How to keep SCOTUS from stealing California's election

[Silicon]

The more I think about the 9th Circuit's ruling postponing the recall, the more it makes sense in a strange way.


Imagine this:

It's October 8th, or 9th or something, and it's found that the difference between the votes FOR the recall and the votes Against the recall are within 10,000 votes.

Early returns favor the Pro-recall, so the news organizations declare Swarzenegger the Governor.

But then, the slower-counting punch card counties results start coming in, and the margin narrows.

Davis demands a re-count while he's still Governor.

But the Supreme Court of the US determines that only recounting the punch card (poorer) counties violates Equal Protection and stops the recount and hands the Gouvernorship to Arnie.


Scary proposition.

What assurance have we that the SCOTUS won't do in California EXACTLY what they did in Florida?

Well, you can do what the 9th Circuit did. You can take away the punch cards from the election. That's the 9th Circuit saying "Far Right Justices, keep your meddling out of California."

[Shinytop]

Well to start with your assumptions about SCOTUS and the Florida election are flawed and indicate a complete misunderstanding of what happened. If the recounts had been requested in time the SC would have allowed them. What is really interesting is that all of the news organizations trying to find a story ended up recounting themselves and finding that Bush still won.

So your question is badly flawed as we have no evidence that SCOTUS has stolen an election.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shinytop
What is really interesting is that all of the news organizations trying to find a story ended up recounting themselves and finding that Bush still won.

But the SCOTUS didn't know that at the time, and still the very split decision, with 4 seperate dissents, went ahead and stopped the recount.

If Bush had inded lost the newspaper recounts, where would we be today as a nation, knowing that the SCOTUS made the wrong guess.

I'm very very thankful that Bush would have won, as the alternative is unthinkable.

But he only would have won the recounts that Gore was asking. If they recounted the entire state, Gore would have won.


According to the USA Today study, which actually DID the count:




Who would have won if all disputed ballots - including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president - had been recounted by hand?
Answer: Bush, under the 2 most widely used standards; Gore, under the 2 least used.

Who does it appear most voters intended to vote for?
Answer: Gore.



YEP!!! Good thing SCOTUS stopped that recount!




SCOTUS had the Florida Supreme Court between a rock and a hard place. They knew that a full recount of all ballots in the state would take longer than the deadline, and the Republican FL legislature would cast the electoral votes instead.

But if they did only a recount of the counties where there were voting irregularities, the SCOTUS would zing 'em for unequal recounting practices.

The real problem is there wasn't enough poll workers for recounts in time, and whose fault was that? Oh, the BROTHER of the candidate who won?

[Shinytop]

That's a load of crap. The counties that had problems were all democratically ruled. The problems in those counties had been know for years but ignored by the Democrats in charge. If Gore had requested a statewide recount instead of just counties he would gain votes he would have had it early on. He shot himself in the foot. But what is not known is the result of looking at the under votes and over votes in other counties. In my county more votes from Bush resulted and I suspect there are many others. The only counties looked at by the papers were the ones contested by Gore, the same mistake Gore made and the reason Gore was not seeking justice but a win.

Oh, and the workers for the counties recounting were democratically controlled, not by the state. You really need to know or study more about local election boards.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shinytop
The problems in those counties had been know for years but ignored by the Democrats in charge. If Gore had requested a statewide recount instead of just counties he would gain votes he would have had it early on. He shot himself in the foot.

It shouldn't be his right to shoot himself in the foot. It should be the voters' right to have their intentions acted upon.

[i]
The only counties looked at by the papers were the ones contested by Gore, the same mistake Gore made and the reason Gore was not seeking justice but a win. [/B]


So now you're changing your story from "The papers showed that Bush actually won" to "The papers WOULD have shown that Bush actually won if they recounted all the state's ballots"?



I agree that Gore's choices cost him the election. But if he asked for all the state to recount, the Legislature would have handed the election to Bush anyway because of the missed deadline.

[shuize]

A prediction I made back after Bush v. Gore is coming true. Now and forever after, whenever Democrats lose an election the cry will be that it was "stolen" from them.

This is what comes from the "entitlement" mentality.

[Silicon]

Yep,

Funny thing about us Demmycrats, feeling entitled to have our vote count.

And if they allowed the recount, we would have shut up.


But since the Supremes psychically predicted that Bush would have won anyway, they stopped the recounts.


Glad lotsa Psychics were appointed to the court by Reagan/Bush!




But all of this is off topic.

What do the democrats have to do to keep the SCOTUS from doing the exact same thing in this recall, or in any election?

[Shinytop]

Asked and answered.

[shuize]

You want your votes to count? No problem. Tell your fellow Democrats to follow the simple voting instructions. Or am I wrong to think that a vote marked for Candidate A really shouldn't have to be reinterpreted for Candidate B?

I remember after the Bush/Gore election when a hard-core left wing intern in our office started trying to tell me how the Florida ballots were really, really complicated. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at her pathetic excuses for voters too dumb to follow a simple arrow.

In response I showed her a comedy parody site which used the exact same Florida ballots with 3, 4, and 5 year olds. Guess what? As I remember, only the 3 year old couldn't vote for Gore as directed. (I'll look for the site and link it if it's still around)

*edited to add: My mistake. The children used to test the Florida ballots were 8, 6, and 3 years old. Still, only the 3 year old could not cast a proper vote for Gore as requested. See for yourself. The parody is at www.fadetoblack.com (http://www.fadetoblack.com) under the "story" category of "Flori-duh".

[Silicon]

Shuize,

Is that all by way of justifying why it was okay for Bush to have stolen the election, stopped the recounts and all?

Funny, none of that came up in the Supreme Court's reasoning.

And none of it explains the undervotes which were at stake. You do realize what an undervote is, don't you?

Not lining up the arrows correctly doesn't net you a dimpled, hanging or pregnant chad. It nets you an overvote, or a mis-vote which wouldn't show up at all. Not an undervote.

But hey, any way it takes for you to justify to yourself why it's right for the recounts to have been stopped, even though the newspaper counts concluded that most voters wanted Gore.

[Shinytop]

Can you not read? The newspaper accounts said Bush would have won with a recount. and I notice you drop your reasoning on Bush's brother being the reason there were not more poll assistants in the democratic counties. Maybe you can learn albeit very, very slowly.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Asked and answered.


When answered?


All I got from you was:


If the recounts had been requested in time the SC would have allowed them.


From Justice Steven Breyer's dissent in Bush v. Gore:


The majority justifies stopping the recount entirely on the ground that there is no more time. In particular, the majority relies on the lack of time for the Secretary to review and approve equipment needed to separate undervotes. But the majority reaches this conclusion in the absence of any record evidence that the recount could not have been completed in the time allowed by the Florida Supreme Court. The majority finds facts outside of the record on matters that state courts are in a far better position to address.


Remember, this was a 5 to 4 split-decision, not an overwhelming, unanimous ruling from the bench. This was contentious, with 4 seperate dissents written.

You treat it like this was a natural, simple, easy and unanimious ruling. It wasn't.


Justice Stevens, dissenting:


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.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Can you not read? The newspaper accounts said Bush would have won with a recount.

No, it said that Bush would have won under SOME recount methods, and Gore under others.


Here's two quick quotes for you. The first one is from Bush v. Gore, quoting the Florida Supreme Court's determination based on Florida Law..
The second is from USA Today, who counted the disputed ballots.




A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’


Who does it appear most voters intended to vote for?
Answer: Gore.




Now whether that intent was "clear" or not is up to the method, of course. But it was clear to USA Today and the other newspapers who pooled to count these ballots.


and I notice you drop your reasoning on Bush's brother being the reason there were not more poll assistants in the democratic counties. Maybe you can learn albeit very, very slowly.


Yeah, that was dumb. But so was Katherine Harris saying that she wouldn't accept any of the late returns from the heavily democratic counties after an automatic sample recount triggered by the close results showed that Gore would pick up more votes in a full recount.

Of course, it helped that she was co-chair of the "Elect Bush" campaign in Florida, and campaigned for him. Tell me why that's legal that the head of elections can be the co-chair of one of the candidate's campaign?



But back to California. The main difference is that RECOUNTS aren't being talked about yet, with differing standards. That's the main thing. Bush v. Gore talks about differing standards for recounts, and doesn't say that differing standards for the first count comprises Equal Protection problems. (Not sure why that's the case. They don't make it clear in Bush v. Gore WHY first count doesn't constitute an infringement of Equal Protection. They just skip it, and say it doesn't. Funny.)

Of course, in Bush v. Gore we didn't have the admission from the Secretary of State that the punchcard ballot system is obsolete and will disenfranchise voters. We have that in California (Common Cause v. Jones). So you can bet that whoever loses will sue for a recount, and sue under Equal Protection and cite Bush v. Gore.

I'm dying for it to be the Republicans suing under Bush v. Gore and Common Cause v. Jones. But that would be an embarrasment for the majority of the court, as it would continue to bring up these ghosts of 2000.

[Shinytop]

Quoting the dissentes on a vote is pretty much admitting defeat. The biggest difference in California versus Florida is that CA has definite standards on what counts as a good vote, etc. One of the Florida sticking points was no published standards.

[davefoc]

There were a few things said about the Florida presidential election that I didn't quite agree with.

After the election I became curious about which candidate would win if a recount was done of the whole state.

I downloaded the results of the various counties and made estimates about who would gain and lose votes based on the limited recounts that had been done and the type of voting machines employed. My analysis suggested that Bush would lose votes but would probably win a recount, although the results were so close that no matter what techniques were employed with a recount there would be too many ambiguities to allow certainty to be achieved.

A complete recount was done of the entire state by a news media consortium and Bush was found to be the winner with some ballot criteria and Gore was found to be the winner with some other ballot criteria. This kind of ambiguity was about what I expected based on the analysis that I had done.

One of the things that I noticed when I was doing the analysis was that there were very wide disparities between undervote and overvote rates from county to county even when the counties were reported to be using the same kind of voting devices. The numbers of undervotes and overvotes in these counties dwarfed the margin between the candidates. The voter errors and vote counting errors completely swamped out the small difference in vote totals between the two candidates and any notion that somehow a recount could be done which was going to give a definitive answer, particularly with limited time, was just wrong.

My thoughts

Neither candidate wanted a fair recount.

Bush, obviously, didn't want a fair recount. He didn't want any recounts at all. He was ahead and if there were no recounts he'd still be ahead.

Gore, despite a simplistic "count every vote" public relations campaign didn't want a fair recount either. His minions had, no doubt, reviewed the numbers and determined that a fair recount with even a fairly loose standard for determining what constituted a vote might not make up enough ground if a recount was done in all the counties.

So Gore adopted a legal strategy that was "let's get as many likely Bush voter ballots invalidated as possible and let's go for selective manual recounts in heavily Democratic counties to recover enough votes to pull ahead".

There were a few downsides to the Gore strategy. One was that it required a court to accept the obvious unfairness of it while extending the date for the end of the protest phase. The Florida Supreme court complied nicely here. Unfortunately for Gore, the Federal Supreme Court took a dimmer view of the scheme and by the time the Florida Supreme Court decided that selective recounts as a remedy for state wide problems wasn't going to fly there wasn't time for reasonable standards and procedures to be adopted and an accurate manual recount to be done.

Some examples of the Strange Results

Most counties reported an over vote in the range of .5% but many counties had an over vote rate of greater than 4% including one county, Gadsen, that had an over vote rate of 11.61%. Gadsen was an optical scanner county and the average over vote rate in optical scanner counties was .99%.

The results of the first machine recount and the second machine recount were about the same in most counties, but in four counties the results were substantially different. In Palm Beach county Gore gained 751 votes and bush gained 108 votes. The result seems wildly unlikely to be explained by random chance. Gore gained 1457 votes in the state wide machine recount. 1121 of those votes were gained in Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties.

Under vote rates even in counties with the same voting techniques varied by a factor of about 4 (0.77% for Nassau county and 3.21% for Columbia county). Both these counties used Datavote punchcard machines and both went for Bush.

The machine recounts generally produced a few more votes for each candidate but in Pinellas county the Bush total vote actually declined by 61 votes

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Silicon
The more I think about the 9th Circuit's ruling postponing the recall, the more it makes sense in a strange way.


Actually it doesn't at since the newer voting technology will be more error prone than the old. Usually the first election run on the new equipment irons out the bugs/flaws.

In other words, there is no evidence that the older system will be less/more accurate than the new. In fact, historically the new system will be _less_ accurate during its first go-around.

In other words, their decision wasn't scholarly since the data is out there.

[shuize]

You do realize what an undervote is, don't you?
Silicon,

Let's see if I have this right. An "undervote" is when a voter thinks about voting for Gore, puts her punch-maker in the slot making an ever so slight indentation, otherwise known as a "dimpled chad," but then changes her mind and decides not to vote for anyone -- thereby allowing the recounters to interpret her "dimpled chad" as an obvious vote for Gore. Or when a voter mistakenly places the punch-maker in the Gore slot and then retracts it without voting for anyone -- also allowing the recounters to interpret that "dimpled" or "pregnant chad" as another obvious vote for Gore. Of course, as Davefoc pointed out nicely above, the "recounts" called for by the Gore team only demanded this sort of vote interpretation in Democratic strongholds. But I guess that's what you meant about "undervotes" right?

See, when I posted above about the 6 and 8 year olds above being able to follow simple directions, that also included their being able to push the punch-maker through the ballot as the instructions clearly direct so as to avoid all the silly "reinterpretations" of what the voters "probably" meant when they "dimpled" or "impregnated" their chads.

And so my earlier statement still stands: You want your votes to be counted? No problem. Tell you fellow Democrats to spend more energy following simple directions and less crying about "stolen" elections. Really, it's not that hard. Even a bright 6 year old can get it right.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm merely an ignorant Australian, but isn't the point to give the office to the person the majority of the people want?

Last time I heard, being too stupid to operate a simple machine (or happening to live in an area with a faulty machine) did not disqualify you from voting.

[Regnad Kcin]

A few votes here, some micounted there, and the likelihood that the situation would never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Knowing that, as well as the fact that he was five-hundred-thousand votes behind Mr. Gore nationwide, one had hopes that Mr. Bush would have conceded the election. Ah, but such a gesture would require integrity and selflessness and respect for one's fellows.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
A few votes here, some micounted there, and the likelihood that the situation would never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Knowing that, as well as the fact that he was five-hundred-thousand votes behind Mr. Gore nationwide, one had hopes that Mr. Bush would have conceded the election. Ah, but such a gesture would require integrity and selflessness and respect for one's fellows.

Ahhhh, another sore loser heard from. You do not like the Electoral College, propose an amendment, stump for it and it may be gone. Until then, Bush won by the Constitution. By your post you would consider him selfless if he decided to ignore the Constitution. Wow, why have rules at all?

[Regnad Kcin]

Shinytop:

Yes, I'm of the opinion that the Electoral College is outdated in its rationale and, frankly, un-American in its practice. In this I'm not alone. You see, the Bush camp was, prior to November 2000, in expectation that they would lose the electoral college though enjoy a narrow popular vote margin and were in preparation for a full assault on the legitimacy of Mr. Gore's victory. Based on the vehemence with which they operated throughout the campaign (not to mention the eight years prior), one could expect that we'd still be hearing their shrill screeching.

No, the means utilized in the recent presidential race (including the most vile of attacks on Mr. McCain) revealed many of our friends in the GOP (including their Supreme Court lackeys) to be out for victory regardless of the price. As I mentioned earlier, integrity would be a stranger in that company.

But thanks for the presumptuous personal attack!

[Shinytop]

Ahhh yes, the dignified Mr Gore ran such a sterling and clean campaign. Your rants are nothing more than the postings of a sore loser. They are all politicians. The democrats have not produced anything better in decades. Your charges of the GOP planning an assault on the Constitution remain merely charges without back up documents from believable sources. If you have those I would be anxious to read them but would not be surprised. We have not demanded character in a politician for a good long while, a fact I acknowledge and bewail. That, however, does not excuse comments about a politician should give up the office just because the Constitution was followed. My feelings and support of the current President have completely changed since the election. That does not change facts. Presumptuous personal attack to call you a sore loser? Hardly meant as an attack but you are free to interpret is as you will. Your expectation of integrity and selflessness from a politician such as Bush, or for that matter Gore, was pointless and naive. The sad fact is that our current methods of funding political campaigns are an affront to honesty and integrity. Until we can eliminate corporate ownership of politicians there will be no integrity or anybody looking out for citizens first.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Your expectation of integrity and selflessness from a politician such as Bush, or for that matter Gore, was pointless and naive. The sad fact is that our current methods of funding political campaigns are an affront to honesty and integrity. Until we can eliminate corporate ownership of politicians there will be no integrity or anybody looking out for citizens first.

Yeah, too bad Karl Rove put out the character assasination on McCain (who I voted for), or we'd have ourselves a shot at that.

Perhaps. Maybe. Probably not.


Partisan stuff aside, I think that Davefoc is more correct than all of us. It's true that Gore was only contesting the areas where he stood to pick up votes. (Although, I do think that's only natural, and an artifact of our legal advocacy system.) And it's true that Bush stood to gain nothing by wanting anything recounted.

But I also think that the Supreme Court really messed this one up. Whatever they did, they should have done it unanimously. They should have worked together to find a solution, a remedy, that ALL of them could have signed their names to. That was a huge failing. A failure to lead.

And it does set up some pretty hairy questions about what Equal Protection means. When the state of California has determined that the voting machines are outdated and unequal (Common Cause V. Jones), we stand to see ourselves being left wide open for a lawsuit that will overturn the election, or seek to have it decertifyed under Equal Protection, do we not?

[Regnad Kcin]

Shinytop:

You are all over the map with this recent, to use your word, rant. Still, let's give it a go.Originally posted by Shinytop
Ahhh yes, the dignified Mr Gore ran such a sterling and clean campaign.I've been addressing the matter of George W. Bush, meaning those of his election campaign. Not Nader, not Buchanan, not Gore.Your rants are nothing more than the postings of a sore loser.And you've determined this how? Are you psychic? Or are you unaware of the definition of ad-hominem?They are all politicians. The democrats have not produced anything better in decades.Open to debate (but let's not). We are talking in the main about the majority ruling of the US Supreme Court regarding Bush v. Gore (a black mark on the nation's history) and how that will reverberate in years to come, as witnessed already with the (postponed) California recall of 2003.Your charges of the GOP planning an assault on the Constitution remain merely charges without back up documents from believable sources. If you have those I would be anxious to read them but would not be surprised.In the days before the election, the Bush team and a few sympathetic pundits began to worry that Gore might actually outpoll Bush in the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote. In a New York Daily News article entitled, "Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss," Bush operatives explained, "The one thing we don't do is roll over. We fight." In league with the campaign--which was already preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness--a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," said a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted." Local business leaders would be urged to lobby their customers, the Bush aide explained; members of the clergy would be asked to speak up for the "popular will," and pro-Bush Democrats would be urged "to scream as loud as they can." ... CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield reported that conservative pundits were already being briefed "shortly before taking to the airwaves about the line of attack to be taken in the event that Bush wound up losing the electoral count despite a popular vote lead ... friend of the campaign Ken Duberstein admitted, 'It was part of the talking points.'" - Michael Kramer, "Bush Set to Fight an Electoral College Loss," New York Daily News, November 1, 2000, pg. 6, as quoted in What Liberal Media? - The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman

Robert Dole ... spoke only of boycotting a hpothetical Gore inauguration, but of course, he had no real power to assert in any case. Those who did were clearly ready to use it. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay circulated a memo to congressional Republicans laying the groundwork for Congress to reject Florida's electors if the state made the mistake of sending ones the Republicans didn't like. House Majority Leader Dick Armey told the Associated Press, "We in the House must be aware of one fact. In the end, when the final analysis is brought to the House, it is our duty to accept or reject that." Both Armey and DeLay endorsed proposed, and clearly unconstitutional, legislation that would require state officials to include retroactively all military absentee ballots as part of the final vote. - Juliet Eilperin and Matthew Vita, "GOP Leaders Back Plan to Block Gore; House Proposal Tarkets Military Votges," Washington Post, November 23, 2000, p. A1, and Eric Alterman for MSNBC.com, November 24, 2000, ibid AltermanWe have not demanded character in a politician for a good long while, a fact I acknowledge and bewail. That, however, does not excuse comments about a politician should give up the office just because the Constitution was followed.Let's try this again.

We can easily surmise that the ballot situation in Florida would not have triggered an auto recount, never mind risen to crisis level, had the vote tallies been significantly favorable to one side or the other. However, the FL election was close, and as the recounts were proceeding the matter was obviously coming down to double or even single digit results, themselves questionable.

Now, never mind that the quite partisan Secretary of State Katherine Harris should have removed herself from the proceedings to avoid any question of impropriety. Never mind that candidate Patrick Buchanan opined that a remarkable spike of hundreds of votes credited to him from a heavily Jewish county were probably meant for Gore/Lieberman. Never mind that a Bush cousin was invited by Fox TV to falsely call the election (one of the many tactics used to create a prevailing sentiment that it was the Gore team that was trying to usurp the process). Never mind all this and much more. The simple truth is that Florida was deadlocked.

Given that reality, a man who promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" might be expected to do the right thing by the great majority of American voters and concede to their will. That little ditty about walking the walk as well as talking the talk comes to mind.My feelings and support of the current President have completely changed since the election. That does not change facts.That's nice, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.Presumptuous personal attack to call you a sore loser? Hardly meant as an attack but you are free to interpret is as you will."Hardly meant as an attack?" Please. Your use of the pejoritive was selected to minimize my opinion. This is evidenced by the presumptuous portion of your comments, that being that, as a "loser," I'm on Mr. Gore's side. Interesting, considering I haven't revealed who I voted or advocated for. In other words, my side is be-side the point. But I'll tell you anyway: I am on the side of justice. Curious that that wasn't your default position for me.Your expectation of integrity and selflessness from a politician such as Bush, or for that matter Gore, was pointless and naive.Naive? Perhaps. Pointless? Allow me to remind you that the course of world history has been and continues to be significantly changed (for better or worse, we'll never know) with the outcome of the 2000 election.The sad fact is that our current methods of funding political campaigns are an affront to honesty and integrity. Until we can eliminate corporate ownership of politicians there will be no integrity or anybody looking out for citizens first.Never mind (again?) that the constitution that you and I hold to be dear sets forth our system of representative democracy, as far as any hope for true campaign finance reform or some method to counteract the power of corporate lobbyists, I have to wonder: now who's being naive?

[Shinytop]

You have yet to convince anybody this side of Mars of the "stolen" 2000 election. But keep posting and keep trying to limit the subject. I can ignore you as easy as anybody else. The SCOTUS absolutely did their job in 2000. You would have us believe the justices should have compromised their integrity until they came up with a unanimous decision. You would have us believe that Harris should have disqualified herself. Pray tell, who do you think would not have had a bias in that position. Her job was to supervise the election. The fact that she did in accordance with law merely reflects my earlier judgment regarding your position. Nothing short of a Gore win would satisfy you. But damn, I will no longer label you. Your posts have labeled yourself. Thank you.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
You have yet to convince anybody this side of Mars of the "stolen" 2000 election.I wasn't aware that was my intent. Are you confusing me with someone else?But keep posting and keep trying to limit the subject. I can ignore you as easy as anybody else.Why the hostility? I have made points, you've challenged them, and I have backed them up with detailed explanations as well as sourced quotes. But ignore me if it makes you feel swell.The SCOTUS absolutely did their job in 2000.Err, no. For an excellent primer on the decision I recommend The Betrayal of America - How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by noted attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi. Or you might choose to read the opinion of the similarly well-regarded Alan Dershowitz in his Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000.You would have us believe the justices should have compromised their integrity until they came up with a unanimous decision.Where did I say/write that?You would have us believe that Harris should have disqualified herself. Pray tell, who do you think would not have had a bias in that position.Does the phrase "conflict of interest" have any meaning to you? Ms. Harris had a vested interest in the outcome of the presidential election. This would be no more than a curiosity if it weren't for the fact that, during the recount, she was exercising her authority beyond propriety and to the point that results came into question.

Furthermore, your contention that others would have a bias as acting secretary of state, making it somehow okey-dokey that Ms. Harris should be excused hers, is rather silly. I can't assess the qualifications of a person to act in accordance with their official charge if I don't know who that person is. I can, however, judge the behavior of the woman in question.Her job was to supervise the election. The fact that she did in accordance with law merely reflects my earlier judgment regarding your position.Entirely open to debate. Why? (Please pay attention to the answer.) It's not because of what was the eventual outcome, but rather the officeholder's interest in affecting the outcome. You see, I have never maintained the issue was about Bush v. Gore, rather, it's Right v. Wrong.Nothing short of a Gore win would satisfy you.You seem to have a small problem with debate. A fairly good idea is to deal with what your opponent says (or writes, as the case may be), not what you think he means.

With that in mind, please show me where I have said, or implied, that nothing short of a Gore win would satisfy me.But damn, I will no longer label you. Your posts have labeled yourself. Thank you. Odd.

[Shinytop]

Get over yourself. The office that Harris held was a political office. As I said, anybody occupying the office could be accused of bias so there was not inherent reason for her to bow out. The remark of the integrity of the SC was entirely appropriate if you would exercise your brain. The decision made was due to the beliefs of the justices concerned and in accordance with how they saw the law. Your assertion that they should have debated until they reached a unanimous decision would have required ignoring their original findings or compromising them. But you know that already.

Please avoid the lecture. This is a discussion forum and I will post as I please. If I make conclusions based on what you write you might reconsider what you write. I am not a child and am not impressed with verbosity, but with content.

And please, if you want to make referrals to sites I would prefer sites that are at least making an attempt at honesty and neutrality. The Betrayal of America, my ass.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Get over yourself.Again with the hostility. Curious.The office that Harris held was a political office. As I said, anybody occupying the office could be accused of bias so there was not inherent reason for her to bow out.Are you contending that the office of secretary of state enjoys no power?

And it doesn't matter "what you said" if that can be shown to be in error. Repeat it as often as you like though.The remark of the integrity of the SC was entirely appropriate if you would exercise your brain.What remark are you referring to?

By the way, please continue with the personal attacks. They really do help to advance your position!The decision made was due to the beliefs of the justices concerned and in accordance with how they saw the law.In the titles I called to your attention, both Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Dershowitz present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. From Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0195148274/reviews/104-5896509-0791140#01951482747297):

"[Harvard professor Alan] Dershowitz--himself a former Supreme Court clerk--argues that in this case for the first time, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan outcome have priority over legal principles ... Digging deeply into their earlier writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so."Your assertion that they should have debated until they reached a unanimous decision would have required ignoring their original findings or compromising them. But you know that already.What do I know already? That this is the second time you've erroneously attributed some position on an "unanimous decision" to me?Please avoid the lecture. This is a discussion forum and I will post as I please. If I make conclusions based on what you write you might reconsider what you write.If you would concern yourself with what I write and not what you believe you see between the lines than all will be peachy.I am not a child and am not impressed with verbosity, but with content.But only if it matches your worldview, apparently.And please, if you want to make referrals to sites I would prefer sites that are at least making an attempt at honesty and neutrality. The Betrayal of America, my ass. You seem fond of judging not only discussion opponents but now actual books by their covers, apparently again.

[Shinytop]

"And it doesn't matter "what you said" if that can be shown to be in error. Repeat it as often as you like though."

Applies in both directions. As we all know one can get any interpretation of events off the web one chooses. Pardon me if I do not accept your selections as golden. You may continue without me. Your agenda, in my opinion, does not include listening. Adieu.

[Regnad Kcin]

From a related sub-topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870095311&highlight=bugliosi#post1870095311) in a related thread. (Thanks to the always considered observations of JREFer Brown.)

[Shinytop]

From the words of the decision:

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

* * *

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.

[Regnad Kcin]

From Justice John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore:Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.

[Shinytop]

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy.

[Regnad Kcin]

Never before in American history have so many law professors, historians, political scientists, Supreme Court litigators, journalists who cover the high court, and other experts -- at all points along the political spectrum -- been in agreement that the majority decision of the court was not only "bad contitutional law" (John DiIulio, "Equal Protection Run Amok", E. J. Dionne Jr. and William Kristol eds., Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary (Brookings Institution, 2001)) but "lawless" (Cass Sunstein, "What We Will Remember in 2050," in Dionne and Kristol, eds., Bush v. Gore), "illegitimate" (Bush v. Gore), "unprincipled," "partisan" (Randall Kennedy, "Contempt of Court;" Michael S. Greve, "The Real Division in the Court;" Scott Turow, "A Brand New Game," all in Dionne and Kristol, eds., Bush v. Gore), "fraudulent," "disingenuous," and motivated by improper considerations.On January 13, 2001, an advertisement signed by 554 law professors was published in the New York Times. It asserted that "when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount ... the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges."Both quoted sections above taken from Supreme Injustice - How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 By Alan M. Dershowitz.

[Shinytop]

Dershowitz was such a Gore supporter that he was on the air with ABC News just before the FLA SC decision was announced. Tell me you have a better source than a conspicuous Gore backer. Tell me you are not wasting this forum's time.

Here are a couple quotes from that interview:
It's extremely courageous of the Florida Supreme Court to come down with a split decision. The U.S. Supreme Court did not have the guts to do that. It was more concerned about its institutional role than about doing the right thing.

Judges don't get paid to protect themselves; they get paid for doing the right thing. Split decisions are very healthy. The Florida Supreme Court is generally unanimous. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the conference which resulted in this 4-3 decision.



Wow, and we have other posters saying the SC was wrong because they did not make a unaminous decision.

And here is another quote from this star of the judicial process:
Moderator at 4:17pm ET
Is it likely the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse this decision?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Dershowitz at 4:18pm ET
I think there's almost no chance that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.

Ya, just keep using Dershowitz as your authority. I think the Justices have more qualifications than the former SC clerk.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Dershowitz was such a Gore supporter that he was on the air with ABC News just before the FLA SC decision was announced. Tell me you have a better source than a conspicuous Gore backer. Tell me you are not wasting this forum's time.Strange, I thought you had bid me adieu.Wow, and we have other posters saying the SC was wrong because they did not make a unaminous decision.But not me, though you have yet to correct your twice-made false assertion.And here is another quote from this star of the judicial process:The use of sarcasm, as with ad-hominem, inability to focus, generalization, refusal to admit error... well, none of these alone, much less in concert, are the marks of effective debate.

Also, it's interesting that you presented a quote by AD from an online discussion (made, I gather, in the days before the SC handed down its ruling). Never mind that I wouldn't know where to find such a thing and wonder how you came by it, why do you find his statement remarkable? One of the primary points made by those who assert that the five majority justices ruled based on partisan grounds is that they countered their own past opinions. As a student of the law, Professor Dershowitz would understandably expect that the court (read: each individual) would maintain its consistency.Ya, just keep using Dershowitz as your authority. I think the Justices have more qualifications than the former SC clerk. First of all, I do not "keep using Dershowitz" as my authority. The first time I brought up his name was to recommend his book as one of two that came to mind on the subject at hand. Since it then appeared that you had not read it, I presented a quote from the book's dust-jacket as a way of suggesting that you might be served by at least giving the title a glance.

The second time I "used" Dershowitz was in my post immediately above. But, as anyone can see, the first passage was a collection of quotes by others, presented as a verifiable point. The following passage, citing the 554 law professors, is clearly nothing more than an unaltered restatement of previously published fact. I merely lifted it from my already opened copy of AD.

And lastly, since you so readily disparage Professor Dershowitz (as well as Vincent Bugliosi earlier), I wonder, what are your qualifications to comment on this matter?

[davefoc]

Regnad Kcin,
I personally agree with Shinytop on Dershowitz. Dershowitz's views are either completely partisan and/or completely self serving and he has no credibility with me.

I do respect Bugliosi and the fact that I disagree with him about the supreme court decision does give me pause to question my views.

But I thought the first part of the supreme court decision (the 7-2 verdict) was correct and I never understood the arguments against it. The basis for demanding a recount was that there was an equal protection issue because the various voting techniques had unequal error rates and thus tended to discriminate against the voters in areas that used techniques with higher error rates.

So how did the relief that the Florida supreme court allowed (selective recounts in counties most likely to be favorable to Gore) in any way address this. Obviously, any recounts need to be done on a state wide basis or in at least all counties with punch cards to address the issue. That is what I believe the Supreme Court decided and I don't see the argument for an alternative decision.

The second part of the decision was more difficult. The supreme court decided that there wasn't enough time to produce standards and complete a hand recount by the deadline time. I think the facts were that no technique exists that could have provided an answer as to who won the election, with any certainty. But I think that it is arguable that the supreme court shouldn't have prevented the attempt. Given the almost certain ambiguity of any result that would have come out of a statewide recount done in haste I think the supreme court made the right decision, but I understand how one can disagree with that view.

The court decision most questionable in my mind was the Florida supreme court decision that extended the protest phase to allow recounts in only a few counties. I see no justification other than particsan politics for this decision.

As to the partisanship of Katherine Harris I wonder if you have ever asked yourself this question. Suppose Gore had been ahead and she had moved to go against the explicit wording of the state constitution and delay the date for the certification of the votes. Would you have seen the wisdom of that decision or would you have accused Harris of a blatantly partisan decision?

[Shinytop]

Gee Regnad, I owe you nothing in the way of my experience as being a member of this board is all i have to do to post. If you cannot take people looking up your references and finding them wanting I would propose you need to publish instead of discuss.

If you cannot Google it is not my fault. I just googled the name you gave and came up with many hits including the ones I quoted. Doubt me, I care not. But don't expect to spout opinions and not have them questioned. Your source is highly prejudiced. You, of course, in your haste to post garrulous, pedantic words failed to respond to facts as posted.

Oh, and just in case you are not capable of doing your own searches, the quotes from the interview can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/chat_election1208.html

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by davefoc
I personally agree with Shinytop on Dershowitz. Dershowitz's views are either completely partisan and/or completely self serving and he has no credibility with me.You're entitled to your opinion of course, but if you'll notice, other than recommending his book, I am not sourcing him in this discussion. The passages I've quoted are his references to other writings.

Let's say for example that Ann Coulter (who I find to be without credibility whatsoever) wrote, "Roger Ebert gave The Matrix a thumb's up." If that statement was true, we'd all agree ol' Ann was correct. The difference of course is that between opinion and reporting. The lesson, I think, is that we may be doing ourselves a disservice if we always shoot the messenger first and ask questions after.I do respect Bugliosi and the fact that I disagree with him about the supreme court decision does give me pause to question my views.An excellent example of my point (albeit reversed) in action. You've no doubt come to your opinion of Mr. Bugliosi through the force of his intellect, powers of persuasion, and remarkable courtroom record. Be that as it may, I think he'd agree that you would be right (especially as a member of this forum) to approach anything he or anyone says with a measure of skepticism until the time when they've adequately made their case.

Nevertheless, Shinytop disagrees with VB's thesis, so -- without reading it -- he/she sets out to dismiss the man's conclusion by casting aspersions on his book's title of all things. Does this make sense? I suppose if you're close-minded.But I thought the first part of the supreme court decision (the 7-2 verdict) was correct and I never understood the arguments against it. The basis for demanding a recount was that there was an equal protection issue because the various voting techniques had unequal error rates and thus tended to discriminate against the voters in areas that used techniques with higher error rates.From the outset, the equal protection claim was about as weak as they come. Such a plea is brought by the aggrieved (historically African-Americans), in this case the voters. You'll recall that they did not seek any action, but it was Bush who made the plea. The question is, how could he have been wronged? Mathematically speaking -- especially considering how tight the Florida race obviously was (setting aside the problem of the under and overvotes) -- any handful of variously gathered votes would give some to each candidate.

I'd like to explain further but I'm afraid my meager powers aren't sufficient to offer an adequate simplification. (As an aside, if nothing else, take a look at the article which forms the central portion of Mr. Bugliosi's book. Written for The Nation, "None Dare Call it Treason" is 20 pages long and can be easily read in one sitting.)So how did the relief that the Florida supreme court allowed (selective recounts in counties most likely to be favorable to Gore) in any way address this. Obviously, any recounts need to be done on a state wide basis or in at least all counties with punch cards to address the issue. That is what I believe the Supreme Court decided and I don't see the argument for an alternative decision.

The second part of the decision was more difficult. The supreme court decided that there wasn't enough time to produce standards and complete a hand recount by the deadline time. I think the facts were that no technique exists that could have provided an answer as to who won the election, with any certainty. But I think that it is arguable that the supreme court shouldn't have prevented the attempt. Given the almost certain ambiguity of any result that would have come out of a statewide recount done in haste I think the supreme court made the right decision, but I understand how one can disagree with that view.I'm afraid I haven't the energy at the moment to examine the Florida SC's actions in the case. Truth be told, I'm not conversant enough in the matter to enter into debate. Remember, there are two distinct issues here: the behavior in Florida and that in Washington, DC.

That being said, I'd like to briefly mention the matter of the deadline (December 12). In short, common sense tells us that, being man-made, a deadline can be man-unmade. Nothing (except a rush to shut down dissent) prevented the authorities to make a special exception and extend the period to allow the matter to be sorted out.The court decision most questionable in my mind was the Florida supreme court decision that extended the protest phase to allow recounts in only a few counties. I see no justification other than particsan politics for this decision.I'm afraid a period of time has passed since the events in Florida sufficient enough to make me a little rusty on all the factors, so I must let your question pass without comment. As I mentioned above, for the most part, I've been commenting on the US court's misconduct in not properly leaving Florida to reconcile its problem.As to the partisanship of Katherine Harris I wonder if you have ever asked yourself this question. Suppose Gore had been ahead and she had moved to go against the explicit wording of the state constitution and delay the date for the certification of the votes. Would you have seen the wisdom of that decision or would you have accused Harris of a blatantly partisan decision?It is incumbent on officeholders, whether elected or appointed, to conduct themselves so as to be above reproach. That is, sadly it seems, a vanishing ideal. I suppose you could call the circumstance "unenlightened self-interest."

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Gee Regnad, I owe you nothing in the way of my experience as being a member of this board is all i have to do to post. If you cannot take people looking up your references and finding them wanting I would propose you need to publish instead of discuss.Interesting. No one (certainly not me) claimed you "owe" me anything. I merely asked what qualifications you might have to enable you to so readily dismiss those of a couple of rather illustrious attorneys. That you dodge the issue and in the same breath attempt to portray me as someone who cannot "take" scrutiny is a rich irony.If you cannot Google it is not my fault. I just googled the name you gave and came up with many hits including the ones I quoted. Doubt me, I care not.Wow. So much effort to explain how you found a quote (a point of so little consequence that I tossed it in as an afterthought) and yet you completely ignore my analysis of how your prize find is perfectly reasonable, given its (presumed) context.

And where did I doubt you? I just found the selection curious.But don't expect to spout opinions and not have them questioned. Your source is highly prejudiced.Once again, I quoted two passages from Mr. Dershowitz's book which quoted and referenced others. I could just as well (though not as conveniently) have gotten the items directly from their source. Reading comprehension is a valuable skill, wouldn't you agree?You, of course, in your haste to post garrulous, pedantic words failed to respond to facts as posted."Failed to respond?" "Facts as posted?" Tell me, Mr. Pot, was irony your major in college?

[davefoc]

Regnad Kcin said:
It is incumbent on officeholders, whether elected or appointed, to conduct themselves so as to be above reproach. That is, sadly it seems, a vanishing ideal. I suppose you could call the circumstance "unenlightened self-interest."

Hmm, I think you may have missed my point here a bit. I think Katherine Harris would have been more reviled by the Democratic partisans if she had gone against the state constitution and extended the date that certification needed to be completed by if a Democrat had been ahead. The point is that opinions about right and wrong in the Floriada election were strongly based on who people wanted to win and whatever decisions Katherine Harris made that were not helpful to Democratic party would have caused her to be reviled by Democratic partisans regardless of the merits of the case for those decisions. I think it is possible that she was in a position where staying above reproach was impossible.

[Shinytop]

Regnad:

You are apparently more in love with your own words than with knowledge in general or with being right on a specific issue. Please read my previous post.

When your arguments need to revolve around posting fallacies in the effort to ignore the valid points made by another poster you might want to reexamine your points. Except in rare cases I find people who rely on posting fallacies are more interested in their own prose than in learning or engaging in discussion. Pardon me if I interrupted you in mid self admiration.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by davefoc
Regnad Kcin said:


Hmm, I think you may have missed my point here a bit. I think Katherine Harris would have been more reviled by the Democratic partisans if she had gone against the state constitution and extended the date that certification needed to be completed by if a Democrat had been ahead. The point is that opinions about right and wrong in the Floriada election were strongly based on who people wanted to win and whatever decisions Katherine Harris made that were not helpful to Democratic party would have caused her to be reviled by Democratic partisans regardless of the merits of the case for those decisions. I think it is possible that she was in a position where staying above reproach was impossible.


Well said. That said it better than I did earlier when I pointed out that the position was political and that no office holder would be beyond questioning regardless of how they treated the case.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Regnad:

You are apparently more in love with your own words than with knowledge in general or with being right on a specific issue. Please read my previous post.Yes, yes, yes.When your arguments need to revolve around posting fallacies in the effort to ignore the valid points made by another poster you might want to reexamine your points.What arguments (plural, not singular?) of mine are you referring to? I hope you don't mean the ones in this thread for which I've provided independant support. Or do you mean the ones where I've refuted your charges with in-depth explanations only to have you ignore them? Or do you mean the ones where I've challenged you to back up your assertions with something other than your own flawed reasoning?

Oh, wait a minute. I see now. Another anonymous Internet poster makes "valid points" because you agree with him while my sourced, published refutations are "fallacies" because you don't. Gotcha.Except in rare cases I find people who rely on posting fallacies are more interested in their own prose than in learning or engaging in discussion. Pardon me if I interrupted you in mid self admiration.Look, my little friend, your very first sentence "interrupting" me in this thread was fallacious and insulting to boot. That you have neither the honor or the grace to admit to and apologize for the latter is unfortunate. But it's also humorous. Really. Still, I went ahead, thinking it worthwhile to discuss some of the issues covered in this now off-topic thread. Anytime you'd like to join in...

(Edited for additional self-admiration.)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by davefoc
I think Katherine Harris would have been more reviled by the Democratic partisans if she had gone against the state constitution and extended the date that certification needed to be completed by if a Democrat had been ahead. The point is that opinions about right and wrong in the Floriada election were strongly based on who people wanted to win and whatever decisions Katherine Harris made that were not helpful to Democratic party would have caused her to be reviled by Democratic partisans regardless of the merits of the case for those decisions. I think it is possible that she was in a position where staying above reproach was impossible. It's an interesting idea, and not without substance knowing how people tend to behave when self-interest comes into play.

However you may be engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. Since we can see that most people tend to rise above themselves at certain times of duress, so, too it seems logical that they would all equally sink to a baser level at other times as well. You'd like to think this, I suppose, because to you that seems fair. But rather than deal with such a hypothetical alternate scenario, why not scrutinize the real person in the real situation? I'm not interested in whether someone or other may have done something. I'm concerned with what one very specific person did (or did not, as the case may be).

Also, your guess that Ms. Harris would've been more reviled by Democrats if the situation were somewhat reversed ignores the prior eight years of very real, acidic, foamy-mouthed partisan ugliness from so many of those jolly folks on the right side of the aisle. Somehow, I think not.

[Shinytop]

Little man, huh? You have neither the wit or intelligence to actually consider somebody else's opinion. Your assertion you have proved anything is only further proof you are entering a battle of wits unarmed. The ability to find links that support your position has no bearing on fact or proof. Ms Harris performed her job within Florida law and her oath. The fact that you did not like the outcome is your problem and does not indicate any wrong doing on her part. Go play with the children.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Little man, huh?Er, no, not what I said. Once again it seems your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Seriously, all kidding aside, you might want to have the matter checked out; it might be neurological.

[Shinytop]

Damn, and I had hoped you had learned to read.