rulemylife
Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gheaust
So many factual errors. There is a thing called a safe harbor. Which basically says that there has to be a start and an end, and there must be fixed remedy requests.
As a native of florida, I followed these recounts closely. Gore's request for remedy involved cherry picking a number of counties where he thought he could pick up the most votes, as they were historically democratic.
He specifically decided on not recounting the entire state, as he thought bush would pick up more absentee and military votes.
So he made a specific request within the alloted time frame. When that failed.. he went to the florida supreme court to extend the period unlawfully, allowing him to reframe his request.
Being 12 democrats, they agreed. It went to the supreme court who in the initial ruling said.. we can't believe you're saying this. Try again. When FLSC continued, the surpreme court overruled them.
Yes, let's talk about those "factual errors".
Being a "native of Florida" you either didn't follow the recounts too closely, as you say, or you really didn't understand much about them.
Let's start with one "factual error":
The Florida Supreme Court consists of seven justices, not twelve.
So, if your contention is that there was bias because six of seven were appointed by Democratic governors then you need to look at the U.S. Supreme Court decision which was strictly along party lines and stretched the Constitution so far that it made a mockery of the court.
Jurist: Presidential Election Law: The Florida Recount 2000
December 8: In 4-3 split decision, Florida Supreme Court rules for Gore, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to his total. Bush seeks stays before the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court and additionally petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.
Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore
The Court steps in
The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law.
But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.
A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore.
The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade.
< Message edited by rulemylife -- 3/23/2010 2:03:36 PM >
|
RE: Conservative Blogger Urges Obama Assassination on T... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread