The lie Part 2.
Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when the intent is clear and everyone is treated equally
then. Right?
A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it.
Q: But they just said that the constitution is more important than speed!
A: You forget. There is the "Gore exception."
The Florida Supreme Court, in its quest for speed, violated the constitution. That is what the ruling said. Twisting and distorting so many lies it is getting hard to keep track of. But the author thinks they are a lot more clever than they really are.
Q: Hold on. No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agrees the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because they issued the opinion at 10 p.m. on December 12.
Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961.
The intent of the Florida Legislature, is to complete counting, protests and contests, and certify the vote by the safe harbor day specified in 3USC section 5. This is December 12. What Hawaii does or has done in the past has absolutely nothing to do with it. January 6 is when congress counts. Electors meet and vote on December 18. If you ain’t there You don’t count baby.
Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.
Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
A: Nothing. In fact, as of December 13, 2000, some 20 states still hadn't turned in their results.
Wrong. December 12 is the date for certification. All states were certified by that date. There is a separate procedure, which the certification must be filed with the national archivist (3USC section 6). This date, is December 18. 3USC section 5, sets the date for certification not the date for filing with the Archivist.
Q: But I thought ---
A: The Florida Supreme Court had said earlier it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to "help" the Florida Supreme Court out by reversing it and forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
Another lie. How many is that now ? 9.
The Florida legislature wanted the election process complete by December 12. They put that forth in their laws. The Majority of the Supreme Court and the Florida legislature state that December 12 is binding.
There is absolutely no question that the Florida Legislature considered it binding, when it stated in their friend of the court brief:
the Florida Supreme Court majority opinion
would vitiate Florida’s safe harbor under 3 U.S.C. §5 because it
requires a manual recount that cannot fairly be completed and
finally adjudicated before midnight December 11. This not only
deviates from the Florida Legislature’s wishes, but from the Florida
Supreme Court’s own prior opinion, which stated that manual
recounts sho uld not be counted if they would be "submitted so late
that their inclusion will preclude Florida's voters from participating
fully in the federal electoral process."
news.findlaw.com (p. 16 II The Florida Supreme Court Has Jeopardized Florida’s Participation in the Electoral College.)
Mr. Gore is also aware of the significance of December 12. :
news.findlaw.com (Mr. Gore’s Supreme Court brief p.28) Mr.
Gore’s only dispute with the use of 3USC in this case, is not with the date set, but with the question of the Florida Supreme changing the law.
Mr. Boise agrees that December 12 is the deadline, at oral argument before the first Florida Supreme court case:
Mr. Chief Justice: chief Mr. Boies, let me focus back, in following up on Justice Lewis's question, is that, if the counsel for the attorney general is correct, and december 12 is the date by which they have to -- the certification has to be made for the electoral college, and as I read section v of the u.s. Code, that what that date means is that all of the controversies and contests in the state have to be finally determined by that date. okay. that -- do you agree with that?
I do, your honor. (emphasis added)
news.findlaw.com
The Florida Supreme Court (majority and dissent), acknowledges the deadline, several times.
news.findlaw.com (Florida Supreme Court decision, per curiam pp. 38-40, dissents 55-56, 67)
Justice Harding “This Court, in its prior opinion, and all of the parties agree that election controversies and contests must be finally and conclusively determined by December 12, 2000.
Note that the author has suddenly declared that there is a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
As if this been proven or declared by someone. It is a ploy that the author wants to use later. It is a flat out lie. The truth is that the only party that considers the date non binding is the minority on the US Supreme Court.
~~~~~~~~
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.
They might have been able to finish counting, but would not have been able complete Judicial review and appeal. This lack of the ability for review and appeal, is also an equal protection problem and is contrary to the legislative intent set by the Florida legislature
~~~~~~~~
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the votes may not be legally counted.
Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- hanging chads for Gore, indentations for Bush, votes that everyone agrees were intended for Gore or Bush -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida? Make sense?
A: Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held in stopping the count on December 9 that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won and that Gore's winning the count would cause "public acceptance" that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" and thereby harm "democratic stability."
First off, the court deals with what is put in front of them, not what might be. The court ruled on what the Florida Supreme court did which was unconstitutional.
Addtionally, the court did not state that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won.
Doing some selective sampling again. Here is what Scalia really said :
The counting of votes that are of questionable
legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to
petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon
what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count
first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for
producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires.
…
If petitioner is cor-rect
that counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting
the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent
an accurate recount from being conducted on a proper
basis later, since it is generally agreed that each manual
recount produces a degradation of the ballots, which ren-ders
a subsequent recount inaccurate.
news.findlaw.com
The author lies for the 10th time. Those demolibs really like selective things don’t they.
~~~~~~~~
Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court making Bush President?
A: Yes.
The issue is if there are ballots which are not counted fairly, your result is not fair.
But notice a trick of the author, the question assumes a false premise. The truth that Gore won is assumed and then you answer that question. The truth that Gore won ? What evidence is there to suggest that ?
The author is building on the lie that was set before and introducing the conclusion he wants.
That’s 11.
~~~~~~~~
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this is the first time a court has ever refused to count votes in order to protect one candidate's "legitimacy" over another's.
The legal reason that stopped the recounts was the substantial likelihood that the petitioner would prevail. Then the counts could not resume, because there would be no time to complete the recount, and have judicial review within the safe harbor deadline.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
The Florida Supreme Court was the activist here. They changed law from shall reject or may reject to must accept. They changed hard and fast deadlines without any consideration of US law (3USC).
Also consider the condemnation of the Florida Supreme Court, by the Florida Legislature.
news.findlaw.com
Also, consider the effect of the Florida Supreme Court extending the deadline in the first place. The reason recounts were not allowed to go forward, is that time had run out. Had the original deadline stood, there would have been 12 more days. The recounts were ruled unconstitutional, but continuation of another recount was not permitted because the time had run out.
~~~~~~~~
Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes afterward?
A: The US Supreme Court, after conceding the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
The US Supreme court did not concede that the date was not binding. This is another outright lie. The author is hoping you bought the trick the employed earlier. Here is what the US Supreme Court Really said”
The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legisla-ture
intended the State’ s electors to “participat[e] fully in
the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U. S. C. §5.
___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach
Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla.
2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any contro-versy
or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive
selection of electors be completed by December 12. That
date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place
under the State Supreme Court’ s order that comports with
minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident
that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date
will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed,
we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida
ordering a recount to proceed.
news.findlaw.com (US Supreme Court Decision p. 12)
That’s 12 lies.
~~~~~~~~
Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.
No. The Florida Supreme court’s first ruling was vacated because they changed a deadline that was pre-existing law.
~~~~~~~~
Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who, before Gore filed a single lawsuit, went to court to stop the recount. The rent-a-mob in Miami that got free Florida vacations for intimidating officials. The constant request for delay by Bush lawyers in Florida courts. And, primarily, the US Supreme Court, which refused to consider Bush's equal protection claim on November 22, 2000, then stopped the recount entirely on December 9, and then, on December 12 at 10 p.m., suddenly accepted the equal protection claim they had rejected three weeks earlier, but complained there was no time left to count the votes in the two hours left before midnight that evening.
Wrong. Gore in conjunction with the Florida Supreme Court is the cause. Moving the original deadline, to allow additional manual recounts cut 12 days off the contest period.
Additionally, the initial lawsuits filed by Bush, were rejected because no harm had occurred. Bush was the declared winner in Florida. Neither Federal district court nor the Supreme court had ever rejected a equal protection claim as the author has stated. They simply ruled that there had been no irreparable harm, and thus there was nothing that the court could rule on. The Federal Courts never ruled on the merits of the case. Every news report at the time noted that point.
Again the author is caught in a lie. (13) Is this guy really a lawyer ? ROFL.
~~~~~~~~
Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore. And the 50 million plus Americans that voted for him, some 540,000 more than voted for Bush.
Gore is punished. Gore lost the election in Florida and engaged in an unconstitutional process to try and win it. Americans have the president who was legally elected in the electoral system. To suggest that the Americans who voted for Gore are punished is idiotic. By the authors logic, every voter who voted for the looser of an election, since the founding of this county gets punished in every election. Just plain silly.
Of course the popular vote is irrelevant. It is especially misleading since there are 2.5 million votes uncounted across the nation. Additionally, the early call of Florida for Gore, suppressed the vote in western states.
~~~~~~~~
Q: You're telling me Florida election laws and precedents existing for a hundred years are now suddenly unconstitutional?
A: Yes. According to the Supreme Court, the Legislature drafted the law in such a messy way that the Florida votes can never be fairly counted. Since Secretary of State Katherine Harris never got around to setting more definitive standards for a counting votes, Gore loses the election.
No. The US Supreme Court never, at any time suggested that. They only ruled on the recount procedures invoked. All that need be done, is apply an objective standard to evaluating ballots and ensure judicial review.
And if these laws have been around for a hundred years, how is it that it is Katherine Harris that never got around to it. That statement is Moronic.
~~~~~~~~
Q: Does this mean the election laws of any of the other 49 states are unconstitutional as well?
A: Yes, if one logically applies the Supreme Court opinion. The voters of all 50 states use different systems and standards to vote and count votes, and 33 states have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found illegal in Florida.
No. The only thing ruled unconstitutional on was the recount procedures which lacked a standard. The US Supreme court did not find that ‘Clear Intent of the voter’ was illegal. As noted before, the court clearly considered the disparate voting systems.
That is 14.
~~~~~~~~
Q: Then why aren't the results of these 33 states thrown out?
A: A: Um. Because... um... the Supreme Court doesn't say...
Same response as the previous question.
~~~~~~~~
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right.
Wrong. If you take out the unconstitutionally counted ballots, Gore looses votes. Bush already won.
~~~~~~~~
But then what makes Bush President?
A: Good question. A careful statistical analysis by the Miami Herald extrapolates from the 170,000 uncounted votes in Florida to show Gore clearly won the state and may have done so by as much as 23,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). See herald.com. 04268.htm
That article has been refuted so many times it is silly. Furthermore, we know now that the Miami Dade recount yielded votes for Bush and not Gore. Statistics were bogus when this ‘discussion’ was created and proved wrong by reality.
~~~~~~~~
Q: So, answer my question: what makes Bush President?
A: Since there was no time left for a re-count based on the non- binding "deadline," the Supreme Court decided not to count the votes that favor Gore. Instead, by a vote of 5 to 4, they picked Bush the winner, based on the flawed count they'd just determined to be unconstitutional.
As demonstrated before, the December 12 date is binding, and if you do remove the unconstitutionally counted votes, Bush wins.
You see here how critical it was for you to by the lie the author previously told regarding December 12. And the author tries to blow by the fact that the unconstitutionally counted votes added to Gore total.
Since this is a repeat lie, we wont add another.
~~~~~~~~
Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers at law firms working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.
Q: Why didn't they remove themselves from the case?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would have been 4-4, the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed, and Scalia said he feared that would mean Gore winning the election. Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor had both said before the election that they wanted to retire but would only do so if a Republican were elected, and when O'Connor heard from early (and, we now know, accurate) exit polls that Gore had won Florida, she responded that was "terrible."
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself:
supremecourtus.gov (December 9 stay stopping the recount)
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov (December 12 opinion)
The idea that any Justice of the Supreme Court would decide a case on the basis of where there son is employed is absurd. All of Supreme Court Justice have deeply held ideals and principles of what the law is and what the role of the court should be. All of them, even the ones whom I disagree, would die rather not rule on their principles. You can take that to the bank. This is just sour grapes, nothing more.
And I think the justice’s sons can get a job just about anywhere they want. Never did answer the question though. It was just a mechanism to through some mud.
~~~~~~~~
Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US, in Florida, and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice (George W. Bush), since Bush has won the all-important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps America's choice.
Bush got more votes in Florida. Lots of illegal votes abound in Florida most of these were from democratic voters so draw you’re your own conclusion. There is no evidence now nor has there ever been any evidence that Gore got more votes.
Also notice the shell game being played. All of the sudden, it is unquestioned that Gore got more votes. Really ? Where did that come from? A cheap trick, and not all that clever either
~~~~~~~~
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. At least in the Electoral College, shouldn't the guy with the most votes in Florida win?
A: Yes. But America in 2000 is no longer a democracy, or even a republic. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins. That's why we don't need to count the People's votes in Florida.
The guy with the most votes in Florida Won. The votes in Florida were counted, and counted, and counted and counted. Gore still lost.
Getting really stupid now.
~~~~~~~~
Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President?
A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia, thus ensuring that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Q: Is there any way to stop this?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supreme Court and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror may end, and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law and the will of the People.
Q: Why can't we impeach the justices?
A: That takes a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and is far more controversial. Don't worry. A 4-year judicial filibuster will definitely get the Court's attention. Indeed, it is probably the only legal and practical way to get the Court's attention.
Q: What can I do to help?
A: Email this article to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator, reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by more than 540,000 (almost five times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that elections should be determined by counting the People's votes, not the Supreme Court's. Therefore, to stop our unelected federal judiciary from ever again overturning the will of the people, you ask your Senators to confirm NO NEW FEDERAL JUDGES APPOINTED BY A NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT until 2004
when a president can be finally chosen by the American people, instead of Antonin Scalia.
This is stuff is moronic and deserves no comment, other than I DARE THE DEMOCRATS TO FILIBUSTER ANYTHING.
The supreme court protected the rights of the voter and prevented the looser from taking the election.
This all nets out pretty simple. Gore lost. He engaged in a dirty legal and political fight to try and wrestle the election away from the winner. He lost that too. |
