On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:15:48 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Your point, other than the obvious, i.e., that elections are contested
>in court? Hardly news. The topic in question is not whether court
>challenges occur or whether they are appropriate: they do and they are.
>The question is if the challenge presented by David Boies on behalf of
>Al Gore was legal, that the arguments he presented were legally
>persuasive, that the evidence and sup****ting do***ents he presented were
>accurate both as to fact and as to their characterization, that the
>remedies requested would have been equitable, and whether the Florida
>Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court, which dismissed Gore's complaint in BvG 2000.
>acted honorably and honestly. The answer is yes, no, no
>and no, no, and hell no.
IMO, yes, yes, yes, yes and hell no. The actual hell no that was
perpetrated by Rehnquist's thoroughly biased US Supreme Court is why
the election was stolen.
And before you bring up the Florida Supreme Court Court again, the
USSC 1) made the fatal error of accepting and then using as the basis
of their argument that the Cheney Hegemony's side was the presumptive
winner and 2) then, whether you think the Florida Supreme Court was
right or not, repeatedly punting it back to the FSC rather sending
them actual remedial instructions that extending the recount deadline
until all the votes were counted was the only honest interpretation of
every and all voting disputes once Florida decided to recount *all* of
the votes statewide.
And you can bet that with that corrupt USSC (or the current corrupt
USSC) that the Cheney Hegemony would have gotten the deadline extended
if they were the ones that won the popular vote but were mere dozens
of votes behind in Florida. As outright evil as I think that
President (Darth) Cheney and head cheerleader, the Shrub, are, they'd
at least have been on the intellectually and morally defensible side
of the argument to have all of the votes recounted.
And FTR, don't think that the neocon Repugs aren't also going to do it
in every state where it's a close vote this time around, either.
They'll argue the correct side of the argument (count all of the
votes) even if there's no point, such as it being close but still
outside of the statistical percentage threshhold to trigger mandatory
recounts (usually 1% difference) or with states that have them,
voluntary-but-you-gotta-pay-for-it recounts (3% differenece).
And even before those don't work, they'll cry voter fraud, as they
always do.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
|
