the supreme court was diminished by the way they handled florida.
but hasn't the recount been done? (independently by a bunch of newspapers?) and the results remain the same?
my point is you can only control what you can control, gore lost the election in tennessee, ohio.
florida is not a state he should have counted on in the first place.
so if i'm going to point fingers at something i'm not going to point them at something that's uncontrollable, and going to place the blame at gore's bad bad strategy. democrats are going to have to get their act together and start looking forward and let florida go.
if they can't win in the industrial north (which is the way it looks to be going) it could be a long time until we see a democratic president, unless hilary runs.
The law actually does say that votes are recounted on a county-by-county basis. There's nothing about "state-wide recounts" in the Florida law. But despite that, Gore actually did offer as a solution a state-wide recount, and that was before the Supreme Court decision.
But it is interesting that the conservatives all of a sudden thought that
1. the Supreme Court ought to get involved in a state issue & a political one at that, when all of their writing prior to that case said that they shouldn't do that kind of thing, and
2. they all of a sudden believed so strongly in the 14th amendment (you know it well, trumptman, that evil bastion of the privacy right) that they would apply it in a way that it's never been applied before and that contradicts the entire country's method of voting - that it's decided on a county-by-county basis.
And that decision was completely partisan - the Republican appointees voted for Bush, the Democratic appointees for Gore. It's just that there are a lot more Republican appointees on the Supreme Court.
Just remember that in my last post, after wandering off for my two cents, I did actually post about Clark.
The Supreme Court was involved because although it was a state run election, it was for a federal office, the results of which also affected the other 49 states. If you don't see how the Florida election doesn't effect the other 49 states and thus isn't exclusively a state issue, then that is your perogative.
While the law did say they were recounted on a county by county basis, you side step the point. The counties all had to apply the same uniform standard. The votes were not treated the same from county to county. Each board was deciding their own standard and was doing so after the election. That is what the Supreme Court decided against in a 7-2 decision. That is not a partisan decision. It was clearly against the equal protection clause. Understand that 7 justices had a problem with the way the Florida Supreme Court had ordered the recounts.
The only partisan decision, was about whether this inequity could be resolved with enough time for Florida to still participate in the electoral college. That is what the 5-4 decision resolved.
As for Clark.. he looks really short. How tall is he? I know Bush is only 5'11".
The state law required a reason to go through a recount. No one could just trigger a state wide recount out of the goodness of their heart. The law was written so a troubled county could be fixed.
EDIT: just noticed BRussell's post.
Actually because of the margin of victory, an automatic recount was triggered and done by machine.
Comments
but hasn't the recount been done? (independently by a bunch of newspapers?) and the results remain the same?
my point is you can only control what you can control, gore lost the election in tennessee, ohio.
florida is not a state he should have counted on in the first place.
so if i'm going to point fingers at something i'm not going to point them at something that's uncontrollable, and going to place the blame at gore's bad bad strategy. democrats are going to have to get their act together and start looking forward and let florida go.
if they can't win in the industrial north (which is the way it looks to be going) it could be a long time until we see a democratic president, unless hilary runs.
Originally posted by BRussell
The law actually does say that votes are recounted on a county-by-county basis. There's nothing about "state-wide recounts" in the Florida law. But despite that, Gore actually did offer as a solution a state-wide recount, and that was before the Supreme Court decision.
But it is interesting that the conservatives all of a sudden thought that
1. the Supreme Court ought to get involved in a state issue & a political one at that, when all of their writing prior to that case said that they shouldn't do that kind of thing, and
2. they all of a sudden believed so strongly in the 14th amendment (you know it well, trumptman, that evil bastion of the privacy right) that they would apply it in a way that it's never been applied before and that contradicts the entire country's method of voting - that it's decided on a county-by-county basis.
And that decision was completely partisan - the Republican appointees voted for Bush, the Democratic appointees for Gore. It's just that there are a lot more Republican appointees on the Supreme Court.
Just remember that in my last post, after wandering off for my two cents, I did actually post about Clark.
The Supreme Court was involved because although it was a state run election, it was for a federal office, the results of which also affected the other 49 states. If you don't see how the Florida election doesn't effect the other 49 states and thus isn't exclusively a state issue, then that is your perogative.
While the law did say they were recounted on a county by county basis, you side step the point. The counties all had to apply the same uniform standard. The votes were not treated the same from county to county. Each board was deciding their own standard and was doing so after the election. That is what the Supreme Court decided against in a 7-2 decision. That is not a partisan decision. It was clearly against the equal protection clause. Understand that 7 justices had a problem with the way the Florida Supreme Court had ordered the recounts.
The only partisan decision, was about whether this inequity could be resolved with enough time for Florida to still participate in the electoral college. That is what the 5-4 decision resolved.
As for Clark.. he looks really short. How tall is he? I know Bush is only 5'11".
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
The state law required a reason to go through a recount. No one could just trigger a state wide recount out of the goodness of their heart. The law was written so a troubled county could be fixed.
EDIT: just noticed BRussell's post.
Actually because of the margin of victory, an automatic recount was triggered and done by machine.
Nick
I guess we need to see a photo of those two next to each other.
Although in a recent video Clark seemed pretty tall.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually because of the margin of victory, an automatic recount was triggered and done by machine.
Nick
So are you going to admit that you were wrong to say that Gore should have requested a state-wide recount since it was required?