Say Anything Blog

Amen

Republicans are not interested in a meritocracy.
Privilege has it’s rank.
President George W. Bush

Democrats are only interested in enslaving as many people as possible to the Welfare-Nanny State.  They are not interested in merit at all.

Just to educate you Roady - George W. Bush had to campaign, win the support of his party and the votes of the people of the United States, that is earning the job on his own merits!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Republicans are only interested in enslaving everybody into a daddy state, privatizing everything and draining our public treasury.

Just to educate you Neiman – bush was installed as POTUS when the Supreme Court unconstitutionally stopped the vote count in Florida. Talk about the ultimate states rights issue. The Electoral College delegates were awarded to him, but the national popular vote went to the democratic candidate. The majority of American voters rejected bush.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

And when she goes out and tries to get a job she will find laws barring discrimination because she is a girl, or she is of a different faith, she will find people of different ethnicities working with her, she will have a guaranteed minimum wage, work place safety standards, child labor laws, she will be guaranteed justice if she is sexually assaulted at work, the building she will work in will meet minimum building standards, she will have publicly financed roads to drive on, publicly finance transportation if she so chooses, she will find publicly finance police to protect her, she will have clean water to drink and a clear sky to gaze at, she will have guaranteed breaks during the work day, she will be paid overtime, she can join a union if she chooses, she can do research at a public library, continue her education at a public university, why, because of liberals.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Republicans are only interested in enslaving everybody into a daddy state, privatizing everything and draining our public treasury.

This is priceless!  Individual independence isn’t any sort of “enslavement”, and that “public treasury” you speak of is filled by means of confiscating the earnings of achievers in this country.  It is the govt that is draining our pockets.

Typical leftie ignorance.

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

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

RBB:
The Electoral College is the only way to allow states of varying size and populations a fair role in the electoral process, in choosing a president for all the people. So, if Bush won the electoral college - he was lawfully elected by our Constitution.

The Electoral Commission of the state of Florida were manipulating the electoral process with crap like hanging chads; even though George Bush clearly won 51 (77%) of Florida’s 67 counties and Gore won 16 (23%) of the counties (primarily the population centers). Bush won fairly, by the election rules. So, The U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door shut Dec. 12, 2000 on efforts to count every vote in the Florida presidential election, because they would not stop until they found a way to make Gore the winner, it was a breakdown in the federal election system. In their opinion, five justices said, “We reverse the order of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed.” The Florida Elecoral commission was making a joke out of the electoral process. How can you say that concerning a Presidential Election, a federal election, the SCOTUS was acting unconstitutionally? Give me the exact law they violated!

Republicans are only interested in enslaving everybody into a daddy state, privatizing everything and draining our public treasury.

So, you are saying that the Democrat Party Nanny state, mass enslavement of poor people, forced redistribution of wealth and incredibly onerous taxation are preferrable to free enterprize, individual responsibility and national prosperity?

The National Treasury is a joke, it is the Democrat Party symbol of burdensome, capital paralyzing, job destroying redistribution of capital to be used by your party to enslave the entire population by slow degrees, rob of us of our liberty and morph this great country into another socialist state wherein the only equality attained is the equal poverty of everyone in America except the ruling elite, the Democratic Party hacks.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

How can you say that concerning a Presidential Election, a federal election, the SCOTUS was acting unconstitutionally? Give me the exact law they violated!

The joy of the electoral system that you described is that states determine what electors get sent to Washington.  Not the federal government.  Katherine Harris stopped the counting because Florida Law said that elections must be finished by a certain date.  However, the Florida Supreme Court found that the law violated the Florida Constitution because it was arbitrary in that it had no relation to the date in which the electors had to be in Washington.  Therefore they said to count the votes.  Bush sued in the Supreme Court under equal protection grounds.  I’ve read the decision and still don’t understand how this could violate the equal protection clause.  And if it doesn’t violate the US Constitution they have no right to overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision based on Florida law.  It was frivolous.  The proof of this is that the Supreme Court wrote that no precedential value should be placed on that decision.  The only reason why a Supreme Court decision should not be used as precedent is because they knew it was wrong.

Thank you Hawk…I was looking for just that very thing, no precedential value, thank you.

And Nieman, so many true blue patriotic Americans agree with you nieman, that they voted to keep the gop in power in 2006 and even gave them more of a majority in both houses and a majority of governorships. Isn’t that right…nieman?

Oh yeah, it was a…aaaaa….(what did dumbya call it)…..A THUMPING.

Ya really should stop listening to talk radio shows hosted by drug addicts.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

The only reason why a Supreme Court decision should not be used as precedent is because they knew it was wrong.

Gee, how about the matter was far too narrow in scope, which makes it of little or no value as precedent?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Gee, how about the matter was far too narrow in scope, which makes it of little or no value as precedent?

The facts may be narrow in scope which may make its value as precedent limited, but the reasoning and the holding should be based on good law.  The only reason to explicitly state that it should not be used as precedent is because the writers knew it was bad law.

The only reason to explicitly state that it should not be used as precedent is because the writers knew it was bad law.

That is your opinion and considering your other radical, fringe beliefs, I won’t take it seriously.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Here is your challenge Nieman.

Explain to me the reasoning and holding of the decision.  Explain to me how the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a state supreme court’s decision regarding state law.  What US Constitutional principle was violated and how? 

You seem so knowledgable on this subject.

The majority ruled 5-4 first that the recounts must be stopped, and then after sufficient time had elapsed, that no constitutionally-valid recount could timely be completed by the December 12 deadline. The opinion stated that the state-wide standard (that a “legal vote” is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter.’” could not guarantee that each county would count the votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The truth is, in my view, when the Florida election commission, absent any prior law to provide cover for their actions, arbitrarily manufactured law on how to determine original intent of the voter, which lawmaking right is the sole authority of the Florida Legislature, decided to re-examine each vote and then these officials subjectively tried to determine the actual intent of the voters of Florida, meant that they, not the voter was deciding who that voter intended to vote for absent any clear proof of that intent, and were thereby denying the voters equal protection under the law.

It is the sole right of the voter to cast their own votes and they and they alone may say whom that vote was intended for among the list of candidates. The Florida Electoral Commission by manufacturing a policy about things like hanging chads, were acting as an independent, unelected legislature and the matter was so messy and so violated equal protection and the date for filing those votes was close enough the SCOTUS had to resolve the matter.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The problem of course was caused by the Supreme Court of Florida (SCOFLA)blatently ignoring the law.

The decisions in fact were 7-2 that the standards ordered by SCOFLA were in error and counted some votes more than others.  This was a problematic ruling according to Mark Levin.

Then the court ruled correctly 5-4 that there was not time for yet ANOTHER complete recount before the deadline. 

However you guys need to quit complaining about it because according to the newspaper consortium recount Bush still won!

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The truth is, in my view, when the Florida election commission, absent any prior law to provide cover for their actions, arbitrarily manufactured law on how to determine original intent of the voter, which lawmaking right is the sole authority of the Florida Legislature,

Hanging chads are when somebody pushes a block but does not completely remove the chad.  This prevents the scantron from reading their vote.  The Florida Constitution has the standard of the intent of the voter for valid votes.  Hanging chads are valid votes under this standard and under the law should be counted.  There is not an equal protection argument unless it is by those not having their votes counted. 

Besides the citizens of Florida were not parties to Bush v. Gore so that argument has no standing.

Better attempt than I thought you would give.

But when the votes were recounted the hanging chads did not give the election to Gore either.

What makes you nutters think that the hanging chad problem was worse for the Dem candidate than for the R?

I would agree with the standard that IF shown clear intent on the ballot it should be counted.  However an indented chad doesn’t show that to me at all.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

What US Constitutional principle was violated and how?

In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel
us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of
state law. That practice reflects our understanding that
the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements
of the will of the States as sovereigns. Cf. Erie R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938). Of course, in ordinary cases,
the distribution of powers among the branches of a State’s
government raises no questions of federal constitutional
law, subject to the requirement that the government be
republican in character. See U. S. Const., Art. IV, §4. But
there are a few exceptional cases in which the Constitution
imposes a duty or confers a power on a particular branch of
a State’s government. This is one of them. Article II, §1,
cl. 2, provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such
Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” electors for
President and Vice President. (Emphasis added.) Thus,
the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation
by the courts of the States, takes on independent
significance.

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

If we are to respect the legislature’s Article II powers, therefore, we must ensure that postelection state-court actions do not frustrate the legislative desire to attain the “safe harbor” provided by §5.
In Florida, the legislature has chosen to hold statewide elections to appoint the State’s 25 electors. Importantly, the legislature has delegated the authority to run the elections and to oversee election disputes to the Secretary of State (Secretary), Fla. Stat. §97.012(1) (2000), and to
state circuit courts, §§102.168(1), 102.168(8). Isolated sections of the code may well admit of more than one interpretation, but the general coherence of the legislative scheme may not be altered by judicial interpretation so as to wholly change the statutorily provided apportionment of responsibility among these various bodies. In any
election but a Presidential election, the Florida Supreme Court can give as little or as much deference to Florida’s executives as it chooses, so far as Article II is concerned, and this Court will have no cause to question the court’s actions. But, with respect to a Presidential election, the court must be both mindful of the legislature’s role under
Article II in choosing the manner of appointing electors and deferential to those bodies expressly empowered by the legislature to carry out its constitutional mandate.

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

Hawk: The dictionary, among other definitions provides these for Hawk - “a fiercely competitive, aggressive, predatory, or combative person, to clear the throat noisily of phlegm.” Just thought I would mention it!

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment,” the Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court’s scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that (not unlike the differing voting machines and systems utilized in the various counties and states in the United States) different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the Court, but this time only by the five-four majority, held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining. The per curiam opinion stated that its applicability was “limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

I did not read this part of the decision before I pointed out my beliefs on the matter above. I’ll bet money if they had upheld the Florida Electoral Commission and gave Gore the election you would be praising its sound judgment. So, forgive me if I think most objections are sour apples.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Just to educate you Neiman – bush was installed as POTUS

Just to educate you, delusionalbiasedbob, read the decision for yourself*, and not just the predigested pap you’ve been fed over the years!

*Warning! Reading original source materials may cause thinking for one’s self! We cannot be held responsible for any rational thought that might occur to you and alienate you from your current friends and companions!

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

How many times did Al Gore cede the election? Al Gore and the Clintons have done so much to divide our country.  Politics is not an easy road to take. BUT as Americans we need to recognize the dividers among us. It would be nice to get politicians that could unite instead of divide us further apart.

BTW, if anyone didn’t catch the drift of Rehnquist’s* decision, it could be boiled down to: Florida: You have to adhere to the law the way it was written before the election took place.

My apologies for misspelling his name in earlier posts! 

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

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

The Florida Supreme Court did not try to usurp the power of the Florida Legislature had decided that electors would be chosen by popular vote.  The standard in Florida is intent of the voter. 

The Supreme Court said that different counties can’t do manual recounts slightly differently.  That is BS because they allow different counties to count votes differently all the time.  Some have push cards, some are electronic, some are done by #2 pencils. 

The Supreme Court usurped the judgement of the Florida Supreme Court with no sound basis to do so.  Read Ginsburg’s dissent.

The Supreme Court usurped the judgement (sic) of the Florida Supreme Court with no sound basis to do so

It’s called The 14th Amendment to the Constitution!
By selectively allowing recounting of only certain counties, the FL supreme court was threatening to disenfranchise every county not recounted!

By allowing novel interpretation of FL election law, they were effectively re-writing the law in the middle of an election, with no other purpose than to change the outcome of the election!

In other places, we call these: Banana Republics!

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

Read Ginsburg’s dissent: You want me to waste my time reading the dissent by the most extreme liberal on the court? She, like all liberals, has great contempt for the Constitution, believing it can be amended by the Legislature or the Court outside the Amendment process (the will of the people) and even must be subjected to interpretation by appealing to International Law.

The usurpation of power point was mine alone, as the Legislature did not, as far as I know, contemplate hanging chads or idented chads and so the commission took it upon themselves to write electoral law by making such rules/laws on their own. You are free to disagree, it is not critical to this matter. It’s only value is to me and of course your being a liberal changing the subject is in your best interests.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It’s called The 14th Amendment to the Constitution!
By selectively allowing recounting of only certain counties, the FL supreme court was threatening to disenfranchise every county not recounted!

By allowing novel interpretation of FL election law, they were effectively re-writing the law in the middle of an election, with no other purpose than to change the outcome of the election!

In other places, we call these: Banana Republics!

That wasn’t in the holding of the case at all.  You talk about others reading the text, how about you. 

You guys call yourself principled conservatives and federalist.  You yell about States Rights.  But when the Supreme Court overrules a State court about its own law you support it as long as it is for partisan purposes.  You are all frauds.  Probably why you support Thompson.

The usurpation of power point was mine alone, as the Legislature did not, as far as I know, contemplate hanging chads or idented chads and so the commission took it upon themselves to write electoral law by making such rules/laws on their own.

Only because you are unwilling to do the research.  The standard created by the legislature was the intent of the voter, which you can tell by hanging chads if you do a manual recount, just not a computer one.

Read Ginsburg’s dissent: You want me to waste my time reading the dissent by the most extreme liberal on the court?

Scalia respects her and recognizes her as brilliant.  They are close friends.

realitydenyingboob, Algore lost because Bender blew up the ballot box with all his extra votes and dangling chads in it. Jeebus! Get a clue, moron.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

But when the Supreme Court overrules a State court about its own law you support it as long as it is for partisan purposes.  You are all frauds.

And when a State Supreme Court, packed by one party, seeks to overturn the results of a legal election, you’re willing to look the other way as long as it supports your partisan purposes. You’re also willing to ignore the Constitution (you know, the living one, with umbras and penumbrasnever seen before!) as long as it is for partisan purposes. You liberals are bigger frauds! (And sore losers!)

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

And when a State Supreme Court, packed by one party, seeks to overturn the results of a legal election

Spin, spin, spin.  They made a ruling on a case that was legally brought before them as they were required to do.  All their decision amounted to was “count the votes”.  How is ensuring that all the votes are counted seeking to overturn a legal election.  You don’t know what you are talking about.

You are not a conservative or a federalist, all you are is a partisan republican.

Hawk: You are woefully ignorant about this issue. The Florida Election Commission was applying arbitrary methods of counting the votes, methods which were not consistent throughout the state and thus the voters of that state were not offered equal protection under the law. Further, this was a blatant attempt by these people and the State Supreme Court to keep counting until they forced the results to agree with their partisan beliefs.

The problem is, as a leftist, you are willing to sacrifice the Constitution upon the filthy altar of the Democrat Party and in the process if that denies the military and other conservative voters of a state the right to have their votes counted correctly, then no price is too high to get your socialist pals elected.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It seems like Al Gore ceded 3 or 4 times before he demanded the recount. Will of WILLisms.com (my son) was working for the Bush campaign at the time. I know I spoke to him several times and he would say Al Gore ceded and then the next time I would talk to him, Al Gore would take it back. Has that ever happened before? Between Al Gore and Bill Clinton they need to learn that there is a certain etiquette followed with losing, or in Bill Clintons case impeachment.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Pot...kettle!
Kettle...pot!

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

That’s okay, Hawk! As long as all you lefties are stuck in the past, arguing how many environmentalists can dance on the head of a pin… (pin head! Sounds like the Democratic party‘s last couple of standard bearers!)...you’ll just put a lie to that whole “move on” thing as well!

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

The vote was counted. Then the vote was recounted. Al Gore lost both times.
“Hold on there just a gosh darned second !”, said the Florida Supreme Court. “We’d like to make a mockery of the rule of law and maybe throw the country into a state of turmoil in the process!”

Then the MoveOn.Democrats in the House and Senate dragged their feet on Bush appointments, in sheer petulance over losing, for nine months. Then the left wanted to carp as to why Bush hadn’t done more to stop terrorism.

Then the MoveOn.liberals around the country, in sheer petulance over losing, have been yapping about how Bush was “selected”, not elected for seven freaking years! Get over yourselves!

Yep! You’re right, Hawk! Too much partisanship going on!

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

Hawk: You are woefully ignorant about this issue. The Florida Election Commission was applying arbitrary methods of counting the votes, methods which were not consistent throughout the state and thus the voters of that state were not offered equal protection under the law. Further, this was a blatant attempt by these people and the State Supreme Court to keep counting until they forced the results to agree with their partisan beliefs.

There are several issues that should trouble every supporter of this case. 

First, counties are not required to have the same counting standards.  As long as they meet the states guidance they are fine.  That is why counties are allowed to have different methods of coutning such as push card, scantron or electronic.  Since the only standard set by the legislature of Florida, the counties met this standard in the recount.  That is why this equal protection argument was specious on its merits.

Second, Bush has no standing to assert an equal protection argument based on the counting unless he can show that he will be injured by counting the votes.  Since he has no right to be President, he has no standing to make this claim.  It should of been thrown out on procedural grounds.

Thirdly, since there is no equal protection argument the Supreme Court has no right to interfere in a case involving only state law, how the electors are chosen.

The Federal Governmnet had no right to decide this case.

Neiman, if you only read the writings of people who agree with you than your education is seriously lacking.

lestupid, your party lost. Get the fuck over it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Since he has no right to be President, he has no standing to make this claim.

Doctor! Up the meds! STAT!

The Federal Governmnet (sic) had no right to decide this case.

Step away from the keyboard and try to remain calm! Someone from the Governmnet will be here to help you shortly!

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

The Federal Governmnet had no right to decide this case.

Well no.

We can’t have the Florida Supreme Court deciding a national election, especially when that court flagrantly violates its own state law (i.e., certification of Florida elections).

The Supreme Court most certainly has the right, the power and the duty to review such an egregiously bad decision that affects not just Florida, but the entire nation.

Besides, even Justice Ginsburg found an equal rights violation in how Florida conducted ballot counts.

You are flogging a losing, dead horse Lestat.

You are flogging a losing, dead horse Lestat.

He’s a leftie, and they’re still flogging the “dead horse” of Marxism.

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

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin