Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.



Walt

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.


Many states use different voting technologies in different precints and
probably most will have different defacto standards for how they handle
the ballots. We will probably see a lot of court cases arising pursuant
to the precedent set by Bush v Gore.

--

FF

"Mark Cook" wrote in message m...

Yes, they could have challenged, but would have lost. With the make up of
Congress, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, only the candidate who held
state certification would win this type of challenge. Of course, Bush held
state certification as a result of the remedy crafted by the Democrat
majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris). Instead of ordering a full recount, the court decided that
state certification would be awarded to the winner of 4 Democrat majority
county recount.


As I recall, the second FLSC decision that was appealed to the USSC
required that all undervoted ballots through out the state of FL
be recounted by hand using the standard for interpretation established
in FL election law: 'the clear intent of the voter'.

This was the decision that was first stayed, and later overturned
by the USSC.

"Rougher translation: We're giving you a chance to explain your way out of
the federal law trap into which you stumbled on Nov. 21. But we don't see
how you can do it. And by the way, it isn't only us that you have to
convince. Under another provision of that 1887 act (3 U.S.C. section 15),
the Bush electors that Gov. Jeb Bush has already certified and sent to
Congress, via the archivist of the United States, will be the ones counted,
unless any Gore electors approved by the Florida courts can pass muster with
both the Republican-controlled House and the Senate. Not much chance of
that."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-13.htm

This article concerns the first ruling of the FLSC which was appealed
to the USSC, not the second, which I think is the one Walt was writing
about.

--

FF

(WalterM140) wrote:

Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the
rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?

My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions. But here, they took the issue away from the
state court and basically declared Bush the winner.

The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted recounted.
This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just trying
to poison the well!

-- Charlie Springer

The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted
recounted.
This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just
trying
to poison the well!

Can you source that?

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.

Her county has major voting problems. Her county has zero leadership at the local
level to facilitate the vote in any election, and no one there to this day knows who is
eligible to vote. Hers is the only county that still uses typewriters and 3x5 cards to
produce the rolls for each precinct.

(WalterM140) wrote:

The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted
recounted.
This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just
trying to poison the well!

Can you source that?

I read the paper. I don't see why you shouldn't.

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.

And how did she determine this? Was this in a district Gore contested? Did he
contest the counts in the panhandle or the military votes?

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.

Walt

I can't believe you missed the multiple reports by every legitimate media
source confirming that Bush won legitimately, but here is the requested link
anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

Jarg

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam wrote:

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer

So you don't have a source.

You asked for quote so I quoted myself. It happens to be true.

-- Charlie Springer