U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by

normally, I get where you are going... but not on this one at all.

If you have a probably with the court creating the power of judicial review for itself... you can go back and explain why we should dismantle Marbury v. Madison. (I might agree with you. Although I am not sure I like the alternative either.)

However, in this case, I am don't even think that argument applies as this had nothing to do with Congress...


wikipedia

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Three days earlier, the Court had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000).

In a per curiam decision, the Court, by a 5-4 vote,[1][2] ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12. However, seven of the justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[3] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained). Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots, and under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium.



piezoe said:
But they can ignore it! Or on occasion interpret it as though it had been rewritten. :eek:

An example of ignoring it (although, in this instance, properly so, as it was Congress' responsibility to see it followed because the Constitution makes the Court subservient to the House) is Bush v. Gore. The Constitution states clearly how the situation of an election for President having been held, but the winner still uncertain, is to be handled.

An example of treating it as though it had been rewritten is District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court dismantled the 2nd Amendment and interpreted it as though the part before the comma hand no connection to the part after the comma.

The English language has by far the most extensive vocabulary of any language. It is truly amazing what can be accomplished by those skilled in using it.

_____________________
"You can steal more money with a Fountain Pen than with a Gun."
More...
 
always enjoy discussing these legal issues with you. Where am I going with this Bush v. Gore business? The court ruled on what they were asked to rule on. But they should have avoided injecting themselves into the election in any way, because the 20th Amendment makes it unnecessary for them to do so; they should have let the litigants battle play out entirely in Florida, and let the decision of the Florida courts stand. The Court should have refused to hear Bush v. Gore leaving the U.S House of Representatives as the only appeal route available, after the Florida Courts. I am not suggesting that under precedent the Court couldn't hear the case, I am saying they should have been wise enough not to hear it.

In my humble opinion of one , the Court should not have, by acting as they did, elevated the time requirement in Title 3 of the U.S. Code above the other serious legal issues attending the Florida election, and certainly not above the intent of the 20th Amendment which is, among other things, to allow time to decide a contested election. The Court would have done us all a favor by merely pointing out to the litigants that there was no time constraint because the 20th Amendment deals very specifically on what is to happen "if a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term." The 20th, in my mind, should take precedent over any requirement that electors be chosen by a specific date. Why not just let any potential violation of Title 3 of the U.S. Code stand, for the time being. The Court erred by injecting itself into what should have been a Florida matter, and beyond that, a matter for the U.S House of Representatives to resolve. (Good lord! I'm sounding just like an anti-federalist here :D)
"If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
 
I find it beyond ironic that a liberal is upset with the federal courts inserting themselves into election law. Are you also deeply troubled by Baker v. Carr? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

After decades of results-oriented judicial activism by out of control liberal judges, liberals are still bellyaching about a case 14 years ago where the Florida Supreme Court was blatantly rewriting election law to get Gore elected. The Supreme Court probably should have stayed out of it under neutral principles, but sometimes enough is enough.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Incidentally pie, I found this article on your favorite group's, pro publica, website. http://www.propublica.org/article/why-gun-control-groups-have-moved-away-from-an-assault-weapons-ban

Turns out that what the NRA said all along was exactly correct. Military style rifles account for a tiny fraction of crime, and banning them serves no useful function, except to ramp up demand for them.

Frankly, I was surprised to see this in the liberal media, but good for them.
More...
I do like ProPublica. Are we defining any organization that tries to go where the truth takes it as "liberal"?

I was unaware of Baker v. Carr, but thank you for pointing out that most interesting case. I think I would be on the side of those who believed that districting was a political matter, though simultaneously I might hold the position that it ought not to be! Then what? A very interesting case. Thanks.
 
Baker v. Carr is an interesting case that had enormous effects. Under its reasoning, the U. S. Senate would be unconstitutional, except for the fact that Article I of the Constitution specifies that each state gets two senators. One can be forgiven for not understanding why a state is barred from following a similar electoral philosophy.

I mentioned the case because it, along with the hundreds if not thousands of cases concerning minority voting rights, are part of a long tradition of federal judicial intervention into state election matters.
 
jem said:
having worked for a District Attorney and knowing some cops... I can say I became suspicious of everything in a police report.

they don't always have probable cause at the time of the stop... but by the time the report is edited... they do.
More...

You are exactly right that this is going on, and in large numbers today. Very sad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top