Florida Supremes Stick It to US Supremes

redshirt32 · 12-08-2000, 03:10 PM

Yep, by a 4-3 vote, they are ordering changes to the certified totals and ordering recounts of all undercounts in all Florida counties...

Can you see the smoke rising from the US Supreme Court on this? I predict it will be overturned faster than I can flip flapjacks...<BR>

Quarterback · 12-08-2000, 07:57 PM

This is amazing, especially after the U.S. Supremes went out of their way to give these people a fig leaf.

It just points out exactly how partisan and hypocritical the Dems are.

Buzzbait · 12-08-2000, 09:05 PM

There is a hearing right now on tv that is deciding the vote standards AFTER the election.

Can someone please explain to me how that does not conflict with the constitution that says rules cannot be changed AFTER the election?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Clint in Wichita · 12-08-2000, 09:32 PM

This is a totally seperate issue. The previous thing regarded extending the deadline. This regards the contest phase, which would have happened wether or not Gore won the first case. And the Fla Court has already said they are going to work on that first case and resubmit to the supreme court.

Now as to how the Supreme court rules on this case, we'll see...

Buzzbait · 12-08-2000, 09:47 PM

I'm talking about standards as to what constitutes a vote, so far Broward's standards are different than Palm beach and Miami,etc...How can you fairly count 200,000 votes in four days without a standard?

Well, actually they are trying to agree on a standard right now, again, this conflicts with the constitution..
Can you tell me how it does not conflict?

[This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-08-2000).]

Clint in Wichita · 12-08-2000, 09:58 PM

I don't know. There is so much reading into the constitution and interpretation from both sides that I'm not sure what's going on. I'm sure the Supreme Court will answer that question...

Buzzbait · 12-08-2000, 10:03 PM

Wolf, It is fascinating, I have actually learned alot and maybe, just maybe, this will be good for the country...

The Seahawks and Chiefs have constitutional crisis's of their own to deal with!.. :)

First time I have been this fired up about political matters. Usually I only get this fired up about sports..

BTW liz Wiehl is a babe

[This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-08-2000).]

Clint in Wichita · 12-08-2000, 10:31 PM

Joe,
I am confused. Earlier this year on MNF, they said that everytime the Redskins lose a home game the week before election the incumbent loses the election, which would mean Gore would have to lose. Yet the other night the same MNF crew said that if the Patriots won Al Gore would win the election, and the Patriots won (Elvis must be a democrat).

There are just way too many contradictions going on. I am going to appeal this to the Supreme Court and hopefully they can clear this up. Al, Dan and Dennis, see you in court!

Devin Vierth · 12-08-2000, 11:57 PM

I don't think the Foul Four of the Fla Supreme court were very smart. Their opinion clearly thumbs their nose at the US Supreme Court, so much so that the other three justices write dissenting opinions so clear as to make the case for the Bush legal teams appeal to the US Supreme Ct and provides clear definition for the injunction to stop the counting tommorow in the Atlanta Appeals court. On top of this in the foul fours disertation they basically tell the Supreme Ct to go to he1l, the count is what we say it is and you cannot vacate our decision. Again the dissenting 3 (including the Fla Chief Justice point this error out in their dissenting opinion. I suspect that the Fla. Supreme Court is going to take a severe beating from the US Supreme Court. I doubt if even Justice Ginsberg will take kindly to this decision. My guess is the injunction is approved in the morning and by Tuesday the US Supreme Court has overturned this decision and thrashed the Florida Foul Four so thoroughly that they will be hurting for years to come. It is not very wise to tell the Supreme Court of the US to go to He1l it is none of their business, which is what this ruling basically did.

------------------
Jim Reynolds
If I were a Democrat I would surely be a sore loser!

Clint in Wichita · 12-09-2000, 12:21 AM

Jim,
Maybe you are right, but I fail to see how this is a slap at the US Supreme Court since it is dealing with the contest, not extending the deadline. IMO, those are totally different things...

Devin Vierth · 12-09-2000, 01:05 AM

DaWolf,

How can you say they are not extending the deadline. The dissenting opinion by the Fla Chief Justice says that himself. If you have not had the chance, you should read the dissenting opinions from the three justices starting on page 41 and running through page 69 as they are quite enlightening. I was depressed over this whole debacle until I read those.

------------------
Jim Reynolds
If I were a Democrat I would surely be a sore loser!

Clint in Wichita · 12-09-2000, 03:26 AM

Jim,
In regards to my last post, I was talking about the context of the rulings, IE the first ruling was based on extending the deadline for the election certification. This case is regarding the contest phase, a different matter.

I have read those, and I am more inclined to agree with the majority ruling obviously. We'll see how our republican friends in the US Supreme Court see it, and I have my guesses as to that. Reading page 44 for example, it strikes me that basically, you have people taking a set of laws and rulings and forming different opinions. This judge for example, seems more concerned with the possibility of constitutional crisis and whether there was an arbitrary threshold they had established. The majority go to the law and emphasise the points regarding voter integrity and making sure the voters are all counted, IE why the statewide recount was ordered. You have them both quoting section 102.168(3) c and drawing different conclusions.

He also feels that there is no way to get the recount done on time. That opinion is obviously not shared by the majority or Judge Lewis, who wants it done in two days.

He also raises concerns about the individual criteria canvassing boards can use, something I agree with. Problem is, these are the standards that the legislature has put into Florida law, so there isn't anything you can do about that.

The other ones basically feel the threshold had not been met. The last few pages say that the remedy would be to do exactly what they did, but they don't feel the time is there to do it. I find that funny because they are the ones who extended and set the deadline in the first place so that there would be "enough time for a contest."

12-08-2000, 07:57 PM	#2
Quarterback Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Casino cash: $10004900	This is amazing, especially after the U.S. Supremes went out of their way to give these people a fig leaf. It just points out exactly how partisan and hypocritical the Dems are.
Posts: 451

12-08-2000, 09:05 PM	#3
Buzzbait Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	There is a hearing right now on tv that is deciding the vote standards AFTER the election. Can someone please explain to me how that does not conflict with the constitution that says rules cannot be changed AFTER the election? Anyone? Anyone?
Posts: 1,015

12-08-2000, 09:32 PM	#4
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	This is a totally seperate issue. The previous thing regarded extending the deadline. This regards the contest phase, which would have happened wether or not Gore won the first case. And the Fla Court has already said they are going to work on that first case and resubmit to the supreme court. Now as to how the Supreme court rules on this case, we'll see...
Posts: 4,458

12-08-2000, 09:47 PM	#5
Buzzbait Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	I'm talking about standards as to what constitutes a vote, so far Broward's standards are different than Palm beach and Miami,etc...How can you fairly count 200,000 votes in four days without a standard? Well, actually they are trying to agree on a standard right now, again, this conflicts with the constitution.. Can you tell me how it does not conflict? [This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-08-2000).]
Posts: 1,015

12-08-2000, 09:58 PM	#6
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	I don't know. There is so much reading into the constitution and interpretation from both sides that I'm not sure what's going on. I'm sure the Supreme Court will answer that question...
Posts: 4,458

12-08-2000, 03:10 PM
redshirt32 Fire Controlman Vet Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: By the Sea Casino cash: $6144936	Yep, by a 4-3 vote, they are ordering changes to the certified totals and ordering recounts of all undercounts in all Florida counties... Can you see the smoke rising from the US Supreme Court on this? I predict it will be overturned faster than I can flip flapjacks...<BR>
Posts: 5,020

12-08-2000, 10:03 PM	#7
Buzzbait Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Wolf, It is fascinating, I have actually learned alot and maybe, just maybe, this will be good for the country... The Seahawks and Chiefs have constitutional crisis's of their own to deal with!.. :) First time I have been this fired up about political matters. Usually I only get this fired up about sports.. BTW liz Wiehl is a babe [This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-08-2000).]
Posts: 1,015

12-08-2000, 10:31 PM	#8
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Joe, I am confused. Earlier this year on MNF, they said that everytime the Redskins lose a home game the week before election the incumbent loses the election, which would mean Gore would have to lose. Yet the other night the same MNF crew said that if the Patriots won Al Gore would win the election, and the Patriots won (Elvis must be a democrat). There are just way too many contradictions going on. I am going to appeal this to the Supreme Court and hopefully they can clear this up. Al, Dan and Dennis, see you in court!
Posts: 4,458

12-08-2000, 11:57 PM	#9
Devin Vierth Fanatical Conservative Beware! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Boise Idaho Casino cash: $10004900	I don't think the Foul Four of the Fla Supreme court were very smart. Their opinion clearly thumbs their nose at the US Supreme Court, so much so that the other three justices write dissenting opinions so clear as to make the case for the Bush legal teams appeal to the US Supreme Ct and provides clear definition for the injunction to stop the counting tommorow in the Atlanta Appeals court. On top of this in the foul fours disertation they basically tell the Supreme Ct to go to he1l, the count is what we say it is and you cannot vacate our decision. Again the dissenting 3 (including the Fla Chief Justice point this error out in their dissenting opinion. I suspect that the Fla. Supreme Court is going to take a severe beating from the US Supreme Court. I doubt if even Justice Ginsberg will take kindly to this decision. My guess is the injunction is approved in the morning and by Tuesday the US Supreme Court has overturned this decision and thrashed the Florida Foul Four so thoroughly that they will be hurting for years to come. It is not very wise to tell the Supreme Court of the US to go to He1l it is none of their business, which is what this ruling basically did. ------------------ Jim Reynolds If I were a Democrat I would surely be a sore loser!
Posts: 901

12-09-2000, 12:21 AM	#10
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Jim, Maybe you are right, but I fail to see how this is a slap at the US Supreme Court since it is dealing with the contest, not extending the deadline. IMO, those are totally different things...
Posts: 4,458

12-09-2000, 01:05 AM	#11
Devin Vierth Fanatical Conservative Beware! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Boise Idaho Casino cash: $10004900	DaWolf, How can you say they are not extending the deadline. The dissenting opinion by the Fla Chief Justice says that himself. If you have not had the chance, you should read the dissenting opinions from the three justices starting on page 41 and running through page 69 as they are quite enlightening. I was depressed over this whole debacle until I read those. ------------------ Jim Reynolds If I were a Democrat I would surely be a sore loser!
Posts: 901

12-09-2000, 03:26 AM	#12
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Jim, In regards to my last post, I was talking about the context of the rulings, IE the first ruling was based on extending the deadline for the election certification. This case is regarding the contest phase, a different matter. I have read those, and I am more inclined to agree with the majority ruling obviously. We'll see how our republican friends in the US Supreme Court see it, and I have my guesses as to that. Reading page 44 for example, it strikes me that basically, you have people taking a set of laws and rulings and forming different opinions. This judge for example, seems more concerned with the possibility of constitutional crisis and whether there was an arbitrary threshold they had established. The majority go to the law and emphasise the points regarding voter integrity and making sure the voters are all counted, IE why the statewide recount was ordered. You have them both quoting section 102.168(3) c and drawing different conclusions. He also feels that there is no way to get the recount done on time. That opinion is obviously not shared by the majority or Judge Lewis, who wants it done in two days. He also raises concerns about the individual criteria canvassing boards can use, something I agree with. Problem is, these are the standards that the legislature has put into Florida law, so there isn't anything you can do about that. The other ones basically feel the threshold had not been met. The last few pages say that the remedy would be to do exactly what they did, but they don't feel the time is there to do it. I find that funny because they are the ones who extended and set the deadline in the first place so that there would be "enough time for a contest."
Posts: 4,458