Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8665)	12/10/2000 2:47:06 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

The day democracy was defeated Supreme Court gets political and calls a halt to the recount The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida high court Saturday, ordering a halt of the hand counting of undervote ballots across the state. By Eric Alterman MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR Dec. 9 — So this is how it ends. Not with a bang or a whimper, but with a 5-4 Supreme Court decision to prevent a fair Florida count. Post a Letter to the Editor on this BBS It’s hard to exaggerate just how badly this decision damages the potential legitimacy of a Bush presidency. AL GORE MAY be forgiven for wondering if the prevailing majority on Supreme Court — one of whose members were appointed by his opponent’s father — might not be doing its own voting in this election. The court’s shocking willingness to consider overturning a state election law seems designed to facilitate the Bush team strategy of running out the clock under all circumstances. For what could possibly be the harm to the nation in allowing a manual recount to proceed before the court heard arguments on Monday morning? WHO WILL ACCEPT THIS? Should the U.S. Supreme Court have halted the recount in Florida? Yes. No. Vote to see results Obviously, a fair and complete recount, as ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida would harm nothing except the perception that George Bush had won this election. It would be a great deal more embarrassing, and politically, far more costly, for the justices to set aside a count that demonstrated that Gore had beaten Bush in Florida. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of George W. Bush’s professed legal heroes admitted as much, when, in a rare rebuke of his dissenting colleagues from the bench, he wrote, “Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.” How’s that for a first-class entry into the Hall of Fame of Orwellian doublespeak? This from a set of right-wing justices who profess a philosophical opposition to judicial activism. Never in the past hundred years has any federal court asserted itself into a state election law in this manner. And now, the court’s strategem will smooth a path toward a Bush victory no matter how it rules. If the court overturns the Florida Supreme Court decision of Friday, well then, that’s the last chance the fat lady gets to sing in this production. The original partisan certification of Bush campaign co-chair, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris will stand as law, making Bush our next president. Not giving up Dec. 9 — Ron Klain and David Boies, attorneys for Al Gore, intend to make their arguments Monday before the Supreme Court. But it may be too late. BUSH WINS, DEMOCRACY LOSES With the intervention of the court, Bush and company may succeed in short-circuiting the counting process sufficiently to get himself in the back door of the Oval Office. The most infuriating aspect of the Supreme Court’s political intervention is the fact that even if it decides not to reverse the Florida court’s extremely tightly argued opinion, its tactical endorsement of a stay of the recount may decide the election anyway. With the Dec. 12 deadline looming for the appointment of electors to the Electoral College, a recount will become practically impossible no matter what the court rules. The state legislature, working with the tacit assent if not the actual instructions of the candidate’s own brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, will meet next week and chose its own slate of pro-Bush electors, claiming that the Dec. 12 deadline forces its hands. Bush wins, democracy loses. It’s hard to exaggerate just how badly this decision damages the potential legitimacy of a Bush presidency. Using the power of the federal judiciary to overturn state law is bad enough for any conservative candidate who professes to value local control over the encroachment of Washington. But what would we say about another nation’s election process if it rested on the political machinations of justices appointed by the candidates father and his father’s running mate, coupled with a state legislature overseen by his brother? Now imagine that this same candidate lost the nationwide popular vote and appeared, at the time of the court ruling, to be on his way to losing the state vote as well. Calling such a country a “Banana Republic” would be unfair to both bananas and republics. Loaded for bear Dec. 9 — An exultant James A. Baker says Bush’s lawyers are ’ready to go’ Monday. TARNISHED CREDENTIALS To call this a banana republic does a disservice to both bananas and republics. We would say, at the very least, that this is an illegitimate leader whose democratic credentials to speak for his nation are tarnished beyond repair. Let the pundits and wise men call for an end to partisan recrimination and bygones being bygones. The sad truth is that genuine democracy is most easily lost when we pay tribute to its trappings as we disregard its substance. George Bush lost the popular vote and looked to be on his way to losing the Electoral College as well. With the intervention of the court, Bush and company may succeed in short-circuiting the counting process sufficiently to get himself in the back door of the Oval Office. But his presidency will forever be tainted in the eyes of those who believe democracy entails more than just finding a way — any way — to keep the other guy’s votes from mattering in the final count. Eric Alterman is a columnist for The Nation and a regular contributor to MSNBC.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8665)	12/11/2000 3:44:31 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

*Re: "I couldn't persuade him that Bush was just pursuing his own interests; maybe you can."* I'm not holding my breath. <G> "I agree with you about what the FSC should have done in hindsight except I don't think they could have set a statewide standard; it wouldn't have stood up under appeal." Hard to say. Doing it as part of a contest, as opposed to a protest, has the advantage that the legislature specified in the statutes that contests shall take place in court, and the statute seems to give the court broad authority to fashion remedies. See 102.168(8). leg.state.fl.us Incidentally, here are some photographs through a microscope, comparing dimpled chad made by various means: pushback.com