Unless there is something relevant about someone involved in Florida eight years ago...what's the point in bringing it up and again beating that dead horse?

Hillary Clinton's history is relevant today because she running for president today.

I guess if a Florida Supreme court activist judge were running for president today then maybe it would be relevant to discuss what happened there eight years ago. Otherwise it appears to be tired old trivial tangent with no current relevance.

__________________
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Einstein

I love it when everyone is against me. Give me some time. Here we go.

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” Article 2 sec 1This very clearly says that the states have this right. This is a conservative philosophy weakening the federal government and vesting power in states rights.

Am I mistaken? Is that not a conservative philosophy?

And judges interpret. Each judge was appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. Judicial review is the job of these people and saying this is like saying that they never should have ruled in any case. Neither should the supreme court have ruled on anything ever.

Given the separation of powers tell me why the supreme court does not have the right to rule a legislative action as unconstitutional?

I’m not sure I have ever heard that accusation. Back it up if you want, but good luck.

Wednesday Nov. 8, the first complete count was in. the results were 2,909,135 for Bush and 2,907,351 for Gore. By Florida Law this necessitates an immediate recount in every single county. That is THEIR LAW! The legislature wrote THAT law. After the recount the margin was 327 votes. After this Gore asked for a manual recount in four counties. This is according to Florida Law. He has this right. It is clearly defined on the books. The law then says that the Canvassing Board would vote to see if the recount could be held.

Are we all keeping up so far?

The Canvassing board is made up of three offcials. Each county has one. Under Florida Law he has the right to ask for a manual recount without suing. This is termed “Filing a Protest” on their books. Now it gets tricky.

Bush filed an injunction to have the recounts stopped. He filed the injunction in the federal district court saying that the selective recounts were a violation of the 14th. There is an old tradition in DC, “Candidates don’t sue” This has been broken and it is not law, only tradition. Grand Ole Tradition. This injunction was not granted and the recounts were told to commence.

Still with me?

This is the opinion of the Circuit court in Florida, “Under the constitution of the United States, the responsibility for selection of electors for the office of president rests primarily with the people of Florida, It’s election officials and, if necessary, its courts. The procedures employed by Florida seem to be neutral… I believe that intervention by a federal district court, particularly on a preliminary basis, is inappropriate.

Wait this is funny. It seems to say that the courts wanted no part of ANY of this shit. I wonder how it continued?

I’ll post this and do more now.

Florida Law has a strong presumption in favor of allowing recounts. Now Catherine Harris is the Secretary of State. She oddly enough has two laws. One says that recounts have to be certified by 7 days. One says she can allow. She is not legislature or elected she is appointed. But law says she can make this call. By the way she worked on GWs campaign. She picks to tell the counties to stop the recounts. The Courts look this over and say that no the recounts must conclude.

After this is done Bush is still winning. So he is probably gonna win.

Now the Court gets very politically active. They say the counts should continue for another five days. They had no legal reason for this the number was arbitrary. This was activism at its worst. Had the Florida Supreme court based their opinion on law it would have been ok. They were trying to right the partisan image that it looked like was being inflicted. THEY however ened up looking VERY partisan themselves. Funny that goes against GORE!

I told you I don’t give a shit about the winner or looser. I wanna talk about the case at hand. CAN ANYONE DO THAT WITH OUT WHINNING ABOUT REPUB DEMO BULL SHIT?!?!?!? IS THAT THE ONLY WAY EVERYONE THINKS? Does no one think about law or constitution only about parties which are conspicuously absent from the constitution?

I say we break here and see what the discussion brings, then we will move forward with the facts.

You just ended the discussion with the facts. All that is left is for a Liberal troll to come along and spew their packaged lies. Good luck! Hahahaha

I guess fuckin not.

The lawyers at the office aren't anywhere near as supercilious.

__________________
Ephesians 5:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyR41JbpL_g