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

"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Mark Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > --
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >They [SCOTUS] ruled that the electoral provisions of the U.S.
> > > > >Constitution were being subverted by the Democrats'
> > > > >frivolous attempts to stall the Florida results.
> > >
> > > Well, that might be interesting if the Democrats were trying to stall,
> but
> > > in fact (look it up) the Democrats were trying to meet the deadline
> > > defined by Congress (per the Constitution),
> >
> > The Democrats were trying to change the results of the election by
> > selectively counting ballots with an ever changing definition of what
> would
> > be counted as a vote.
>
> Interesting interpretation of events.  Any evidence?

Apparently you have not read any of the news reports or the lawsuits from
the Florida Election.

Gore nevered asked for a recount of all ballots, only in 4 Democrat County
strongholds. The FSC never issued an order that would have included all
disputed ballots in the recount. Both had decided that a partial recount
would settle the issue. As to the ever changing standards, Palm Beach County
changed their standards, ie the law at least for times.

>From the dissent of Bush vs Gore (12/12/2000), Justice Souter wrote:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

"...................But evidence in the record here suggests that a
different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's
intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to
identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and
exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or
 "dimpled" chads). See, e.g., Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing
varying standards applied to imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach
County during precertification manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly
describing varying standards applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing
8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000) (soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed
protocols for determining voters' intent but declining to provide a precise,
uniform standard). I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by
these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights.
The differences appear wholly arbitrary."

The majority wrote: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

......."A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed
that three members of the county canvassing board applied different
standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And
testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its
evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for
example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting
completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be
legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990
rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court
order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process
with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

> > > and every effort by the
> > > Republican Party and officers thereof was bent upon the delay of
> > > any legal efforts to arrive at a verifiable count of votes according
to
> > the
> > > laws of Florida with the apparent purpose of having their candidate,
> > > who was temporarily ahead in the voting at the time, assigned the
> > > electors of the state.
> >
> > Temporarily ahead? Gore never lead Florida. He never proved that he was
> the
> > winner. The only way that he could do such was to file for a full
recount
> of
> > the state. That is something that he never did.
>
> In the post-election analysis, Gore indeed won Florida, when the laws were
> upheld.

Since no one has examined all of the disputed ballots from the election, you
point it moot.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/neverknow.html

"The precinct reports from the counties to the state showed that those
ballots should add up to be 176,446 ballots."

"But NORC's county-by-county inspection of those so-called under-vote and
over-vote ballots turned up only 175,010. Somehow, the counties failed to
provide more than 1,400 of the spoiled ballots statewide."

> > > The SCOTUS, in the person of 5 of the 9 Justices, aided and abetted
this
> > > injustice, and thus subverted the laws of Florida, as legally
> interpreted
> > > by the Florida Supreme Court, in express contradiction of the text of
> the
> > > Constitution of the United States.
> >
> > The 5 to 4 Decision was to not allow recount to go past the safe harbor
> > date. That is not subverting the laws of Florida, it is called UPHOLDING
> > those laws.
> >
> > > But it IS fascinating to watch the neo-cons complain about legislation
> > > from the bench...  Were it not for the damage done to the Constitution
> > > WRT future elections, it would be enjoyable.
> >
> > Upholding the Safe Harbor date was not legislating from the bench.
> Ordering
> > a partial recount that could NOT be certified under existing Florida
Code
> > is.
>
> Safe harbor date is immaterial.  In fact, many states turned in elector
> lists after
> this date.  It is normal for a sizeable fraction of the states to not meet
> this date.

Along with the majority of the SCOTUS, the majority, in 6-1 decision (5
Democrats and 1 Independent), of the Florida Supreme Court disagrees with
your analysis.

>From Bush vs. Gore 12/12/2000, the majority wrote (link supplied above)

......"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional
problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the
safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer's proposed
remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in
violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an
"appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)."

>From Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris (12/11/2000)

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf

............."However, in this case involving a presidential election, the
decision as to when amended returns can be excluded from the statewide
certification must necessarily be considered in conjunction with the contest
provisions of section 102.168 and the deadlines set forth in 3 U.S.C. § 5.
Therefore, in this case involving a presidential election, we conclude that
the reasoned basis for the exercise of the Department's discretion to ignore
amended returns is limited to those instances where failure to ignore the
amended returns will: (1) preclude a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from
contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168 20;
or (2) in the case of a federal election, will result in Florida voters not
participating fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3
U.S.C. § 5."

So now you are telling us it is ok to change Florida Code after an election
has taken place. Is that the only Gore could win?

> Now, justify the continued efforts by Republican officials from without
the
> state
> to disrupt the recounts for the sole purpose of delaying the certification
> of valid
> votes until after the ACTUAL deadline was passed.  We'll leave all the
other
> "irregularities" for another argument.

The Democrats in Miami Dade changed to law to what constituted a valid vote
(see above). Now you are telling me that only the Democrats have the right
to protest. I hate to point this out to you, but the First Amendment ALSO
protects Republicans.

> Dan