Re: "On the one hand, it seems as if you are claiming requesting a recount is unfair."
Only if you got an "F" in reading comprehension, and/or just like to make the false claim because the truth hurts.
Re: "On the other, you also seem to deny it"
I don't seem to deny it, I did deny it, without wavering (you can't even understand a clear denial, as here you refer to one using the word "seem." Of course, since you are capable of reading a statement that does not say that simply asking for a recount is illegal, then using it as "evidence" for your idiotic opposite interpretation, this is all wasted on you.
F'ing unbelieveable!
Both CJ and I have a strong understanding of the English language and both of us are encountering difficulty understanding your POV. You might consider that you are the problem, not us.
As for the USSC, the 5/4 ruling which you have discussed frequently and which granted a stay requested by the Bush parties did not have an opinion attached to it except for some brief words by Scalia who made only a weak reference to constitutionality. Typically, stays do not require an opinion by the court, meaning the issue of unconstitutionality does not seem to be the big issue you wish it to be in this matter. In fact, the issue plays a bigger role in the opinion filed by the dissenting judges who were so disturbed by the majority's ruling that they wrote a dissenting opinion. Again, such an opinion, for or against, is not typical when granting a stay. And just for the record, it was this ruling by the USSC that was believed to be purely partisan and the one that badly tainted the high court. I suggest you read the dissenters' opinion.
"JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.To stop the counting of legal votes, the majority todaydeparts from three venerable rules of judicial restraintthat have guided the Court throughout its history. Onquestions of state law, we have consistently respected theopinions of the highest courts of the States. On questionswhose resolution is committed at least in large measure toanother branch of the Federal Government, we have con-strued our own jurisdiction narrowly and exercised itcautiously. On federal constitutional questions that werenot fairly presented to the court whose judgment is beingreviewed, we have prudently declined to express an opin-ion. The majority has acted unwisely.Time does not permit a full discussion of the merits. Itis clear, however, that a stay should not be granted unlessan applicant makes a substantial showing of a likelihoodof irreparable harm. In this case, applicants have failed tocarry that heavy burden. Counting every legally cast votecannot constitute irreparable harm. On the other hand,there is a danger that a stay may cause irreparable harmto the respondents— and, more importantly, the public atlarge— because of the risk that “the entry of the staywould be tantamount to a decision on the merits in favorof the applicants.” National Socialist Party of America v.Skokie, 434 U. S. 1327, 1328 (1977) (STEVENS, J., in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
2BUSH v. GORESTEVENS, J., dissentingchambers). Preventing the recount from being completedwill inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the elec-tion.It is certainly not clear that the Florida decision violatedfederal law. The Florida Code provides elaborate proce-dures for ensuring that every eligible voter has a full andfair opportunity to cast a ballot and that every ballot socast is counted. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§ 101.5614(5),102.166 (2000). In fact, the statutory provision relating todamaged and defective ballots states that “[n]o vote shallbe declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication ofthe intent of the voter as determined by the canvassingboard.” Fla. Stat. § 101.5614(5) (2000). In its opinion, theFlorida Supreme Court gave weight to that legislativecommand. Its ruling was consistent with earlier Floridacases that have repeatedly described the interest in cor-rectly ascertaining the will of the voters as paramount.See State ex rel. Chappell v. Martinez, 536 So. 2d 1007(1998); Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259 (1976); McAl-pin v. State ex rel. Avriett, 19 So. 2d 420 (1944); State exrel. Peacock v. Latham, 169 So. 597, 598 (1936); State exrel. Carpenter v. Barber, 198 So. 49 (1940). Its ruling alsoappears to be consistent with the prevailing view in otherStates. See, e.g., Pullen v. Milligan, __ Ill.2d __, 561 N. E.2d 585, 611 (Ill. 1990). As a more fundamental matter,the Florida court’s ruling reflects the basic principle,inherent in our Constitution and our democracy, thatevery legal vote should be counted. See Reynolds v. Sims,377 U. S. 533, 544–555 (1964); cf. Hartke v. Roudebush,321 F. Supp. 1370, 1378–1379. (SD Ind. 1970) (STEVENS,J., dissenting); accord Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15(1972).Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."
66.102.7.104 |
