XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: theloneweasel@yahoo.com   
      
   ulTRAX@arabia.com (ulTRAX) wrote in   
   news:3513d8b1.0311281857.7e7317d7@posting.google.com:   
      
   > Eric Johnson  wrote in message   
   > news:...   
   >> On 27-11-2003 00:28, in article   
   >> 3513d8b1.0311261528.1c204e51@posting.google.com, "ulTRAX"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > WTF does your example have to do with anything? Election   
   >> > 2000 is OVER. The loser took the prize because the   
   >> > anti-democratic rules were rigged in his favor...   
   >>   
   >> Says the poor loser.   
   >>   
   > Read my lips Tardo.... I did NOT vote for Gore. I voted for   
   > Nader. My objections to the EC is that it did NOT mirror   
   > the "will of the people".   
      
   I voted for Nader too, and I know the NORC's count of all the   
   ballots, when sorted into legal votes under Florida law,   
   showed that Gore won the 2000 presidential election under any   
   statewide scenario, and the US Supreme Court effectively   
   stopped a legal state election process and appointed the   
   candidate that the conservatives on the court wanted to win.   
      
   The most corrupt political act I've ever seen, and the   
   Democrats did nothing.  Gore just rolled over.  The Democrats   
   in Florida let Republican goons intimidate the recount   
   process, then they let the GOP steal that election, the   
   rightwing media accepted that surrender and mocked Gore for   
   having the gall to question the election results at all, even   
   Saturday Night Live mocked Gore in a really stupid and mean   
   way, so even I stopped watching it, and our country has   
   suffered very much because of this mess.   
      
   So I don't buy any of this crap about how Nader lost the   
   election for Gore - Gore and the Democrats let the GOP steal   
   the election.   
      
   Still, I agree that the elctoral college has outlived its   
   usefulness.  We don't need it to elect presidents, and while   
   the result of an accurate count of the votes in Florida   
   wasn't affected by the EC, the EC was used as an excuse to   
   stop the count, so by the time a relatively accurate count   
   was finished months later it just showed that the loser was   
   appointed president by the USSC.   
      
   Just get rid of the EC and never vote for another republican.   
      
   __________________   
      
      
   Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in   
   Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434   
   (Fla., Nov. 21, 2000), did the Florida Supreme Court make   
   any substantive change in Florida electoral law.6 Its   
   decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were   
   consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as   
   a whole. It did what courts do 7 -- it decided the case   
   before it in light of the legislature's intent to leave no   
   legally cast vote uncounted. In so doing, it relied on the   
   sufficiency of the general "intent of the voter" standard   
   articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a   
   procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to   
   resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested   
   ballots. If we assume -- as I do -- that the members of that   
   court and the judges who would have carried out its mandate   
   are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable   
   federal question.   
      
   What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on   
   the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of   
   confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state   
   judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote   
   count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly   
   without merit. The endorsement of that position by the   
   majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most   
   cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.   
   It is confidence in the men and women who administer the   
   judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of   
   law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence   
   that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing,   
   however, is certain. 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.   
      
   [...]   
      
   6 When, for example, it resolved the previously unanswered   
   question whether the word "shall" in Fla. Stat. §102.111 or   
   the word "may" in §102.112 governs the scope of the   
   Secretary of State's authority to ignore untimely election   
   returns, it did not "change the law." Like any other   
   judicial interpretation of a statute, its opinion was an   
   authoritative interpretation of what the statute's relevant   
   provisions have meant since they were enacted. Rivers v.   
   Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312-313 (1994).   
      
   7 "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial   
   department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison., 1   
   Cranch 137, 177 (1803). STEVENS, J., dissenting   
      
   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES   
      
   No. 00-949   
      
   GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, JR., ET   
   AL.   
      
   ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT   
      
   [December 12, 2000]   
      
      
   --   
      
   Join the NRA Blacklist!   
   http://www.nrablacklist.com/   
      
   The Lone Weasel   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)