Re: So, What IS a Fascist, anyway? Answer: nothing but a favorite swearword of leftists.

"chicagofan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > They ruled that the electoral provisions of the U.S. Constitution were
> > being subverted by the Democrats' frivolous attempts to stall the
> > Florida results.
>
> Frivolous?  Republicans filed the first law suit; which eventually
resulted in
> the USSC effectively halting the ultimate *true* counts of all ballots.

1) The first lawsuit was filed by DEMOCRATS, not Republicans.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/suit1.pdf

2) It did not halt the counting of any ballots.

3) The case that stopped the illegal partial recount order by the FSC was
filed by Gore.

4) Tell us just exactly how a partial recount of disputed ballots would
ultimately decide the election.

> Overriding the Florida State SC was/is reason enough for me to consider
him the
> USSC *appointed* president.  Whether you and half the U.S. consider him
legally
> elected, matters not to me; he is NOT my president.  He holds the
office... period.
> bj

Cry me a river. Your candidate said, in arguments to the Florida Supreme
Court on 12/7/2000, that all ballots NEED NOT TO BE COUNTED, while the Bush
campaign was arguing that a full recount was the only legal recount that the
court could order. Why don't you blame Gore for not wanting to count the
ballots?

Judge Sauls wrote (discussing Fladell vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board) in Gore vs. Harris (12/03/2000) Link:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-2431_transcript.pdf

"......Section 102.168 provides in Subsection(1) that the certification of
elections may be contested for presidential elections. Section 103.011
provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as elected the
presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who
receive the highest number of votes." There is in this type of election, one
statewide election, and one certification. Palm Beach County did not elect
any person as a presidential elector, but, rather, the election with the
winner-take-all proposition, dependent on the statewide vote."

Sauls told Gore that he must ask for a full recount.

In the hearing before the FSC on 12/7/2000, Boies argued that Judge Sauls
had made an ERROR when he said that a recount would have to be STATEWIDE.
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.ht

"Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its conclusion
on three errors of law:

"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is no
support for it in this or any other state."

"Second, that under one 168, it's an abuse of the discretion standard.
Again, we don't think there's any case that says, in terms of what a ballot
means, whether a ballot does or does not reflect the voter's intent, that is
something that, in the judicial proceeding of a contest, discretion resides
in the canvassing board."

"And third, that in order to even look at the ballots, which are already
admitted into evidence in the case, you have to show a reasonable
probability that you will change the election, before you even look at the
ballots. And again, we think that is inconsistent, first, with the standard
in 168, which says "or place in doubt," and is inconsistent with the way a
trial goes, which is that you look at the evidence before you reach that
conclusion."

Boies is saying that all the voters need NOT BE HEARD. He says the is no
legal support for a statewide recount. Yet, this was a challenge to the
certification of a statewide vote.

Link to Gore vs. Harris http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

In Gore vs. Harris, Florida Supreme Court, 12/8/2000....."Appellees contend
that even if a count of the undervotes in Miami-Dade were appropriate,
section 102.168, Florida Statute (2000), require a count of all votes in
Miami-Dade County and the entire state as opposed to a selected number of
votes challenged. However, the plain language of section 102.168 refutes
Appellees' argument."

The Appellees in this case was Katherine Harris. Her argument to the court
was that if you are going to order a recount, it should be of the entire
state. But of course that is not what Gore wanted.