DesignDawg,
I just heard it on FOX News...the Paula Zahn show was reporting it. I canna link to the TV set.
I just heard it on FOX News...the Paula Zahn show was reporting it. I canna link to the TV set.
Hmmmm.....Fox News.... Republican news source. I'll believe it when i hear it from CNN.
Ricky
DesignDawg
Ricky
DesignDawg
Total Refected Power,
Yeah expect the stock market to shoot up tomorrow (Ooooo...that didn't quite sound right did it?).
Yeah expect the stock market to shoot up tomorrow (Ooooo...that didn't quite sound right did it?).
You really think it's over? I'm not so optimistic. Somehow, i don't see Gore conceding yet. --Even IF it's true that the chair of the DNC told him to.
Ricky
DesignDawg
Ricky
DesignDawg
One of the reasons that I voted for Gore this year was not because I liked Gore as a president. But I just can't stand more conservative judges on the supreme court. I bet Rehnquest and Ginsburg will wait four more years before they retire.
Dawg:
Reports on CNN have his main lawyer David Boies calling on Gore to concede.
It's a goofy ruling (no time to recount) but its over.
Reports on CNN have his main lawyer David Boies calling on Gore to concede.
It's a goofy ruling (no time to recount) but its over.
<< BREAKING NEWS from CNN.com >>
<< Democratic National Committee Chairman Ed Rendell has just appeared on MSNBC and urged Al Gore to concede.-- details to follow ...
>>
apoppin
Lifer
I just finished reading the Supreme Court 65 page decision right now (got to love the Internet).
It looks like they ended Gore's chances for a recount and kicked the case back to the Florida Supreme Court basically saying it's too late now for any recount.
What really surprises me is the dissent apparent within the US Supreme Court. And it it deep and bitter. Four of the justices basically do not agree with the other five at all. And their dissent is particularly bitter (one of them even leaving out the customary "I respectfully dissent; just saying, "I dissent".).
The dissent basically says the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it and not taken sides in choosing a President as it now raises questions about their own impartiality. It speaks about wounds needing to heal because of this. What a cloud over the judicial system and the next President (Bush) to overcome.
If you have a chance read the whole 65 pages. It makes for some very interesting reading. (I think you can link to it in pdf form from any of the major news sources.)
It looks like they ended Gore's chances for a recount and kicked the case back to the Florida Supreme Court basically saying it's too late now for any recount.
What really surprises me is the dissent apparent within the US Supreme Court. And it it deep and bitter. Four of the justices basically do not agree with the other five at all. And their dissent is particularly bitter (one of them even leaving out the customary "I respectfully dissent; just saying, "I dissent".).
The dissent basically says the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it and not taken sides in choosing a President as it now raises questions about their own impartiality. It speaks about wounds needing to heal because of this. What a cloud over the judicial system and the next President (Bush) to overcome.
If you have a chance read the whole 65 pages. It makes for some very interesting reading. (I think you can link to it in pdf form from any of the major news sources.)
cnn just had a statement from gore camp, saying the decision was lengthy and complex, they need time to read over it.
in other words.. gore aint gonna concede until bush is friggin' sworn in, in january
in other words.. gore aint gonna concede until bush is friggin' sworn in, in january
apoppin
Lifer
Need time to read it over?
I read it in 1/2 hour. It's pretty clear (for a change). If you have any doubts just read the dissenting opinions.
The Gore team has to be supremely creative to get around this 5-4 decision. I'd guess that Gore will concede tomorrow unless they have some options unrelated to a recount.
I read it in 1/2 hour. It's pretty clear (for a change). If you have any doubts just read the dissenting opinions.
The Gore team has to be supremely creative to get around this 5-4 decision. I'd guess that Gore will concede tomorrow unless they have some options unrelated to a recount.
It was a SHARPLY divided opinion....take a look ......
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
In one of several dissenting opinions, Stevens said,
?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 law.?
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
In one of several dissenting opinions, Stevens said,
?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 law.?
The whiny, crybaby Liberal activists on the USSC need to shut their pieholes!:|
"the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law'"
Yeah, right. When the USSC created "a women's right to choose" out of thin air in 1973, no one was complaining. (Except those who view abortion as murder.)
Ginsburg wanted to be Chief Justice when Renquist retired and now she'll have to sing backup for the new lead vocalist, Scalia. (Eat it, Ruth.)
"the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law'"
Yeah, right. When the USSC created "a women's right to choose" out of thin air in 1973, no one was complaining. (Except those who view abortion as murder.)
Ginsburg wanted to be Chief Justice when Renquist retired and now she'll have to sing backup for the new lead vocalist, Scalia. (Eat it, Ruth.)
It was not THAT sharply divided. Seven of them saw serious Constitutional problems. They simply differed on the remedy. I would have liked to see a compromise, but there really was no way to compromise without a) writing new law, or b) prolonging the recount past the deadline. Setting a standard would have been writing new law AFTER the fact. They could have ordered that a specific standard be adopted, but the recounts could not be finished before the deadline.
Oh well... don't look a gift horse in the mouth I suppose....
Oh well... don't look a gift horse in the mouth I suppose....
What I get out the talking heads is that:
7 0f the 9 agreed the FLSC ruling is unconstitutional.
5 of those 7 agree that the FL State law says that the electors have to picked by the 12th of December.
2 of the 7 disagree and think that the recount could be done as long as it completed by the 18th of December.
The law scholars and legal advisors are saying it is over as it now past the 12th of December, well almost since the Talahassee (sp?) is in Central time.
So only 2 of the USSC flatly disagree, two more while agreeing on the problem, disagree on how to fix the problem, and the remaining 5 agree that today is the deadline and it is too late to do anything now.
In hindsight, had the State Legislature set a clear standard when the law was written, or had the FLSC set a standard when they had the case, the recount could have been done.
If they do it now, the USSC has ruled that they will be violating the FL election law deadline of the 12th, and the USSC has disallowed that.
7 0f the 9 agreed the FLSC ruling is unconstitutional.
5 of those 7 agree that the FL State law says that the electors have to picked by the 12th of December.
2 of the 7 disagree and think that the recount could be done as long as it completed by the 18th of December.
The law scholars and legal advisors are saying it is over as it now past the 12th of December, well almost since the Talahassee (sp?) is in Central time.
So only 2 of the USSC flatly disagree, two more while agreeing on the problem, disagree on how to fix the problem, and the remaining 5 agree that today is the deadline and it is too late to do anything now.
In hindsight, had the State Legislature set a clear standard when the law was written, or had the FLSC set a standard when they had the case, the recount could have been done.
If they do it now, the USSC has ruled that they will be violating the FL election law deadline of the 12th, and the USSC has disallowed that.
apoppin
Lifer
READ the dissents!
Four of the justices said although there were problems with the Florida Supreme Court rulings, the counts should have proceeded.
It was deeply and sharply divided.
Four of the justices said although there were problems with the Florida Supreme Court rulings, the counts should have proceeded.
It was deeply and sharply divided.
apoppin-
Under Section 5 of the US Code, there was no way for it to continue. Section 5 says (among other things) that you pick electors with the rules established before the election. There is no way to recount these votes that will NOT violate the equal protection laws without writing new law NOW. It is a legislative snafu, like it or not.
Under Section 5 of the US Code, there was no way for it to continue. Section 5 says (among other things) that you pick electors with the rules established before the election. There is no way to recount these votes that will NOT violate the equal protection laws without writing new law NOW. It is a legislative snafu, like it or not.
This is why we have 9 judges, no ties.
I think that having a split decision shows that we have pretty good diversity on USSC. I think that is a good thing. Pretty much all we heard all week was that three are really conservative and three are really liberal and two are moderate. To me that sounds like good balance. Ideally I would like them to all be moderate...
I think I'd really worry when all the rulings come down 9-0 that we dont have balance on the USSC.
This brings up the issue of Bush appointing SC judges, but under the circumstances, I cant see him getting any conservative judges through. So any that do get replaced will likley be more moderate, and that has to be better for our country.
IMHO, when you get to the USSC, dissenting opinions mean about didly. At a lower court they can be used as fodder for argument in an appeal, but USSC has no appealate court above them, so a dissenting USSC opinion just becomes moral support for the losing side.
I think that having a split decision shows that we have pretty good diversity on USSC. I think that is a good thing. Pretty much all we heard all week was that three are really conservative and three are really liberal and two are moderate. To me that sounds like good balance. Ideally I would like them to all be moderate...
I think I'd really worry when all the rulings come down 9-0 that we dont have balance on the USSC.
This brings up the issue of Bush appointing SC judges, but under the circumstances, I cant see him getting any conservative judges through. So any that do get replaced will likley be more moderate, and that has to be better for our country.
IMHO, when you get to the USSC, dissenting opinions mean about didly. At a lower court they can be used as fodder for argument in an appeal, but USSC has no appealate court above them, so a dissenting USSC opinion just becomes moral support for the losing side.
apoppin
Lifer
Futuramatic, just read the four justices dissenting opinions.
I am not making this up - they are also quoting law and precedents.
All I am saying is what is supremely clear (pun intended) - the top court of this land is deeply divided over this important decision.
BTW, I am not sure if it is the forums or my ISP but pages and replys are taking forever to load. I have to drop out of this discussion.
Aloha.
I am not making this up - they are also quoting law and precedents.
All I am saying is what is supremely clear (pun intended) - the top court of this land is deeply divided over this important decision.
BTW, I am not sure if it is the forums or my ISP but pages and replys are taking forever to load. I have to drop out of this discussion.
Aloha.
I haven't heard any discussions on this, and I may be completely whacked but...
During the first FL Supreme Court case there was a big deal made by Bush lawyers about Protests and Contests- at the time I thought big deal. The FL Supreme Court gave Gore more time, until Sunday after Thanksgiving to do a recount. Now it seems that if the Gore camp would have allowed Sec State of FL to announce winner, then contest the election, there would of been more (uninterrupted) time to do recounts.--- IF the USSC allowed them to keep counting until Dec 12
During the first FL Supreme Court case there was a big deal made by Bush lawyers about Protests and Contests- at the time I thought big deal. The FL Supreme Court gave Gore more time, until Sunday after Thanksgiving to do a recount. Now it seems that if the Gore camp would have allowed Sec State of FL to announce winner, then contest the election, there would of been more (uninterrupted) time to do recounts.--- IF the USSC allowed them to keep counting until Dec 12
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter