General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt never occured to me that in Bush V Gore the SCOTUS should have taken who won the popular vote
Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2024, 07:33 AM - Edit history (1)
into account when making their decision.
I'm listening to Jami Raskin taking on a hear about the SCOTUS. It is shocking to hear how corrupt your own country is sometimes.
That's all. I just never thought of it before and it pisses me off
Edit - This is what had me convinced that Bush did not win Florida. And they had the nerve to say they were going alphabetically and that was bullshit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onenote
(45,226 posts)The Supreme Court would have no legal foundation for looking at the outcome in any other state, let alone all of the states.
Maraya1969
(23,263 posts)the popular vote in the US. Besides I'll be damned if I ever believe that Bush won Florida - not with that butterfly bullshit ballot
Think. Again.
(22,330 posts)...it was proven that Gore had indeed won the Florida election.
ITAL
(1,015 posts)There were several ways ballots were tabulated in the unofficial recounts. In some Gore won Florida and others Bush did.
htps://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
live love laugh
(15,309 posts)ITAL
(1,015 posts)But your can use wikipedia's breakdown and get the same idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Recount_by_media_organizations
FactCheck is never rated as a rightwing media watchdog. I've always seen them listed as playing it straight, or even being as viewed as slightly left of center.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/factcheck/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fact-check-bias-chart
lees1975
(6,517 posts)They didn't count all the votes. The Secretary of State, who was also Bush's campaign manager, never counted all of the ballots. They didn't count or cure provisional ballots and most of the absentee ballots. She certified the election total at the point where everything they had at that point was counted and recounted. But I remember there were ultimately about 95,000 ballots that they didn't count, the majority of which went to Gore.
niyad
(123,707 posts)
GreenWave
(11,110 posts)
BoRaGard
(5,404 posts)against the votes of the American people.
As usual. Repubes have sold their honor for power,
and have abandoned moral integrity in their lust.
Emile
(34,560 posts)were Al Gore won. They were getting ready to print the findings the next day but an amazing coincidence happened, 9/11 and all was forgotten.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled “undervotes” — ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through — to be counted.
The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida’s 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Complain all you want about the demerits of the Electoral College. Its in the Constitution.
edhopper
(35,932 posts)they interfered with the recount the Florida court ordered. Which would have given the election to Gore.
The SCOTUS ruling has been condemned by legal scholars ever since.
Polybius
(19,916 posts)There were several recounts before the SC decision, all of which Gore lost. I think his mistake was not initially asking for a full statewide hand count.
Maraya1969
(23,263 posts)onenote
(45,226 posts)as saying the Supreme Court could and should've ignored that system in deciding Bush v. Gore. That's not what he's suggesting.
liberalla
(10,479 posts)They stopped the counting to prevent that info from leaking.
Skittles
(164,194 posts)just for that "one time", dontcha know
where the hell is THAT in the Constitution
former9thward
(33,424 posts)There was no language like that in the Gore v Bush decision. In fact that decision has been used hundreds of times as precedent in various cases and in briefs filed in cases in courts everywhere.
dpibel
(3,582 posts)But I'm sure you know better!
Even without watching the clip!!
niyad
(123,707 posts)two of those "hundreds" of cases, as people seem to be completely unaware of them.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)At least those who deal in election law.
From TPM which is hostile towards Bush v Gore:
For a case that’s widely regarded as an aberration, Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals, that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov. Gray Davis to this year’s court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida. That means there’s a chance Bush v. Gore could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race, should, say, Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000. (Indeed, the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state.)
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races, a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year. In 2008, for example, Norm Coleman, an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota, tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid. He was unsuccessful, and his Democratic opponent, the comedian Al Franken, ultimately won the seat.
Over the past two decades, Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination. An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation won’t necessarily benefit one party or the other.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bush-v-gore-isnt-precedent-but-it-keeps-getting-cited
Now that I have answered your question. please tell me where the language cited by the poster I was replying to is in the Bush v Gore decision. I won't hold my breath.
edhopper
(35,932 posts)it was not precedent and should not be used for any other cases. They broke the system with this unconstitutional ruling.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)This is Scalia's views on Bush v Gore and I don't hear him saying anything like that.
sl8
(16,436 posts)Limitation "to present circumstances"
Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[64][65] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[66] The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read too broadly,[67] arguing that in the short time available it would be inappropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. But critics interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[68] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, several federal courts have cited it in election cases,[69][70][71][72][73] as did a lawyer for a Republican congressional candidate during legal arguments coincident with the 2020 United States presidential election.[74]
[...]
Diraven
(1,386 posts)To get the conclusion they wanted. That's the way the conservative Supreme Court works now.
BOSSHOG
(42,374 posts)Do away with the electoral college which was designed by slave owners to protect the rights of slave owners. Relevance today?
Do away with the separation of church and state and turn loose the assessors. A big chunk of organized religion (making up a minority of the country) cares not about religious freedom.
I know it takes hard work. So did D-Day.
GPV
(73,293 posts)DemocratInPa
(743 posts)the decision of who won Florida?
Silent Type
(9,389 posts)now, because around 50% think it was right decision, and we disagree.
Admittedly, It would be neat if the Supremes had listened to statistical/voting experts who might well have recommended using aggregate vote as a substitute for Florida’s unknown actual vote count. Of course, that wouldn’t have passed muster either.
onenote
(45,226 posts)My answer: because they didn't take it into account because it would have been absurd to do so. Raskin's point isn't that the court should have taken the popular vote into account. It's that we should get rid of the electoral college and go with a national popular vote election which would give "equal protection" to all voters. He's right, but it ain't happening any time soon and wasn't on the table in Bush v Gore.
Silent Type
(9,389 posts)
Takket
(22,969 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,435 posts)After that happened, the final decision was now to be rendered by the nations federal judicial system, The nations top court's excuse to step in I gathered was because it was such an important decision that affected the whole nation. SCOTUS would always be taking into consideration how it affects the country. Now SCOTUS in most Democrats opinion, never did need to barge their way in, or at least if they did, why not rule to allow Florida to have more time, considering the chad trouble and other mishaps?
But since they did wade in, his lead in the popular vote should have given Gore some weight in their decision in stopping, or not stopping the vote count, knowing their decision automatically crowned Bush Jr. , the runner up in the popular vote, a second term.
oasis
(52,286 posts)In that election. So much for states rights. 
bullimiami
(14,038 posts)Which the Fla Supreme Court said must be done.
But they installed Dumbya by claiming his equal protection mattered more than everyone else’s combined.
Corrupt? You bet.
crud
(996 posts)gab13by13
(28,102 posts)that his brother was going to lose. Whatever came after that was illegal, improper, crooked, or whatever you want to call it.
I have friends in Florida who told me Gore won Florida if they count all the votes.
scarletlib
(3,536 posts)After the election a consortium of newspapers including the Palm Beach Post went through all the votes cast. The final determination was that Gore won. The ultimate irony is that this was published in the papers on 9-11-2001. This news sunk like a stone in concrete with a chain wrapped around it.
The shenanigans and dirty tricks Jeb Bush’s government engaged in to give George the win were massive.
That was my political awakening. Before that, I thought I was an informed conscientious citizen/voter. This election changed me forever.
soldierant
(8,502 posts)I'm 100% sure it never occurred to the Court either.
slightlv
(5,528 posts)We had such high hopes and dreams back in the 60's. But the the Crossroads presented itself. Some of us turned Left and continued our pursuit of a world we would be proud to live in... one of inclusivity, friendship, cooperation, and opportunity.
But others turned Right... and took the "shortcut" to money. They still are trying desperately to create the world they wanted back then. And I think they're seeing their time is coming to an end, so now they grow desperate and open about it. Greed is what they're all about. While I got my degree in Psychology, all those others were mocking me. They were getting their MBA's.
Oh, well... I hope all their money gives them comfort in their caskets!
niyad
(123,707 posts)
ShazzieB
(20,662 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2024, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)
I was so thrilled when Obama was elected...and so naive. I thought it meant the country had truly turned a corner. But it turned out only part of the country had turned that corner, and the others were lurking in the shadows just waiting for someone like Trump to come along and "fix" things for them...as we would one day learn. 
He failed the first time, but we have to make damned sure he doesn't get another chance! 
slightlv
(5,528 posts)I watched the inauguration with my mom... both of us were crying. I told her I felt maybe we had finally turned a corner in this country. She said she hoped so, but was afraid of what was to come. Guess Moms have a secret internal crystal ball (gryn). I was full of hope and happiness and crying because of it. She was happy, but fearful, and crying because of it. Meanwhile, it pushed some people completely over the edge of the cliff. And for the life of me, I honestly can't understand why. Obama is a good man. He's a good husband and a good father. I may not have agreed with everything he did as President, but that doesn't diminish him in my eyes as a man. He was a good role model for kids and young people to aspire towards; still is. But like anything and anyone evil, I guess they have to stomp out all vestiges of good in order to justify their existence.
C Moon
(12,831 posts)fierywoman
(8,313 posts)
WarGamer
(17,083 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,512 posts)The fix was in.
I think their next ploy is attacking polling/counting locations to destroy ballots.
Congress will then select their boy.
karynnj
(60,237 posts)The states have the right to define how the delegates are assigned- before the election. All states have some percent that triggers a recount. In this case, the election is really very close to 50/50. Why not have the rule that if you are that close, divide the delegates 50/50. If a state has an odd number give the extra one delegate to the one slightly higher.
Now, it may never happen again that a state too close to call has the delegates to decide the election. This would prevent that month of chaos recounting what really is essentially a tie. If all states did it simultaneously, it does not naturally favor one side over the other.
Kaleva
(39,333 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2024, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)
If states divide up EC votes, no candidate might not get the required majority.
karynnj
(60,237 posts)Under the current system, there are very few ways to get there. An election that close is unlikely. Splitting a state might not make it more likely.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...I doubt people here would have actually been willing to "give up" half of Florida's EVs.
This is why I don't get worked up by the Interstate Popular Vote compact. Beyond the fact that it will never get enough States to approve it, it would collapse the first time some State considered handing its EVs to a candidate that the State didn't vote for.
karynnj
(60,237 posts)The Presidency.
Kaleva
(39,333 posts)So I don't know why SCOTUS would have considered that
sl8
(16,436 posts)Rep. Raskin speaks about Bush v. Gore at about the 2:15 min. mark.
He does point out that SCOTUS "... handed the election to George. W. Bush, the national popular vote loser ...", but I don't interpret that as suggesting that the national popular vote should have been a factor in the court's decision.
themaguffin
(4,469 posts)Ace Rothstein
(3,344 posts)As much as I didn't like the ruling.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,356 posts)The case was over Florida alone. How people voted in other states didn't matter. The national popular vote, from a legal and Constitutional stand point, is meaningless for Presidential elections. It's just a bragging point.