www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--
"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country."
- John Dickinson, 1771 -
"Mark Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1 STEVENS, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 00-949 _________________ GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT [December 12, 2000] JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG AND JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.
...
The legislative power in Florida is subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the state constitution that created it. Moreover, the Florida Legislature's own decision to employ a unitary code for all elections indicates that it intended the Florida Supreme Court to play the same role in Presidential elections that it has historically played in resolving electoral disputes. The Florida Supreme Court's exercise of appellate jurisdiction therefore was wholly consistent with, and indeed contemplated by, the grant of authority in Article II.
It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U. S. C. §5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could "violate." Rather, §5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors in contested elections "by judicial or other methods" established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5, like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary in interpreting state election laws and resolving election disputes under those laws. Neither §5 nor Article II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law.
...
We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499, 501 (1931) (Holmes, J.). If it were otherwise, Florida's decision to leave to each county the determination of what balloting system to employ- despite enormous differences in accuracy4 - might run afoul of equal protection. So, too, might the similar decisions of the vast majority of state legislatures to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems and ballot design.
...
Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority's disposition of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one's vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature's uniform general standard to be established.
...
Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996).
The State Legislature does not allow:
1) The FSC ordered a partial recount of ballots, yet there is no provision in the Florida Code the certification a partial recount.
http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
......."Secondly, there is no authority under Florida law or certification of an incomplete manual recount of a portion of, or less than all ballots from any county by the state elections canvassing commission, nor
authority
to include any returns submitted past the deadline established by the Florida Supreme Court in this election."\
Nor does the Florida Code allow for a judge to arbitrarily toss out legal votes, or to cause them to remain uncounted. So what is a judiciary to do? Follow the intent of the law, and the 14th Amendment, which is to determine the outcome of the election, this judge's opinion notwithstanding (which is exactly what the FSC rules, BTW).
2) to go past the Safe Harbor Date.
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."
THE FSC action did not interfere with any rights listed above. See above.
From Bush vs. Gore 12/12/2000, the majority wrotehttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
......"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)."
The SCOTUS did not change any of the Florida Election Code, they upheld
it.
Thus my statement.
Is incorrect.
Sorry. I respectfully disagree. The fact that the SCOTUS, in their action, delayed the legally ordained process says something as well. The fact that other, Constitutional, remedies were available at the time also speaks to the purpose of the Court's interference with lawful process. What they did was unprecedented, unConstitutional, and just plain wrong.
Space and time prevents my posting much more supporting material.
The fact is, George Bush resides in the White House, and Al Gore showed infinitely more class than George or Richard Nixon. The fact that people, in general, do not know or understand the actual case, means George gets a free ride. So it goes. And this doesn't even cover the massive fraud by the co-chairwoman of Bush's Florida campaign, nor the felonious interference with elections by Republicans bused across state lines.
In the next election, we won't have to worry about recounts...
Dan
Why, exactly, are we revisiting this issue again?? Everyone knows that Floriduh's "election" was nothing more than a fraud
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
