent and important facts for the argument, and provide links to the source of those facts. Notice I did this. In the venacular, all you did was throw shit up against the wall, hoping that something would stick. I disagree with you on methodology here. I have a contempt for argument that cherry pick statements and take them out of context in order to advance an argument. I prefer to quote sources in their entirety and let folks make up their own minds based on all the relevant facts. I know, some of y'all find this tiring and hard work and prefer sound bites and pundits like Rush, O'Riley and other Fox luminaries to digest the material for you and then regurgitate it back into your waiting mouths like baby chicks. Well, to each their own. In the spirit of citing comprehensive views and arguments in the context in which they are meant to be considered, consider this, if you wish, or, save yourself the time and effort and just tune in the Sunday morning pundits. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html You said: Firm , thanks for your irrelevant explanation of "proximate cause". Do you think that cases come to the Supreme Court as a result of some magical thinking ? No, a petiyioner must bring the case to the Court. My explanation of proximate cause goes straight to your confusion. By the numbers: 1. Gore sues in the Florida Court system. This starts a sequence of events. Gore would not have won even if all recounts occurred as he requested. 2. The Florida Supreme Court makes a ruling that Bush deems as incorrect, and he asserts his rights for a judical review. Only the US Supreme Court can review a state supreme court. The US Supreme Court agrees in a 7-2 decision that issues of equal protection under the US Constitution are involved. 3. The US Supreme Court rules against Gore in a 5-4 ruling on the basis of his claims. You wish to claim that Bush had no right, or that the issue was "fixed" in the Supreme Court. The issue would have never risen to the US Supreme Court if Gore had not started the chain of events into action. Therefore ... Gore's legal challenge in the Florida courts, over an election he did not win, and would not have won in the first place is the proximate cause of the adverse actions by the US Supreme Court, and any political damage which eventually occurred To accept your position, you would have to accept: 1. That Bush would have taken a case to the US Supreme Court absent any lawsuit by Gore. 2. That Bush had no legal or moral rights to defend himself in the courts. You wrote: Bush, et al. In fact, the petition was brought to the Supreme Court in a rush and the Supremes acted in a rush in order to make sure that they rendered a decision before the December 20th deadline to varify the Florida vote count. You seem to believe that it was somehow illegitimate of Bush to "rush" the issue. The fact is that the Dec 20th deadline was a key part of his suit. He was seeking relief to prevent irreparable damage that the passing of that date would cause to him. The Supreme Court did not want to take up the case (you did read the link THE AUTHORITATIVE LAWSAYING POWER OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: CONFLICTS OF JUDICIAL ORTHODOXY IN THE BUSH-GORE LITIGATION didn't you?). You wrote: I disagree with you on methodology here. I have a contempt for argument that cherry pick statements and take them out of context in order to advance an argument. I prefer to quote sources in their entirety and let folks make up their own minds based on all the relevant facts. shrug You don't have to like the methodology. You will just suffer from inability to make a convincing argument to reasonable people (your true believers don't care, one way of the other - they will agree or disagree regardless of your method). The point of the method isn't to confuse or dissemble. The point is to make your argument more presentable and easier to understand, while at the same time providing access to the complete source material you are using in order to allow anyone who wishes to go back and check your reasoning to do so. In other words, it's a method that respects your readers. I know, some of y'all find this tiring and hard work and prefer sound bites and pundits like Rush, O'Riley and other Fox luminaries to digest the material for you and then regurgitate it back into your waiting mouths like baby chicks. Well, to each their own. This is simply insulting to your readers, especially those who you have to convince of your logic of your arguments. In the spirit of citing comprehensive views and arguments ... As a perfect example ... I did not follow your links, because I've no desire to waste an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what, exactly, your point is in quoting these two links. But ... feel free to continue your methods. It does nothing but help me make my point. Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 10:23:45 AM)
quote: I did not follow your links, because I've no desire to waste an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what, exactly, your point is in quoting these two links. Exactly. I'm not "making" a point. My intention is to provide information that is available to all and any who are sincerely interested in finding the facts , and thinking them through, in order to make up their own, informed minds. My intention is not to preach to the choir , as yours seems to be. Too bad you aren't interested in reading the info in the links I posted. Your mind is obviously already made up. So be it. Any further attempt at discourse with you on this matter is obviously futile, and a waste of my time and energy, sir. Have a god day.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 11:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: I did not follow your links, because I've no desire to waste an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what, exactly, your point is in quoting these two links. Exactly. I'm not "making" a point. My intention is to provide information that is available to all and any who are sincerely interested in finding the facts , and thinking them through, in order to make up their own, informed minds. My intention is not to preach to the choir , as yours seems to be. Too bad you aren't interested in reading the info in the links I posted. Your mind is obviously already made up. So be it. Any further attempt at discourse with you on this matter is obviously futile, and a waste of my time and energy, sir. Have a god day. Exactly. I'm not "making" a point Either you are dissembling, or you are confused. You are indeed "making a point" - or trying to. My intention is to provide information that is available to all and any who are sincerely interested in finding the facts , and thinking them through, in order to make up their own, informed minds. I can Google with the best of them. So can most people. Why do we need your links? What is the point in providing just one more of a million links on a subject? My intention is not to preach to the choir , as yours seems to be. If you follow many of the threads that I post in, I think your accusation of me "preaching to the choir" is laughable indeed! [:D] What I do is give my reasoning, and support it with facts which I then source. What you do is make an assertion, and then fail to support it. This is the situation in which "the choir" (those who already think the way that you do) will support you. Preaching the gospel, and then waving the Bible around as "proof" is not proof at all. Show me the chapter and verse, and explain why it supports your position, then I'll consider what you have to say. Otherwise, all you are doing is blowing a lot of hot air. Any further attempt at discourse with you on this matter is obviously futile, and a waste of my time and energy, sir. In other words, you can't refute the core of my argument about the Florida fiasco being primarily Gore's fault, so you stage a passive aggressive attack in order to disguise your failure and deflect the onus of that failure? Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 11:07:24 AM)
Waste of time and energy as I said, FirmHand. Btw, you may be interested in reading the posts of others in this thread who have made some good and interesting points such as Domiguy and Owner59, but, probably not. Why bother,eh your mind has been made up for some time and it would only disturb you.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 11:09:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Waste of time and energy as I said, FirmHand. Enjoy your KY. Btw, you may be interested in reading the posts of others in this thread who have made some good and interesting points such as Domiguy and Owner59, but, probably not. Why bother,eh your mind has been made up for some time and it would only disturb you. in reading the posts of others in this thread who have made some good and interesting points such as Domiguy and Owner59, You mean your choir? [:D] Whaaat? You can't defend your position yourself? Peace. Out. Firm

cjan -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 11:45:00 AM)
I'm not defending a position, as I said. I thought that these fora, by definition, are open to everyone and that all comments should be considered. I'm aware, however that some folks don't "bother" to read other points of view, especially if they do not agree with one's own position. "Peace out", from you, sir ? Is that another way of saying "Get over it" ?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 12:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan I'm not defending a position, as I said. I thought that these fora, by definition, are open to everyone and that all comments should be considered. I'm aware, however that some folks don't "bother" to read other points of view, especially if they do not agree with one's own position. "Peace out", from you, sir ? Is that another way of saying "Get over it" ? I'm not defending a position uh huh. Surrrreee you aren't. [:D] these fora, by definition, are open to everyone and that all comments should be considered Nope. The fora are not open to everyone. 1. You must be one of the few members of the world who sign up for the forums. 2. You must willing to not violate the terms of use and service that the forum has (ever seen the [awaiting approval] sign?). All comments should be considered? Why? We have had some real ...'Out there" people post some really ... weird ... stuff here sometimes. Your posts may be "considered" by anyone ... if they so choose. But whether or not they carry any weight has a lot to do with how well they communicate. Part of that communications is how they structure their arguments, and how well they source their facts. Realistically, it also depends on an individual poster's and reader's biases and intellectual abilities and interest in the topic. As far as "Peace. Out." take the pick of the definition that you feel is most correct. Peace Out. Firm

cloudboy -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 3:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: cjan I, for one, will never "get over it ". Does Nino suggest we should also get over such injustice as "hanging fruit" and the Holocost as well ? What nonsense and arrogance ! But, they have gotten away with it, haven't they ? Shame on us. Scalia is basically spot on. Gore was the one who chose the path of litigation. He just didn't figure on getting out lawyered in the process. Gore tried to get cute with the recounts and it backfired on him. It was foolish, stupid, and very likely unnecessary--a full statewide recount would have given him the votes, the election, and the courts would never have gotten involved. What you seem to be missing is that Scalia doesn't want to go there. Instead of explaining the rational for his and the court's decision in Gore v. Bush, he tells the questioner to essentially "fuck off." Also, why wouldn't the Justices want to an enduring precedent out of their decision?

cyberdude611 -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 3:50:31 PM)
It would not have changed the outcome anyway if you left it up to Florida to figure out... The Florida legislature was vowing to intervene if the Supreme did not.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/27/2008 5:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What you seem to be missing is that Scalia doesn't want to go there. Instead of explaining the rational for his and the court's decision in Gore v. Bush, he tells the questioner to essentially "fuck off." Also, why wouldn't the Justices want to an enduring precedent out of their decision? The Court's rationale was spelled out ages ago. The opinions--majority and dissenting--ARE the rationale. It is public record. As for not setting an enduring precedent--the reasons for that are legion: 1) the abbreviated time frame for consideration and the rendering of an opinion alone makes it unwise to build an enduring precedent on the decision; 2) the particulars of the case were so extraordinary as to make it highly questionable whether a clear precedent could be extrapolated from the case (which was, if memory serves, Rhenquist's reasoning in explicitly limiting the scope of the decision to the case itself, with no precedent to be derived); 3) the traditions of American jurisprudence include an extreme reluctance by the courts to become involved in electoral disputes--those being ideally contained to the political sphere of government; 4) the best entities to address defects in balloting procedures are the various legislatures with the competence to revise specific balloting procedures--even where there is a justiciable issue involving a specific election and ballot, the permanent remedy will always be a legislative action to address the underlying procedures giving rise to the issue. It has long been a maxim of American jurisprudence that hard cases make bad law. To draw enduring precedent from a case as far into uncharted legal waters as Gore v Bush would be extremely bad law indeed.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625