Gov, Leave your hat at your ranch.

[bob]

It is time for Bush to meet some real Democrats. Not the liberal Texas Republicans that call themselves Democrats.

I wish him well.

This whole process does have some good benefits.
Bush will now have a real hard time appointing a conservative supreme court judge.
He has plenty of issues that both Democrats and Republicans basically agree, Federal help for schools, Medicare, armed forces...He can be like Clinton and call these issues his own.

He will be forced to do what he campaigned to do - be in the moderate center. I like that because I too am in the center of most issues.

Enjoy our new - Clinton like - compassionate conservative leader.

[mairving]

Sandra Day O'Connor, Reinquist & Stephens are set to retire. So you have two conservatives (O'Connor a bit in the center) and a staunch liberal. Even if he appoints a couple of conservatives, he won't gain much.

As far as Bush being Clinton-like, I believe that Bush has morals unlike Clinton. I am afraid though that Clinton set the standard for future presidents. It doesn't matter what you do as President. It only matters what you do for me as President.

It should be an interesting 4 years.

[Kubie]

Clinton like, bob? You're a moderate? Me thinks you talk out of both sides of your face, depending on which way the wind blows.

[Jenni]

Being in the center reminds me of the Karate Kid where Mr. Miagi (sp?) tells Daniel that you either walk on one side of the road or the other because if you walk down the middle pretty soon you get squished like a grape.
Being in the middle is taking the easy way out. You can agree with just about anything that way.

[kraken]

The US political system has finally shown itself for the joke that we all dreaded. 5/4 to the consevatives. 7/2 to the dismay at the decision. Governments decided by political appointees, seems like good old USsr.

[mairving]

The US Supreme Court would have liked nothing better than to pass on this case. The FL SC gave them no choice. It was evident to 7 of the 9 justices that their decision was wrong. The blame for all of this lies with the FL SC. They could have/should have not overturned Judge Sauls case. It was their partisan politics and violation of their own rules that caused the problem in the first place.

Gore always said that he wanted a full fair and accurate count. I am sure Bush wanted that also. But the recount in FL was partial, unfair & inaccurate. If the Supreme Court would have said "dimples don't count" ,like the rule was before the election, Bush would have won the recount.

[LawyerRon]

I believe the USSC would have reached the same result even it the parties were reversed.

[bob]

Carlgif, You may be so far to the right that the center appears to be the horizon.

Jenni, being in the center is often the result of respect for - and understanding both (or often many) sides of the issues.


LawyerRon, you can't be serious. You think they would have streached the law (equal protection) if Gore and Bush were reversed in position?
The decision was just as political as the Flordia Supreme Court. The decision to stay the count was clear. They lost the respect of most of the world - and many Americans.
Would you have thought that they had jurisdiction on those grounds. Under that logic the whole election should be redone. Scan ballots did not have the same error rate as punch therefor the whole election was unfair.
The decision was flawed at it's logical core. Time will clarify the decision.

[Kubie]

bob, my comments stem from the fact that you pushed for Gore from day one. He is as far-left as I am far right.
There are many people with the same convictions as mine because if there weren't, who would fight against the far-
left? The far-left would have this country just like the Roman Empire before it fell. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". You're an educated man, I'm sure you alrady have. Many lessons for us in the book.
I'm happy that there was not a recount in the counties that used the punch method of voting and this is why. It is impossible to dimple a voting card. But when you stack 5 cards in the machine one on top of another, you get one punched card, one with "hanging chad, one with a deep dimple, one with slight impression, and one that has to be looked at with a magnifying glass. Get my drift?
That particular county has a staunchly democratic person in charge of the counting.

[bob]

Carlgif, If you beleive that that Clinton Gore were far left then I was correct. Gore is a bit to the left but as any honest person would admit - you get the whole administration not just the man. The Gore administration would have been just as close to the center as the Bush will be forced.

BTW, I could easily argue the far right position but that is just way to easy. Neither extreme is consistant with reality

[LawyerRon]

LawyerRon, you can't be serious. You think they would have streached the law (equal protection) if Gore and Bush were reversed in position?

bob,
The Court* didn't make up the Equal Protection claim. The Bush side successfully raised it. All the Court did was apply it correctly. The counties in Florida were all using different standards to determine "voter intent". Remember our little discussion on how to determine "voter intent"? The Court didn't go near the issue, as I knew they wouldn't. That's because we have no clear standard to determine it.

People (who don't know anything about how the Court really operates) see this decision as "political". The Court is very independent and certainly not political.

Check this out the next time the President delivers the State of the Union Address:

Both houses of Congress are present and the members of the U.S. Supreme Court are seated in the front row. The President enters from the rear of the hall and walks down the isle. Everyone stands as the President is walking to the podium. EXCEPT the members of the Court. They don't stand for anyone.



Legal tip: When ever you're referring to the US Supreme Court, the word "court" is always capitalized.

[SARGE]

Just get rid of Reno along with the EPA airheads. They're the real problem.

[kraken]

Lawerron
Don't confuse ettiquette with political neutrality.

As I understand it, a decision had to be made in the USSC where there is no clear definition based on the law. As a result the voting went the way of the known political appointments, they had no other choice. After all, if they cannot determine what is right, who can.

That's because we have no clear standard to determine it.

If the appointed judges had of been in favor of the Democrats then the decision would have gone the other way. It would be a brave person who stood against those that gave them their position.

This debacle has only shown that reform, in the way that people get elected, is long overdue. Common standards need to be put in place so that this type of confusion does not happen in the future.

[Kubie]

kraken,
Agree whole heartedly (sp), that a standardized voting be put into place.
Carl

[kraken]

Works fine here in OZ. Close elections are not the jurisdiction of the courts. If any count, in any electorate is close, then an automatic recount goes into effect. This recount is done by independant officers of the Australian Electoral Commission. Our last election saw the government returned with a slim majority. A few votes (100 or so) in a few close electorates, would have seen a change in government.

There were no arguements.

[bob]

"/The Court* didn't make up the Equal Protection claim. /"

The 14th Amendment Equal Protection is usually refered to when race issues need to be resolved.

As for the crux of the decision it was right down party lines. Daddy Bush appointed 2 of them - and some say that GW did not need any help from his dad.

*** I will not captalize the current USsc.

[LawyerRon]

quote:
"The 14th Amendment Equal Protection is usually refered to when race issues need to be resolved."

That's incorrect bob.

[bob]

Incorrect?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt14/18.html#1

[LawyerRon]

Actually what I meant bob was that the EP clause need not only apply to race issues. By that I mean its scope is not limited to race issues. The EP clause generally applies to "suspect classes", which can mean race, gender, or other classes. Of course in cases of racial discrimination, you will raise an EP violation. Basically the EP clause stands for the proposition that people "similarly situated" must be treated equally. Normally a EP violation will also trigger a Due Process violation too.

The part of the Court's opinion that I agreed with involved the different standards being used by the various counties to determine "voter intent". That was the heart of the Bush EP challenge.

Actually, I don't see the Court as "political", but rather I see a Court with an "agenda". My opinion is that the Court figures out the result they want, and then uses case law to arrive at that result. This Court's majority has a very convervative agenda. Past Courts, such as the Warren Court had a very Liberal agenda. The Warren Court was responsible for the Miranda decision and many other decisions in the area of Civil Rights in an era when that was a very controversial topic.

Earl Warren was an interesting Chief Justice. Appointed by Eisenhower, Warren was almost ultra conservative, then after being appointed to the Court, he did a complete 180 turn around and set forth the most liberal agenda of our time. Eisenhower would later say his appointment was the biggest mistake he ever made.

[bob]

"/My opinion is that the Court figures out the result they want, and then uses case law to arrive at that result./"

Well I have to argee with that.