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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (9265)	12/20/2010 2:08:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

just as the vote was within 100 votes of going into Gore's favor. Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election. usatoday.com Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts Conducted by the Media By Brent Baker \| May 25, 2008 \| 18:56 With HBO's 'Recount' movie (airing Sunday and Monday night at 9 PM EDT/PDT) sure to rekindle claims that Al Gore would have won if only the U.S. Supreme Court had not “stopped the counting,” a reminder that both recounts conducted by major media outlets in 2001 determined George W. Bush would have won anyway. Two stars of the film have fueled the re-writing of history with actor Kevin Spacey, who plays Gore operative Ron Klain, charging that “the Bush people were trying to stop votes from being counted and the Gore people were just trying to get votes counted” while Laura Dern, who plays Katherine Harris, recalled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her “devastated because there were uncounted votes.” The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon: George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.... That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN and AP. It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore’s request for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November 12, 2001 front page article, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,” by reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder: A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.... newsbusters.org

To: koan who wrote (9265)	12/20/2010 4:10:40 PM
From: Oeconomicus	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"First, existential law means, instead of follow mythical legal logic, at the very root, law is what the powerful say it is. "That would be considered existential as the law is really individual subjective reality at its core and not some objective logic." Once again, to quote Mr. Pope, "a little learning is a dangeorus thing." As I understand the term "existential law", it does not mean "law is what the powerful say it is." Rather, it is the simple acknowledgement that legal reasoning or the implementation of justice cannot be scientific, and is inevitably and essentially value-laden or ideological. Let's try this a different way. Perhaps you could try just coming right out and saying what you think to be dangerous to society about our legal system as it exists, how you would propose changing it, and to what ends. And I don't mean rattling off examples of decisions you don't like. I mean the system. Whaddaya say? "Look at all the 5/4 decisions. "The perfect example is when the supreme court decided the 2000 election. They did so (stopped the vote) just as the vote was within 100 votes of going into Gore's favor." First, the court ruled 7-2 that the recounts violated due process protections in the US Constitution. The 5-4 decision was with regard to the remedy. The 2 vote difference was attributable to justices who wanted the Florida Supreme Court to design a remedy to the flawed recount process, but the other five believed that would be asking the state court to make law (as opposed to interpreting and ruling upon it), which is the sole province of the legislature. Second, as Tim already demonstrated, "the vote" was never in Gore's favor and never would have been. Absent tamerping, falsification, or manipulation, of course. In any case, the justices certainly didn't "stop the vote". The vote stopped when the polls closed on election day. As for the rest, you read too many left-wingnut blogs.