JLA
Who needs the facts? Lets just talk law for a minute.
1. Electoral vote IS how elections are decided in the US. We agree. Popular vote is only relevant when you are the one getting the popular, as opposed to the electoral. I believe popular vote WAS really important to Rs and Bush when it was thought he would take the popular but lose the electoral.
2. There was no federal question in the case before the SCT. The question was one of STATE law, heretofore (nice big legalese) the deciding factor in many of the SCT's decisions. The SCT precedent for NOT DECIDING state law questions is extensive. The precedent for what the SCT did in this matter is non-existent. The SCT should have done what its precedent dictated - deferred to the State SCT's interpretation of its elections law. Instead, the court dictated the election results. I would have more respect for the final results if the SCT had followed its precedent and come to a decision, rather than coming to a decision and attempting to bend the law to support it. Scalia holds great disdain for judicial activism; apparently only when it is not his own.
3. Literacy tests, intelligence tests, race-based qualifications, income qualifiers, etc. are all unconstitutional. If a ballot is confusing or somehow acts to divest one of the constitutionally protected right to vote, it should be thrown out. I would love to see some support for your argument that "Anyone too stupid to fill out the ballot correctly forfeits his right to have his vote counted." Also, I would prefer a case from AFTER the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
4. No response needed.
As to your other comments, it was not so much that I disliked the election results. In fact, I did not like the choices, so it is likely I was going to dislike the election results regardless of which candidate won. It is just a question of degree.
Perjury itself, assuming it was proven, is not sufficient grounds to carry impeachment. Thus, you have not only the law to blame for Clinton occupying the WhiteHouse, but also the defectors in the R party who recognized the ludicrous nature of the charges and the potential fallout (for an example of the fallout, see, e.g., Rogan in Cali.).
We are indeed a nation of laws. And of men. I do not believe the law supports any of your positions (other than the electoral one noted above).
regards,
ham |
