Say Anything Blog

Not only is Mr. Scalia right… he is also, as usual, correct.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

He is just pissed because he knows the biggest case in his judicial career was a bad decision and that will be his legacy.  Since when do Supreme Court Justices write that their decisions should not be used as precedent.

He damn well knows that the way Florida picks its electors is a state decision and that it was too late to allow counting the ballots is a total farce.

People on this board have called the habeas corpus decision partisan, well this was the most partisan case in the history of the court.  One they shouldn’t have even heard.

Lestat, you are a fool.  Heller v D.C. will be far more influential than Gore v Bush.

And Justice Scalia hits it right on the head with this:

Justice Scalia said he thought that the United States was “over-lawed”, leading to too many lawyers in the country.

“I don’t think our legal system should be that complex. I think that any system that requires that many of the country’s best minds, and they are the best minds, is too complex.

“If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.”

Over lawed, way over lawyered, and wasting way too much time, effort, and productivity on laws that are in no way essential to (and are in fact detrimental to) the creation of wealth.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Lestat, you are a fool.  Heller v D.C. will be far more influential than Gore v Bush.

Proof,

A truly world-class bit of understatement.  Both sentences.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Rodney,

My apologies!  The compliment, however, remains as written.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One,

I find it hard to believe you would mistake my laconic understatement for the prolix Proof.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Good morning beloved Rodney. How are you today?

Lestat,

I really don’t believe this is the proper venue for re-arguing Bush v. Gore.  In the first place this isn’t exactly the most sympathetic audience.

Second, you are pretty much wrong in just about everything you’ve asserted thus far about the case.

Finally, most of us are already well aware that you are capable of making a fool of yourself in a vain attempt to score a few patently partisan points.  You have little to gain by reiterating the fact.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Laconic v. Prolix...hmm?

Perhaps we could get Justice Scalia to intervene?  Before he takes off for that summer fishing trip?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

He damn well knows that the way Florida picks its electors is a state decision and that it was too late to allow counting the ballots is a total farce.

You lie, Lestat; it was the continual recounting of ballots, done after the election had been duly certified, that was the crime of the Gore camp.  They should have been prosecuted for election fraud, IMO.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I find it hard to believe you would mistake my laconic understatement for the prolix Proof.

As well you should! As the Sesquipedalian in residence, I don’t use the four letter “f” words much, (Biblical admonitions notwithstanding)! I usually strive for something more...colorful!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

As the Sesquipedalian in residence…

Damn!  Are you really THAT old?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

(Although, I think Sparkie has a leg up on me for being prolix!)

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

B1: I’ll buy you a dictionary for your birthday...assuming we let you live that long! Heh.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Proof,

I don’t need no fu*kin’ dictionary, thank you!  And my prolix works just fine, thanks.  I ain’t never got no ladies pregnant any time I used one!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

And my prolix works just fine, thanks.

Sometimes they get enlarged in men your age! I was just worried about you, that’s all!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

I think you meant enlarged prelate.  I read once that they tend to grow bigger with age.  ‘Specially round the middle.  But there’s medicine for that now.  Take two Niceniums and you got nothin’ to worry about.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Second, you are pretty much wrong in just about everything you’ve asserted thus far about the case.

All I have claimed is that the decision stated that it was so narrow that it should not be used as precedent and that it interpreted Florida law through a specious Equal Protection claim.

I could also point out that nobody on the majority actually had the courage to claim authorship of the decision.  I wonder why that was?

Take two Niceniums and you got nothin’ to worry about.

My doc’s got me on Afro-dart ! Curled my hair for a spell, then settled down some!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Curled my hair for a spell, then settled down some!

Odd… mine have been curly since they started growing in when I was about 10 or 11.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I find I must risk stealing Proof’s prolix habits in correcting the perpetually prevaricating purveyor of pablum who publishes here as “Lestat”

Having originally stated:

He is just pissed because he knows the biggest case in his judicial career was a bad decision and that will be his legacy.  Since when do Supreme Court Justices write that their decisions should not be used as precedent.

He damn well knows that the way Florida picks its electors is a state decision and that it was too late to allow counting the ballots is a total farce.

People on this board have called the habeas corpus decision partisan, well this was the most partisan case in the history of the court.  One they shouldn’t have even heard.

Lestat the fool now tries to unring the bell:

All I have claimed is that the decision stated that it was so narrow that it should not be used as precedent and that it interpreted Florida law through a specious Equal Protection claim.

Which suddenly leaves out the claim that Gore v Bush was “...the biggest case in his judicial career...” which is clearly untrue now that District of Columbia v Heller has so thoroughly revealed the naked power grab of basis by “penumbra” and “usefulness” as standards of review.

I could also point out that nobody on the majority actually had the courage to claim authorship of the decision.  I wonder why that was?

Because the majority clearly understood that this exceptionally bad case foisted upon them by Gore would make very bad law and worse precedent, they clearly stated that it was not to be treated as precedent, and thus not fodder to be cited in future proceedings.

One suspects that all of Lestat’s teachers and instructors were deconstructionists of the most rank variety.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Because the majority clearly understood that this exceptionally bad case foisted upon them by Gore would make very bad law and worse precedent, they clearly stated that it was not to be treated as precedent, and thus not fodder to be cited in future proceedings.

If their reasoning was sound they would have wanted it used as precedent and would have fought to put their name on it.

Lestat the sequentially stupid now states:

If their reasoning was sound they would have wanted it used as precedent and would have fought to put their name on it.

Rubbish.

Bad cases make bad law, and Gore’s suit is probably the worst to come before the court since Plessy.  By explicitly recognizing the horrid nature of the case before it and explicitly declaring it non-precedential, they discouraged future litigants from repeating Mister Gore’s folly of challenging on such flimsy basis seeking to overturn a certified election.  As such, Gore v Bush is not subject to the deferential treatment other cases are under stare decisis, and thus will not endure in case law as you so ignorantly insist (as is your habit).

In contrast, District of Columbia v Heller is precedential, will endure in case law, and decides several key issues.  Notably, the issue of “usefulness” as a standard in cases of enumerated rights:

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

Indeed.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Bad cases make bad law, and Gore’s suit is probably the worst to come before the court since Plessy.

You clearly know nothing about this.  Gore legally challenged the election results under the Florida statutes.  The Florida Supreme Court legally issued their rulings.  Bush appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supremes created an equal protection clause out of nothing to give themselves jurisdiction to decide the case and overturn Florida law.  It was the biggest rejection of Federalism in the history of our country.  They had no authority to even hear the case.

Lestat,

Go read the case and get back to us.

…

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

...

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“Should a county canvassing board count or not count a ‘dimpled chad’ where the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

...

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Proceeding through life loud and stupid is a poor option, Lestat, You should remedy one, the other, or (preferably) both. 

But by all means feel free to continue amusing us with your voluminous bellicose ignorance.  The discredit you bring upon yourself and your fellow travelers is priceless.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Go read the case and get back to us.

Read Ginsburg’s dissent it makes far more sense.

To accept this equal protection argument you must accept two things:

1.  Bush has standing to make it, which he didn’t.

2.  The standards of counting the votes during the general election are identical.  They are not.  There is already an unequal evaluation of the ballots in the general election, so when the Florida Supreme Court orders a recount they do not have to make sure there is an equal evaluation of the ballots, just there is a good faith effort to get it right.  Bush presented no evidence that their wasn’t.

Ginsburg correctly points out that the Supreme Court does not have to agree with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, just recognize that they didn’t abuse their authority in making it and they clearly didn’t.  The majority decision didn’t even argue that they did.

Lestat again demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension:

Read Ginsburg’s dissent it makes far more sense.

Neither Ginsburg’s dissent, nor the Majorities Opinion, are the Case; they are both subsets of the case, which also includes the complaint, the response, and amicus briefs as well, dolt.

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

As the article points out, Nixon had a far better case in 1968, but found the interests of the Republic outweighed his desire to be president.  The same can not be said of algore, nor of his supporters.

Quite the damning observation that: to be compared to Richard M. Nixon and found to be ethically lacking in comparison.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Kennedy/Nixon Chicago

Completed Dec. 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon’s (and Adamowski’s) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon’s vote was overcounted. Displeased, the Republicans took the case to federal court, only to have a judge dismiss the suits. Still undeterred, they turned to the State Board of Elections, which was composed of four Republicans, including the governor, and one Democrat. Yet the state board, too, unanimously rejected the petition, citing the GOP’s failure to provide even a single affidavit on its behalf. The national party finally backed off after Dec. 19, when the nation’s Electoral College certified Kennedy as the new president

I Saw A Man, He Danced With His Wife

WOOF,

Why don’t you also regale us with the tale of how Richard M. Nixon conceded the election, then un-conceded the election?  Why don’t you regale us with how he dragged the crisis out?

Oh, wait, he did neither of those things (unlike algore) did he?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Bush presented no evidence that their wasn’t.

Pure bullshit; the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the Goreites never presented any credible evidence that any of the “voting irregularities” they claimed ever existed.  There was no legal basis for any recount in the first place.  The FSC acted incorrectly, and SCOTUS set their ruling aside, as they ahould have.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bush v. Gore

the burden of proof is on the accuser,

get it?

The FSC acted incorrectly, and SCOTUS set their ruling aside, as they ahould have.

Maybe you don’t understand Federalism, but the SCOTUS has no authority to set aside state court decisions unless the conflict with the federal constitution.  That is why they had to make up an equal protection reason.

Why don’t you also regale us with the tale of how Richard M. Nixon conceded the election, then un-conceded the election?  Why don’t you regale us with how he dragged the crisis out?

If you look at the dates it is apparent that Nixon drew it out longer than Gore.

Woof: The accuser was the Gore people making up a bogus charge of “election irregularities”, none of which were ever proven. This was the excuse to do the entire recount boondoggle, and it was based on a bogus accusation.  The FSC allowed this bullshit charge to affect a federal election, thus the jurisdiction.  They were right to do it, and Gore is lucky he isn’t in prison for attempted election fraud.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Nice revisionist history dude.

Gore never claimed any irregularities.

Because the election was so close he asked for a manual recount, which is allowed by Florida law.  He asked for the standard to be “the intent of the voter” which is also under Florida law.

Gore never claimed any irregularities.

Usual leftie lying bullshit; as I said several times already, the Gore campaign alleged “election irregularities”, especially in areas that went heavily for Gore.  Of course, Gore didn’t make that statement himself; he had learned how to dodge responsibility from Clinton.  The alleged election irregularities were the justification for the demand for a recount in the areas that went heavily for Gore.  They were playing a statistical game. There were no actual election irregularities, therefore no justification for a recount, especially in only a few selected areas.
The Dems always try to get around voters with legal trickery.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Dumbass, we are talking about court challenges.  Go find a pleading by Gore where he alleges that there were voting irregularities.

But that does not change the fact that there were voting irregularities.  The US Commission on Civil Rights issued a Congressionally requested report detailing the numerous voting irregularities during this election in Florida.  http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

The alleged election irregularities were the justification for the demand for a recount in the areas that went heavily for Gore.

Do you do any research or do just speak out of your ass all the time.  The justification for the recount was the closeness of the election.  A machine recount is mandatory in a county when it is within 0.5%.  If the machine recount is still within certain parameters Florida law allows for a manual recount.  The reason that all counties were not requested by Gore was because that is not allowed by Florida law. 

BTW, just because you previously stated something does not make it accurate.

The reason that all counties were not requested by Gore was because that is not allowed by Florida law.

I don’ think so.... The relevant section of law is F.S. Ch. 102.166.  It does not limit the number of counties for which a hand recount request can be made.

Gore choose those three counties because it gave him the best chance for a favorable outcome.  It’s as simple as that.

Good lawyerese, but bad PR.

Here is the statute.  It may have changed since 2000.

102.166 Manual recounts.--

(1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure. A manual recount may not be ordered, however, if the number of overvotes, undervotes, and provisional ballots is fewer than the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election.

The manual recounts under 102.166 are of counties that have already had a recount under 102.141.  This is not all counties.  It is only counties that were less than 1/2 of one percent

Do you do any research or do just speak out of your ass all the time.

You describe yourself perfectly.

Gore campaign alleges irregularities in Florida’s Nassau County.

Source: The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Fla.) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service)
Publication Date: 27-NOV-00

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7241277_ITM

This was all over the news at the time, so I don’t see how you can claim to be ignorant of it.
The “closeness of the election” bullshit is clearly false, since the Goreites attempted this election fraud after the election was duly certified, and so they had to allege some election irregularities to produce the recount boondoggle.
Get a brain.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The US Commission on Civil Rights issued a Congressionally requested report detailing the numerous voting irregularities during this election in
Florida.

Since they were never adjudicated, there being no attempts at prosecution of the alleged “irregularities”, this report must be regarded as hearsay.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

There was no legal basis for any recount in the first place.

Robert, here is your statement.  I have showed you through Florida Statute that there was a legal basis.  The counties that were requested were less than 1/2 of one percent.  After the recount they were close enough to mandate a manual recount under Florida statute.  That was the legal basis, not any allegations of irregularities. 

When you spoke of a legal basis maybe you should of actually known what you were talking about.

Why should the Gore campaign not spoken about the irregularities that were shown to be present.

Why should the Gore campaign not spoken about the irregularities that were shown to be present.

The only fact that matters here is that the election was duly certified before the Goreites acted to bring forward their claims, and so the entire affair should have been quashed, but they had the highly partisan FSC to aid them in their attempt to steal a duly certified election.  This is a matter of record.
Your lack of integrity to insult me when I made an accurate statement about the Gore allegation of election irregularities is duly noted.
I repeat: since no election irregularities were ever proven, the charge remains simply an allegation, nothing more.
Why weren’t they prosecuted?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

<b>If the second set of unofficial returns…

You keep forgetting that the returns were official; the election was duly certified.  The Goreites were too late with their manufactured protest; they weren’t quick enough on the draw in their attempt to steal the election.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

You keep forgetting that the returns were official; the election was duly certified.

Wrong again.  The manual recounts had been begun before the certification.  The highly partisan Secretary of State and Bush campaign co-chair (conflict of interest?) certified the results over the objection of the Gore campaign.  This was one of the issues taken to the FSC who decided that the provision allowing a manual recount took precedence over the arbitrary one week deadline to certify results.

Wrong again; the truth is, the Goreites didn’t get their ducks in a row in the allotted time; the election was duly certified, and they used the highly partisan FSC to try to steal an election that was already certified.  I repeat: there were never any election irregularities that rose to the level of intentional election fraud, and none was ever proven, or even adjudicated; therefore, the accusation was a false one, and no legal basis existed for overturning a duly certified election.  Whine all you want about it; you have no case.
I always love it when a “progressive” clings to false claims of past “injustice” to justify his bullshit.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I just like to point out that any person who supports this decision cannot call themselves a Federalist, they can just call themselves a Republican.

Bravo! What an interesting forum! I have always thought it ridiculous what Mr. Gore brought to the 2000 election process. It was selfish, pure and simple.

A man who puts self before the President’s office has no business being in that office. We want no man, Democrat or Republican, that confuses the man with the office.

And while I respect the legal arguments of both sides I see them as purely secondary to what is simply a matter of common sense that needs no argument: uniformity could not be assured in a further recount, past the filing deadlines established by the people of Florida, through their duly elected represesntatives, by determining visually what chad was meant to be counted for Gore, and which wasn’t. That is absurd!

Moreover, without uniformity in the recount, in the purely partisan counties Gore wanted recounted, Bush could never, ever be afforded equal protection in the process.

I am not a lawyer - so do not denigrate my opinions based upon improper textual inaccuracies with regard to legal terminology. I can only humbly say that I find nothing wrong in that; as a small business owner, I do actually produce things, unlike lawyers.

The mess in 2000 should never have happened. Someone here said it best: comparing Gore’s bogus behavior in 2000 to Nixon’s moral compass as shown by his actions followng the ‘60 election is all one needs to know about Al Gore. He is a phony and selfish cad.