Hi Mary,
RE: "Please come back."
I'm here! Thanks for your post. I think I was getting a bit tired and bored of the comments, "<all> Republicans are xyz" and <all> "Democrats are abc."
Sweeping generalizations projected onto 49% of the entire population (by either camp) just doesn't interest me. It's not a good basis for a seriously interesting and educational debate.
What does interest me is:
When I read some of the Articles of the Constitution (CNN has a link), I read something which gave me the impression that:
While Florida Supreme Court made a reasonably clear-cut interpretation of FL statutory scheme (there are a lot of pre-existing FL election rulings which make the interpretation of FL's statutory scheme reasonably clear), the problem could be:
The FL statutory scheme may be in violation of the Constitution, because the FL statutory scheme seems to imply the FL courts can limit the power of an Officer of the State, even though that Officer has been entrusted with power via the Constitution.
This looks more like a pure Balance of Power question that the USA SC is going to answer, not a question about whether or not an Officer abused her power, not a question about who has more votes, not a question about the interpretation of FL Statutory structure, but a completely unrelated question that has no bearing on whether or not she did something wrong, or who has more votes, but simply: can a Court strip an Officer's power away without due process. (That's at least how I am interpreting this).
This also could mean that, even if an Officer has violated their power, they cannot have their power taken away without some type of due process. (Question: what would that due process be?)
I read the profiles on the Judges, my favorite being Ruth (forgot her last name). She tends to vote in ways that furthers the individual's rights and appears to be the most modern day. One of her counterparts tends to vote in ways which favors the original writings, regardless if an original writing is outdated or wrong in today's modern world. (These old laws say horribly incorrect things like, "only a man shall be elected..." Hello??? It is absolutely amazing they haven't corrected these horribly outdated laws).
An article said that the liberal judges tend to vote in agreement with each other about 90% of the time. The conservative judges tend to vote in agreement with each other about 90% of the time. And two Judges that appear to oppose each other the most, tend to agree only 60% of the time.
I had read, the current group has a majority of conservatives. The leader has a leaning towards giving States a lot of power, and over time, this has rewritten/changed a lot in the legal structure, so that the States now have more power. Anything getting in the way of that goal (like taking power away from an Officer of the State), will be counter to this general belief, regardless if FL statutory scheme allows it. I believe this will be the ideology that will be the basis for determining the case. I would be surprised if this suddenly changed, or was superseded.
RE: "I need to keep my sanity. I need to hear from some sane people every once in a while."
Me too - I hope you post more often.
Regards,
Amy J |
