My head feels like it is going to explode!!!!!!!!!!!!

[driver8]

I was listening to Randi Rhodes on the way to work today and she was talking about the 2000 presidential election. She mentioned that no where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court chooses the President.

Why was this allowed to happen?? How was this justified? Why did Congress allow this coup to take place?

I know we talk a lot here about how no one in government has a spine anymore but c'mon...how could anyone who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, sit there and say nothing? Our government (and country) were stolen from us by the NeoCons, and the jellyfish in Congress allowed it to happen.

I don't know why but this topic hit me like a ton of bricks today. I realize that this topic has been discussed thousands of times on this forum, but I just had to ask these questions. I have been very angry about this "administration" for the past 5 years...today, I feel sad.

[Kagemusha]

1. Because Congress was Republican-controlled.

Rather than have the spectacle of Republicans picking Bush in Congress on a straight line party vote, the court stepped in for the dignity of the country.

Would the other scenario REALLY be any better? Totally aside from the issue of if the court case was properly handled.

[Recursion]

8. Trade one party-line vote for another?

Rather than have the spectacle of Republicans picking Bush in Congress on a straight line party vote, the court stepped in for the dignity of the country.

We have precedent for kicking the election to the House; in fact, it happened over 100 years before in an election involving disputed ballots in... wait for it... Florida.

What we didn't have precedent for was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision overriding the election protocols of a state. John Bolton saying "I'm here to stop the recount" was about as undignified as it gets.

[Kagemusha]

23. I was interested in honest answers and I like yours.

I just wanted to put the Supreme Court's stated reasoning (well, individual justices' reasoning at least) out in the open so it could be debated fairly.

[grasswire]

27. yes

The other scenario would have been better. Force them to be on the record with their votes. If they are going to steal the election, force them to follow the Constitutional process to the end. Don't capitulate to them. The whole notion of being "statesmanlike" was a canard. Giving in to thugs is never the solution.

[WinkyDink]

32. The court "stepped in" to usurp the right of the state of Florida to

re-count its votes.

There was no "dignity" about it.

[Kagemusha]

35. Well, I asked if the alternative would've been better.

Others have said yes.. what do you think?

[tuvor]

2. Did she say what the protocol should have been?

[driver8]

4. Unfortunately, she didn't.

If she did, I missed it.

[Garbo 2004]

21. The protocol should have been to let the state and Congress do their thing

as provided by the Constitution, without interference by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS usurped both the power of the state and the US Congress by its decision.

[The Traveler]

3. Ah. So now the depth of the strike

has become clear to you. Welcome. I know you remember when this was a free country. I predict it shall be free again!

[driver8]

7. Isn't that weird? I have been aware of the shit that went on for

a long time, but it really got to me today.

Maybe because all of the shit that shrub and co. has done is finally coming to a head...I don't know.

IMG]

[The Traveler]

15. I clung to my denial

for a long, long time. By the time I started reading these pages, that was pretty much over.

Funny thing. I liked Gore. I thought Bush was OK. I thought either guy would do a reasonably good job. Where the fuck was my brain?

Me, I'm really liking Al Gore these days. I think he has really found his voice. But I also really admire Wes Clark, who made it OK for defense department guys to admit their liberal leanings, and John Edwards who refuses to renounce the poor.

We got some really good people in this party. Let's have a rising.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. I also like Gore a lot more these days than I did during 2000

election. I remember him failing to mount a serious effort to lock down his base against Nader's Raiders until two weeks before the General Election, at which point it was too late.

I do fault Gore for failing to obey the first law of American electoral politics, i.e., first lock down your base, then move to the center. What Gore's strategy seemed to be (to me) was to move to the center immeidately, taking his base for granted.

But I may be overly harsh on him.

[babylonsister]

5. The problem is we have some real Dems and

some not so real Dems, and we are the minority party that has not been able to get shit done.
We need to get rid of the faux Dems, and take it from there, not that I trust one goddamn repug as far as I could throw them, as they're alligned with all that's wrong.

[Doctor_J]

6. If that mob of girly-men who stopped the recount had been met by

baseball bats and small arms fire, things might have turned out differently. Unfortunately bullies don't respond well to anything expect punches to their noses.

[Mz Pip]

9. Technically

the SCOTUS did not pick the president, they just stopped the recount. It's the technicality that gave Bush Florida.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Cleita]

12. Yes, but technically they had no jurisdiction to do what they did.

It was the Florida Supreme court that was to have the final say because it was a state matter. I don't understand to this day why it wasn't challenged by the Democrats who should have insisted that Congress investigate whether the Supreme Court was right in this.

[Igel]

63. The rationale is that the Constitution gives the right not

to the states, but to the states' legislatures. The state legislature said 'safe harbor', and the state court said, "No, we rule." Actually, no, that was one rationale. (That's one principled problem with the decision, multiple reasons given for one action.)

There was some business about differing standards; that's a vicious kind of argument.

I think the consensus was if the court had done things different, within the parameters set by the state legislature, the case would have gone differently. But then it rests on whether the state court had stipulated a full recount using the standards Gore wanted, * wanted, or some other standard.

Yuck. There's little intelligent that can be said about the ruling, simply because it's a morass.

[gumby]

16. Did the SCOTUS have the "technical" ability

to stop a State's vote? Doesn't the Constitution say that elections belong under State control? Under what authority did they usurp the power of a State to count their votes?

The SCOTUS Did pick Bush. It was their direct intent which they acted upon.

[driver8]

25. That is how I feel about it. The Supreme Court picked Bush, not

the voters. That is what really hit me today as I was driving into work.

[Igel]

66. Two-fold, IIRC.

The straight-forward Art. II section 1 argument: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ...".

The Florida court was saying that provisions enacted by the legislature could be ignored. The SCOTUS said the court was out of line, the US Constitution said the Florida legislature was in charge. I guess the counterargument is that the legislature was governed by Florida statute, and if Florida statute gives the supreme court authority to override the legislature in the interest of enforcing some provision of the state constitution, we have to decide which is more important in a federal election--the state or federal constitution? That went 5-4 in favor, more or less, of saying the US Constitution rules, and therefore the legislature is top-dog in this fight. That meant the counting had to be finished by the time/date the legislature had previously legislated--which was less than 48 hours after SCOTUS' decision was released.

The other 'hook' SCOTUS used is a truly bizarre Voting Rights Act/due process argument, not applicable to other cases (and plausibly not to this one), saying that if they're going to mandate a recount, they have to mandate a single recount using the same standards everywhere. I follow the application of the text of the law, but not why this is a single-use interpretation. That went 7-2 for revising the standards (that particular time) before continuing the recount.

[Cleita]

10. I was still watching CNN then and Greta Van Susteren was their

legal reporter at the time. While the recounts were going on in Florida and the Florida Supreme Court, who had jurisdiction, were weighing a decision whether the whole state should be recounted, she specifically stated that the Florida Supreme Court would be the final decision.

She even brushed off the news that Bush was appealing the US Supreme Court because she said that the Supreme Court wouldn't hear the case because legally it was a state matter. Then she went into all the possiblities that could happen like even recall elections in Palm Beach and many other scenarios but not one that involved the US Supreme Court.

Then the news came in that the US Supreme Court would hear the matter. I could tell she was getting a WTF moment but couldn't say it on the air. When the decision came down to stop the counts and hand the election to Bush, she had that deer caught in headlights looks.

I do miss Greta and am sorry that she went to Fox News. I used to enjoy how clearly she explained legalities to her viewership and how knowledgable she was about the law while she was at CNN.

[liberalhistorian]

13. I'm a paralegal and I can guaran-damn-tee

you that a LOT of lawyers in this country have been having a LOT of "WTF" moments since this whole nightmare began six years ago, and beginning with the SUPCO "decision."

[Cleita]

18. It appears they are rewriting the laws to suit themselves when

they can and ignoring them when they can't. Somewhere a legal group or society is going to have to pull their collective balls together to stop them.

[KaryninMiami]

11. Most legal experts at the time never imagined they would take the case

It was considered a long-shot that the Supreme Court would ever get involved in the case- that was as far as I remember, the first shock of the whole thing. It still hurts. Even today. Especially knowing that there is no doubt about Gore winning more votes in Florida- and that's not including the thousands who were disenfranchised, the machine malfunctions, hanging chads and of course, the fact that the electronic machines that were used that year, were rigged.

That was also just after Tom Feeney (State Rep. FL) asked computer programmer, Clint Curtis, to design a software program that could manipulate an electronic voting machines without detection.


www.clintcurtis.com.

[Cleita]

14. The US Supreme Court should never have gotten involved

because it was a state matter and out of their jurisdiction. I really hope one of these days this whole matter is investigated and I think we will find that they broke the law at least and maybe even committed treason by compromising an election.

[kaygore]

17. Because Al Gore wanted to heal the country

When I was volunteering on the Kerry campaign, one of the workers was a young man who had taken a leave of absence from working as an aid for Edward Kennedy. When I asked why Gore hadn't fought for a recount, the young man said that Gore had gone to Bush and said that the issues facing the country were so large that they required a bipartisan approach. The venom over Clinton had split the country. Gore said that he would not contest the election if Bush and his people promised to move forward with a bipartisan approach. They did. Gore did not contest. And the Bush people ignored their promise.

Perhaps this isn't true. But that was the explanation that the young man gave and it made sense. Gore is a man of honor and integrity and so he expected that of others. I hope he learned from this!

[Cleita]

19. Yes, I heard another excuse some years ago about Nixon.

The reason Ford pardoned Nixon was to preserve the integrity of the office of the President. I don't think
these pricks would have gotten into power so easily if that had not happened.

I say in the future never give up the fight when you are right, because the wrong side will never keep their promises.

[unblock]

20. i knew shrub was trouble from his motorcade as texas gov

his motorcade was HUGE for a governor, at least as big as the typical presidential motorcade. they obviously took security VERY seriously.

governors and presidential candidates don't travel like that unless they EXPECT to piss people off enough to drive them to assassination.

that was my first clue they he was going to do some very unpopular things, and he didn't care as long as they gave him top notch security.

[Lars39]

22. Sundquist of TN always had a huge entourage surrounding him.

You could see Gov.Ned Ray McWhirter walking around by himself quite often.

[Dufaeth]

24. Bredesen goes out alone as well

I run into him every once in a while.

[Lars39]

37. Cool.

Nice to see allow TNer!:hi:

[Dufaeth]

38. Always good to know I'm not alone here :)

:hi:

[Lars39]

40. There's quite a few of us.

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

26. we have a government of, for and by the corporations

NOT the people. The corporate owners of our government got what they had paid for.

[NoSheep]

28. Occasionally I think: We have to tell someone!!!! This is WRONG!

and then I remember. There is no "law" anymore. There is fascism.

[jbnow]

29. I get very sad/mad/disbelieving

when I think back to that time. It wasn't just about who won. I wanted Gore to win but had no idea how bad bush was. I thought he'd screw up the environment and worried about a SCotus vacancy that might be up to him but that he'd basically be an ineffectual one term president.

The shock was that the recount was stopped. That they went to the Supreme Court. That the Court took it. Then that the court voted AGAINST the voters and for bush. It was for bush. They said it could not be considered a precedent, the decision was just for this case.

They stopped the votes from being counted. I still can't believe it. It was not based on good law and reason, it was based on them wanting bush to win. I was horrified even before I knew they were dooming us into a hellish administration.

I was thinking back to that time lately. First seeing Gore on SNL and then Pat Buchanan telling his joke on Cspan this weekend about that time. He was saying he was praying to God because he didn't want to be a spoiler that helped Gore win and that God told him not to worry, he'd be a spoiler to help bush win. Pat asked God how that could be true and God said (something like) he had to do a little miracle with some ballots in palm beach county.

Ha, ha Pat.

[NightOwwl]

30. Puggies love to talk about how important it is to fill the courts...

with strict constructionists. Except, of course, in cases where it benefits their own party.

Remember when Fox news "declared" Bush President because he "won" Florida. Well, at that time he was no more the President than Gore. No one knew who had the most votes. But that was a classic Rovian move. It's all in the perception. It was no accident that Fox announced that Bush was prez, along with all the graphics that went along with it. Bush/President/Flags waving...that blatantly manipulative move by Fox was designed to give the public the perception that Bush was the rightful president, and to put Gore on the defensive. From then on it was all on Gore to prove he was the rightful president.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[marions ghost]

31. Sandra Day O'Connor

apparently said that she regretted the decision later. I suppose she cast the deciding vote?

Although I applaud her for admitting that, it's just not OK to say 'sorry about that.' The Supreme Court should never have been involved. It was a spectacular hijacking of state's rights for no justifiable reason. There should have been a full recount in Florida according to law. But instead we all saw how much you can count on "recounts" being conducted as specified in state constitutions--state laws reduced to not being worth the paper they're printed on, just like our votes. In spite of all their successful efforts to disenfranchise voters, Gore won Florida. We all know that. They couldn't steal it in the traditional way, so they had to appeal to their friends in high places to break the glass and GRAB it. Who can ever have faith in the Supreme Court again?

Right, the Congress (excepting the CBC), the Democratic Party, and the People allowed this to happen.
Shows you our relative power.

This is the problem everywhere we look- our system is dysfunctional, mechanisms for oversight and prevention of such theft have broken down while corruption soars. Democracy is failing us all over the place. WAKE UP America. Drop your illusions. FACE it. It's the only way out.

[cobalt1999]

33. once it was in the court system...

remember, it took the the dems going to the Florida court system and the Florida Supreme Court to even get the recount started. If the dems had not gone to the Florida courts, Harris was ready to just certify the election. Once it was thrown to the courts, then it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. As for Randi's comments, no where in the Constitution does it say the Florida Supreme Court chooses the president either.

If Harris had been fair, SHE would have called for the recount. When she didn't, the courts got involved.

[Jawja]

52. * went to the Florida

courts after warning Gore not too. It was in response to Gore's option to ask for a recount based on Florida law.

* went to court to stop the recounts Gore asked for under the law.

on edit: spellcheck

[cobalt1999]

69. true, but that was after...

the Gore team had a circuit judge stop the certification process for the selected counties (or maybe just Palm Beach county...my memory fails me there) in the circuit court.

The whole thing started using the courts to stop Harris from certifying the election (which she was pushing to do). I forget how many lawsuits were filed after that by both sides, but it was messy.

The Federal court system should have never been involved, but at the same time the Florida Supreme court made a dumb decision by permitting only selected county hand counts. The Gore team was equally dumb for only requesting democratic county hand counts (hardly an approach to appear non-partisan). I always wonder what would have happened if they had requested a full state recount and the FSC agreed. There would have been enough time at that point and would have taken away the US Supreme Court technicality.

I also believe that Gore will run and will be elected in 2008.

[Jawja]

74. Thanks for the clarification.

And I hope you are right about Gore in 2008!!

[many a good man]

34. Remember Justice Stevens dissent in Bush v Gore

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

[annabanana]

36. The media made an assumption that "the confusion" was

more dangerous than a fast & dirty resolution....

I never understood why there was such a hurry. It was "push, push, push" all the way through.

[Jawja]

54. Yes. I remember very

well when Cokie Roberts opened the former "This Week" with her "when is Gore going to concede?" question - over and over again.

I have despised her ever since.

on edit: spellcheck again.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. I am sorry but...which decision 'chose' the president?

and please tell me where the court even came close to making that decision. Are you familiar with the decision and the language thereof? I would wager not or you would not have posted this thread.

sP

[Generic Other]

41. The decision of the SCOTUS not to allow a recount in Florida

The decision to circumvent the process, ie. throw the election into the House.

What was true in 2000 remains true today. Bush was selected, not elected. So what's your problem with dealing with the facts?

[jerry611]

45. Well the court was a split decision

The supreme court voted 7-2 that the recounts going on in Florida were breaking the 14th amendment because there were 67 counties all counting the votes a different way. According to the court, each county needs to count the vote the exact same way to gurantee that all the votes are counted equally.

The 5-4 decision was to halt the recounting process immediately.

There was a deadline in the line...I believe December 18th. If Florida didn't send its electors by the 18th of december, NONE of their 25 votes would count in the electoral college. That would basically void the entire electoral college. Because the 11th amendment states that to win the presidency you must have 50% of the electoral vote. In such a case, and yes it has happened before, the House goes into a special session where all the representatives of state go into a caucus. Each state caucus gets 1 vote. Since the GOP would have majorities in 29 states, the House would vote for Bush for president.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. you beat me to it

from the decision

>snip<
The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the
decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the
minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of
voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s
basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to
consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___
So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as
an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The
problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to
ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform
rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances
is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
<snip>

They did not choose a president. They chose to stop a recount that had no standard for inferring the intent of the voter. Upon the stop of the recount FL had to certify it's votes.

No problem with reality. Problem with your misstatement of what the decision was about.

sP

[Generic Other]

49. In other words they did not follow the process

Since the House of Reps did not vote, the process as outlined by the Constitution was circumvented. An illegal act by SCOTUS. Or are they somehow incapable of breaking the law?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. try again

the SCOTUS, by stopping the recount gave Florida a choice. 1 ) They could try to keep counting, with a new standard in place across the state, and try to certify their votes and declare electors to the Electoral College prior to the cutoff date. 2) They could certify the vote counts they HAD and declare electors prior to the cutoff date. 3) They could keep counting and not declare electors. In the LAST case, would the process have concluded in the Congress. Florida chose number 2 and thus the Constitution was NOT circumvented. So, no illegal act happened...read and try to understand before making outlandish statements.

sP

[Generic Other]

62. SCOTUS circumvented the laws they took an oath to uphold

The Constitution trumps any other convoluted arguments they or you try to make.

A ruling that says Florida does not have to count votes properly does not overturn the Constitution. If it did, SCOTUS would not have made up some ridiculous "one time" ruling to preserve Bush's rights to a dishonest vote count. They should have stayed out of it, and it is to their everlasting shame that they chose not to do so.

Either we are a nation of laws with a legitimate process we can follow, or we are a nation guided by the arbitrary rulings of partisan hacks. There was a process for challenging Florida's vote count, and SCOTUS should not have been part of that process. PERIOD.

No matter how many times you say SCOTUS had the right to rule as they did, unless you can cite the Constitutionally mandated legal wording that gives them that right over the House of Reps, you are defending an illegal action. They interfered in a legal election process and overturned our right to a fair and honest election.

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but that is precisely what happened. And nothing has been right since.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

65. it is obvious you are either not reading or not understanding

the only ruling from the SCOTUS said that FL should stop counting without a standard. The standard that FL was to apply was one that ensured that each vote was counted by the same criteria. There was no such standard in place and some places were counting a 'hanging chad' while others were counting 'dimpled chads' and thus the problem. When the court issued the ruling, Florida was left with the choices that I outlined above. Does that make sense? SCOTUS told them to establish a standard, otherwise STOP counting. SCOTUS was trying to FORCE FL to count properly by the order to create and use a standard or STOP the recount. From that point forward it was all in the hands of FL. The SCOTUS did not install a president nor select one. They simply required a set up of consistent rules for the recount.

Do me a favor, since you seem to be so big on the Constitution...where do YOU have the right to vote for the president of the US? Find that and then we'll chat more...otherwise stop telling me what I do not know about the Constitution. Because the SCOTUS in no way took anything from the Congress in this ruling.

sP

[bobbieinok]

70. SCOTUS stoped recount, said FL must declare by 12-12 BUT

court gave verdict 12-12 SO FL had NO time to do anything and court decided the election.....they said results had to be handed over then.....that was a LIE b/c, as I recall, 6 states handed in results just prior to 1-06-01 deadline

'questionable'/illegal acts of the court

--Scalia stopped the recounting on Sat b/c 'if it continued it could cast doubt on Bush's win'

--Scalia should have recused himself b/c 1 son was partner in firm arguing W's case before the FL court and 1 was partner in firm arguing W's case before the SCOTUS

--Thomas should have recused himself b/c his wife was working for Heritage Foundation task force seeking possible members of W's WH stafff

THE BIGGIE--the verdict said that the result COULD NOT be used in any future decision. One of the main purposes of SCOTUS decisions is to set precedent.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

72. I read the decision and saw nowhere that an arbitrary

deadline of 12-12 was set for the selecting of electors by the state of FL. Scalia cannot stop the counts himself...why would you say that? It took the whole court voting to make the decision. I don't believe that recusing one's self because of familial associations makes sense. If your familial relation was arguing before the court...ok. But otherwise, no...

sP

[bobbieinok]

75. have heard/read since then that fed judges must recuse selves IF

they or a family member is affected by the decision

[ProdigalJunkMail]

76. I can agree with that

but having a son that is a lawyer in a firm that is arguing the case...well, the son will not be directly affected regardless of judgement. Same thing for a wife working in the heritage foundation which will continue to operate no matter the decision. Bush was going to be president either way. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 on the counting measures and 5-4 on the stop measure. If they had been allowed to continue they still would have had to come up with a standard by which to count and finish by the proper time...which is the offer they were essentially given anyway.

subjectProdigal

[jerry611]

51. Technically

The Supreme Court doesn't even have power for judicial review. They assumed that power with Mulberry vs Madison. But the Constitution never gave them that power.

This whole thing was Alexander Hamilton's idea ultimately. And you are lucky the founders didn't allow him any more influence. Because Hamilton wanted the President and the Senators to serve life terms just like federal judges. Imagine how screwed up the country would be if that were the case.

[jerry611]

42. Bush would be president regardless

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
-Artile 2, Section 1
US Constitution

This gives ALL power to the state legislature as to who the electors from that state are going to be. The Florida legislature was preparing to void the election and elect their own slate of electors. Since the Florida legislature is controlled by the GOP, they would obviously choose electors that would vote for Bush. Obviously this would anger Al Gore, and in response he would send his own slate.
Who's would count? Well the US House of Representatives then decide who's vote counts.

Now another issue would be if Florida never sent any electors. At that point, neithe Bush nor Gore would have more than 50% of the electoral vote. According to the 11th Amendment, the House of Representatives then vote for the president. This happened in the election of 1812 and 1824.

The Senate has no role other than to count the votes the House or the electors cast. So there is no filibuster.

There is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the constitution that gurantees the people choice in electing the president. That's how the founding fathers set up our republic.

[KittyWampus]

44. Yes, but one process was Constitutional & the other Illegitimate

the way things played out, Bush's election was illegitimate (Supreme Court intervening and usurping power of States and Congress).

[Jawja]

53. Exactly.

It was not the outcome, but the process.

The outcome was certain - * was going to be President thanks to his Govenor brother, a biased Secretary of State, and a Repug State House.

But instead of a Constitutional process that would have exposed the election theft in broad daylight, we were subjected to an illegal decision to intervene.

[enough already]

46. Why was it allowed to happen?

Why are we going to the chief illegal wiretapper Hayden get confirmed this week? Why does anything happen? Because we sit on our asses and let it happen.

[Jawja]

48. When Scalia stopped the

manual recount of the vote, he violated the Constitution and committed treason against the American People.

The Constitution has specific details on how a President is put into office. The Constitutional process, if it had been allowed to play out, would have been a set of 2 electors from Florida - 1 from the manual recount that most likely have been for Gore and 1 special set sent from the Repug controlled Florida Legislature and submitted by the Gov. (*'s brother).

The U.S. House (Repug controlled) would have voted on which set to acknowledge. * would have been President anyway, even if not elected - but it would have been done by the Constitutional process. Scalia stopped the count as to not harm to *'s Presidency by keeping the truth from coming out in a recount. Remember the phony "equal protection" argument?

The irony is, Gore did not get "equal protection" in a state run by his opponent's BROTHER.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. Does FL's constitution allow for multiple set of electors?

the chosing of electors is up to the state and if their consitution and laws do not allow for two sets then your scenario could not have occured. It is my understanding that the state certifies ONE set of electors to the electoral college. Florida had the option of either sending or NOT sending electors...but not sending TWO sets (but I am not well read on FL law).

sP

[Jawja]

57. Ok. Corrected.

Florida threatened to certify a set of Repug electors through the State House. The Govenor had the option to submit that set.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. I honestly don't know...

but that is my recollection from readings past. It was a mess to be sure...but I don't think any constitutional rules were broken. The fact is, Florida is the state that screwed the pooch here. The SCOTUS just tried to get them to come up with some set of rules by which the recount would go. Florida, in their screwed up state simply ran out of time and made a snap decision to certify what they had knowing that they could not complete a recount under the SCOTUS guidelines (actually, there were no guidelines, just a statement that said something to the effect of "You need guidelines")

sP

[paparush]

56. The Court Ordered Florida to STOP COUNTING VOTES!!

Say that to yourself...stop ...counting... the ... votes. JEEZUS PEEZUS!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. and APPOINTED THE PSYCHO by doing so. n/t

[KoKo]

61. Yes....because if they'd finished counting them Gore would have won.

[Igel]

64. Strictly speaking,

SCOTUS said they had to count them using one standard (a one-time application of the Voting Rights Act in this way), and could continue counting using that standard. As long as they were done by the Florida legislature's 'safe harbor' cut-off date (which was the other Constitutional 'hook' for SCOTUS). The safe harbor cutoff date was something like that night or the next night.

So the effect was to say, "You can try to count, but it's pointless--you'll never decide the controlling standard in time, much less finish by the deadline, so you should probably just stop."

[bobbieinok]

71. Ginsberg and others were furious b/c verdict used 'equal protection'

verdicts that had been used to protect minority voting rights.....and right was cynically using these verdicts to effectively destroy equal protection

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. The Black Caucus were the ONLY ones who tried to stop it. See

Fahrenheit 911. NONE of the gool 'ole white boys would stand with them to stop the FL. certification of their electoral votes. Congress is a sham. A HUGE sham.

[Cleita]

67. They are certainly corrupt to the core and we the people have

to bring this corruption out in the open and make them accountable. Then we need to make changes in the House and Senate to insure that this never happens again.

[deutsey]

68. See my sig line

[Hubert Flottz]

73. If you haven't read 'The Betrayal Of America" By...

Vincent Bugliosi you should read it.

http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/69110-ebook.htm