Conservative Mind Set & Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
The 2000 election was both botched and flawed. Gore's lawyers' pleading before the Court was botched. They might have prevailed, especially had they gone into court as the plaintiff rather than the defendant, by taking a different tack based on the Twentieth Amendment, which lays out what is to happen in the event that the result of an election is unclear. Instead, representing the defendant, their backs to the wall, they were outsmarted by the Bush Team. In a comparatively rare ruling, the Court overturned Florida's Supreme Court, ruling five to four along party lines; ever since, the Judges, understandably, have avoided mention of Bush v Gore. It is one of those rulings that they had all rather forget. The election itself, of course, was flawed by there being so many irregularities in the Florida results that when Katherine Harris called a halt to the recounting of votes no one could be sure who had actually won the State's Electors.
The official national results for that year's election have Gore winning the popular vote by slightly over half a million votes, emphasizing again that G. W. Bush was not democratically elected. We elect only one branch of our tripartite, national government democratically. This, and the reality that he, in effect, was anointed by the Court rather than the people, is what I find so ironic about G.W. Bush parading around claiming we were engaged in democracy building in a country we invaded. We captured and executed our former ally; the one person who, through ruthless, draconian means, was able to keep that cobbled together country from coming apart at the seems.
We had reasonable choices with regard to our position on Iraq, but we chose none of them. Instead we visited upon that hapless country a fate perhaps no worse than the existing, but certainly no better. Lives and fortunes were lost without any discernible gain over what would have been achieved by far less harmful alternatives; the lingering repercussions having magnified our error many fold.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq under G.W. Bush stands as one of several disastrous, U.S. foreign policy errors of the post WWII period; one that has visited a continued plague upon our own and our allies' nations. In the cold light of history, this and the Treaty of Versailles will likely be considered two of the most damaging errors of statesmanship to date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris
There was a talk show idiot from San Francisco that bashed G W Bush every night on the issue that he wasn't really elected. MSM reporters had already gone over the ballots from Florida and determined that Bush had actually prevailed, not righties, lefties, mind you. This asshole on the radio was a Jesuit Priest. He went away on child molestation charges. I was real happy that he was stopped from 1)destroying children 2)spewing garbage over the airways.
I'm a little astounded that the issue is still with us. Maybe it was imprinted in somebody's mind while they slept with their radio on?
I'm a little astounded that the issue is still with us. Maybe it was imprinted in somebody's mind while they slept with their radio on?
I will be civil too.
Scalia tells you lefties to get over it.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that the 5-4 decision that delivered the Presidency of the United States to George W. Bush in 2000 was the most controversial ruling of his career at the nation’s top court.
“I guess the one that created the most waves of disagreement was Bush v. Gore,” he told CNN’s Piers Morgan. “That comes up all the time, and my usual response is: get over it.”
“Get over the possible corruption of the American presidential system?” Morgan asked, as Scalia laughed. “Justice Scalia?”
“Look, my court didn’t bring the case into court,” Scalia responded. “It was brought into the courts by Al Gore. He is the one that wanted courts to decide the question. When Richard Nixon thought he had lost the election because of chicanery in Chicago, he chose not the bring it into the courts, but Al Gore wanted the courts to decide it.
“The only question in Bush v. Gore is whether the presidency would be decided by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. That was the only question and that’s not a hard one.”
Scalia insisted that Gore would have lost the election anyway, even if the Florida recount had continued.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/18/scalia-on-ruling-in-bush-v-gore-get-over-it/
As far as I'm aware, once the recounting was complete, or at least as complete as it was ever going to be, Bush had won Florida, but of course, as we know now, he was an example of Presidents who had lost the popular vote. (I'm not a proponent of pure democracy at the national level for a large complex nation, going as far as for example in India, but I am a proponent of truth.) Had the election been decided properly by invoking the twentieth amendment, it is nearly certain that Bush would have won the Florida Electors, but that doesn't excuse the ignoring of the Constitution. What should have happened is that the House should have appointed a President and Vice President to serve in the interim until the Florida debacle could be sorted out. That might have conceivably required that the election in Florida been repeated with careful monitoring.
Repeat the Presidential election in Florida huh? That's your answer? LOL!!!!!!!!!
You having trouble with reading comprehension again, Jem. Unusual for a lawyer, I would think. Did you learn, it's first semester law school material, that in naming suits it's standard practice to list the Plaintiff first and then the Defendant after the "v"? For example, as in Bush v Gore.
If you'll please go back and re-read what I wrote, it will be clear to you that my remarks relate to the U.S. Supreme Court case in which Bush asked that the Ruling of the Florida Supreme Court be reversed.
To wit: "Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]...
...
...
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
What !!! Your supposed to have me on ignore, remember?, because you couldn't deal with Jesus and his disciples all being gay.
So I will give you a bit of time to educate yourself about the appellate process and let you get back to me.
You may wish to learn about the difference between a petitioner and a plaintiff.
Right now you are arguing that Scalia does not understand the process. I would consider that foolhardy.
As far as you being clear about anything you are full of baloney.
do I need to go back and quote you?
You may wish to learn about the difference between a petitioner and a plaintiff.
Right now you are arguing that Scalia does not understand the process. I would consider that foolhardy.
As far as you being clear about anything you are full of baloney.
do I need to go back and quote you?