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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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  ...

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.

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

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.

Any further attempt at discourse with you on this matter is obviously futile, and a waste of my time and energy, sir.

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,

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

 these fora, by definition, are open to everyone and that all comments should be considered

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.

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?