Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:25:58 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Then they said the recount was taking to long.


That somehow the sky would fall if they took a few extra hours to count ALL the votes.


The level and extent to which republicans try and succeed at stealing other`s votes is frightening......it`s their only chance to be competitive....


Winning on the merits and issues certainly isn`t within their grasp.


< Message edited by Owner59 -- 4/30/2013 9:26:38 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:32:33 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		One thing that always gets ignored in any discussion of the stopped recount is that it was completely illegal. Florida law is that any recount has to cover the whole State, not stop after a few counties give one candidate a teeny tiny lead.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:40:26 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Anyone recall the fake story about "W"s being removed from all the White House computers and other childish tactics, by the bushies when they moved in?All the honor and dignity they were going to restore to the White House?!.....Omg ,what a bunch of psychopaths!


That didn't happen? Well, shit. I guess I'll have to redact my eye-rolling over the incident then.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:56:50 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

One thing that always gets ignored in any discussion of the stopped recount is that it was completely illegal. Florida law is that any recount has to cover the whole State, not stop after a few counties give one candidate a teeny tiny lead.



I was ok with a state wide recount.....so was anyone I know (eccept bushies)......not really the issue.


The fact that there were tens of thousands of un-counted votes, was the issue.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 10:02:24 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Anyone recall the fake story about "W"s being removed from all the White House computers and other childish tactics, by the bushies when they moved in?All the honor and dignity they were going to restore to the White House?!.....Omg ,what a bunch of psychopaths!


That didn't happen? Well, shit. I guess I'll have to redact my eye-rolling over the incident then.



“I Will Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House”


Misery accomplished.....


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 10:05:08 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

One thing that always gets ignored in any discussion of the stopped recount is that it was completely illegal. Florida law is that any recount has to cover the whole State, not stop after a few counties give one candidate a teeny tiny lead.



I was ok with a state wide recount.....so was anyone I know (eccept bushies)......not really the issue.


The fact that there were tens of thousands of un-counted votes, was the issue.

Exactly.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 10:43:40 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		What has amazed me this last decade is how thoroughly the right wings myths about the 200 election have taken hold.

There are people, including posters on this thread, who simply do not believe SCOTUS stopped the recount because it would do irreparable harm to Bush.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/1/2013 1:26:11 AM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What has amazed me this last decade is how thoroughly the right wings myths about the 200 election have taken hold.

There are people, including posters on this thread, who simply do not believe SCOTUS stopped the recount because it would do irreparable harm to Bush.

From outside, I thought at the time that Gore was being smart to concede. He could look statesmanlike and use the next four years to remind people that the election had been stolen, and how much harm could one presidential term do?

Of course, my biggest mistake there was that the answer to the last question was "more than you could possibly imagine." Even assuming, on the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory, that the opportunity to become a "war president" was a piece of dumb luck and not part of the plan all along. (The main argument in favour of the conspiracy is that he had to have two terms: it takes more than four years to engineer the Second Great Depression, starting from an economy as healthy as Clinton left it.)

But the other mistake, as you note, was underestimating the power of the Koch/Murdoch Ministry of Truth to rewrite history.

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/1/2013 1:52:55 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Was it known before the SCOTUS decision or after that there were no 'hanging chads' in known Republican precincts?

The election had already been massively distorted by Gov. Bush hiring a private company to canvas all 50 states for the Names of all convicted felons, which were then matched to the Names on FL voter registration lists and all removed. NO attempt to ascertain the names were of the same people and no voter was notified until the day of the vote when they found their registration invalid. Given the state of the US justice system, the affected voters were mostly minority names, which have been largely Democratic voters since the Depression. Estimates vary but center around 75,000 Dem voters disqualified before the election even took place.
And the Bushies still needed the SCOTUS to interfere in a State election for the first time in the history of the Republic. Not a single Con protested the flat violation of constitutional principles?

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/1/2013 10:44:17 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Was it known before the SCOTUS decision or after that there were no 'hanging chads' in known Republican precincts?


There were undervotes in every Florida county. A very large percentage were in Democratic areas.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/1/2013 1:52:19 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline 		Well I think the decision to take the case, and the final decision on the case were far from unanimous. Is she just expressing what she felt all along (but was outvoted by other members of the court) or is this truly a "change" of mind after the fact? There is a big difference in my mind.

If she is truly changing her mind (given that the vote on the case was so close) then I think this is unfortunate. However, there is nothing that can be done about it. SCOTUS does make mistakes......

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/1/2013 4:39:57 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Well I think the decision to take the case, and the final decision on the case were far from unanimous. Is she just expressing what she felt all along (but was outvoted by other members of the court) or is this truly a "change" of mind after the fact? There is a big difference in my mind.

If she is truly changing her mind (given that the vote on the case was so close) then I think this is unfortunate. However, there is nothing that can be done about it. SCOTUS does make mistakes......

It was a 5-4 ruling and she was part of the majority. IOW if she thought then what she thinks now Gore would most likely have become President and hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis would be alive and many thousands more would be whole in body and mind.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 7:29:08 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Well I think the decision to take the case, and the final decision on the case were far from unanimous. Is she just expressing what she felt all along (but was outvoted by other members of the court) or is this truly a "change" of mind after the fact? There is a big difference in my mind.

If she is truly changing her mind (given that the vote on the case was so close) then I think this is unfortunate. However, there is nothing that can be done about it. SCOTUS does make mistakes......

It was a 5-4 ruling and she was part of the majority. IOW if she thought then what she thinks now Gore would most likely have become President and hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis would be alive and many thousands more would be whole in body and mind.


DomKen, cut me some slack. I understand the implications if she had voted differently. School desegregation would have occurred sooner if Plessy vs. Ferguson had been decided differently, too. My point is that SCOTUS does make mistakes, and you can't unwind what happened. Changing her mind now cannot change the historical implications no more than Brown vs. Board of Education can actually go back in time and desegregate schools prior to 1954. We unfortunately have to live with the consequences of the mistakes that SCOTUS makes. That's all I meant. (And trust me I know the aftermath of Bush vs. Gore has not been pleasant).

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 9:59:27 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
My point is that SCOTUS does make mistakes, and you can't unwind what happened. Changing her mind now cannot change the historical implications no more than Brown vs. Board of Education can actually go back in time and desegregate schools prior to 1954.

I think that's Ken's point.
Changing her mind now is useless. Showing some backbone at the time might have had an impact.
In politics, "sorry" isn't good enough. Blathering that you were wrong in hindsight is a cop out, particularly given that she could see how wrong she was at the time but carried on regardless.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 10:20:42 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

One thing that always gets ignored in any discussion of the stopped recount is that it was completely illegal. Florida law is that any recount has to cover the whole State, not stop after a few counties give one candidate a teeny tiny lead.



I was ok with a state wide recount.....so was anyone I know (eccept bushies)......not really the issue.


The fact that there were tens of thousands of un-counted votes, was the issue.

Exactly.


Complete and *utter* BS.

As a resident (and voter) in Florida at the time of B v Gore, this is utter nonsense.

West Palms Butterfly ballot was designed by a democrat, and approved by a democrat.
When the ballot was confusing Gore asked for a recount of that county. He got it.

The recount failed to elect Gore.

He then cherry picked half a dozen counties and asked to recount those. He got it. That recount ALSO failed to elect Gore.

At this point, the safe harbor provision was running out. So the State Supreme court tried to overturn federal law and extend the time allowed for recounts; they granted gore yet a third bite at the apple.

At which point it was remanded to the Supreme Court. The Surpreme court spanked the Florida court and politely said. "We're going to give you a chance to correct your idiocy". The state court by a vote of 5-4 decided that electing gore was more important than following the law - so they persisted and it was appealed back to the supreme court.

Which said "enough is enough". Certify the vote.


Later on, the Miami Herald ( a left leaning paper) conducted a review and said if Gore had asked for a recount of the entire state he would have one.

Perhaps that is true. However, there were numerous ballots that were subject to challenge by either side - and it is truly impossible to say what the election results would have been if the challenges were

a) requested.
b) paid for by the Gore campaign.

State law gives a challenger one free recount if the margin is close. Gore got it, chose where he wanted it recounted - and failed.

The challenger then has to pay for any further recounts. He got that too - and still failed.

The rule of law was followed. Gore lost.



(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 10:27:30 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Not at all what happened.  I don't give a fuck if you are Katherine Harris.


The Supreme Court said in their opinion that the state should do a recount that it was the law, but fuck that bit of actual rule of law, give it to bush, so that the electors can be seated on time federally, they interfered deeply in a states rights issue, and only a states rights issue.  Elections are held by states, for states, and not for the federal governments convenience.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 11:01:08 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Again, clap trap.
Find a *single* bit of case law that supports your position. Go look at the rules that existed at the time of the election.

The FACT is that the election laws in place at the time of the election called for recounts to be finished by a certain date.

The FACT is that the law said what was allowed for recounts, how they were organized, and how they were conducted.

And if you think about it these laws should EXIST. Candidates have to know what the laws and procedures are prior to the election. You can't have states changing the laws for the benefit of one candidate.

The Fourth recount was cancelled when it was determined to be unlawful AND it couldn't be concluded by the time the certification was required.

Sorry - Florida isn't PA or Ohio or Chicago where we routinely bend/break the law for the benefit of the democrat party.

Or do you really think there were 130 precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania where *not* one person voted for Romney. Oh - and what about those precincts where the voter turn out exceeded the population?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 11:20:02 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Pure horseshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

If necessary I can go to the case and quote the fucking decision verbatim.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 11:31:23 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, clap trap.
Find a *single* bit of case law that supports your position. Go look at the rules that existed at the time of the election.

The FACT is that the election laws in place at the time of the election called for recounts to be finished by a certain date.

The FACT is that the law said what was allowed for recounts, how they were organized, and how they were conducted.

And if you think about it these laws should EXIST. Candidates have to know what the laws and procedures are prior to the election. You can't have states changing the laws for the benefit of one candidate.

The Fourth recount was cancelled when it was determined to be unlawful AND it couldn't be concluded by the time the certification was required.

Sorry - Florida isn't PA or Ohio or Chicago where we routinely bend/break the law for the benefit of the democrat party.

Or do you really think there were 130 precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania where *not* one person voted for Romney. Oh - and what about those precincts where the voter turn out exceeded the population?

How many minority voters were illegally purged in Florida in 2000? How many tried to cast their legal ballots but were turned away? And you want to claim Democrats break the law?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 3:31:29 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And if you think about it these laws should EXIST. Candidates have to know what the laws and procedures are prior to the election. You can't have states changing the laws for the benefit of one candidate.

So why do you think that it was acceptable for Florida to ignore state and Federal law in order to stop a recount that would have stopped the chimp from getting elected?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125