Science > Abortion > Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in 2008? Will California Become the Next Florida?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2007 09:13:12 AM |
| Object: |
Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in 2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in 2008?
Will California Become the Next Florida?
Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com
November 23, 2007
To begin the BuzzFlash editorıs blog, I ran a series on how the
Republican blitzkrieg to fill the federal bench with partisan hacks
beginning seriously with the Reagan Administration has profoundly and
negatively impacted the Constitutional balance of powers. We used the
example of how D.C U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David Sentelle
(and we have one or more installments on him to come) has been a Zelig
at protecting the interests of Republican executive branch powers and
illegalities, and how just one jurist can alter the course of democracy
to serve partisan interests.
But for many of us, we need only go back to election 2000 to remember
how despite lower court rulings to the contrary, Nino Scalia led a
Supreme Court coup to put George W. Bush in power even though he had
lost the national election by more than 540,000 votes and would have
lost the Florida race if all the votes had been counted. Scaliaıs
original explanation of why the recount in Florida should be halted was
based, he wrote, on the absurd and mind-boggling "concern" that, in
essence, if all the votes were counted it might undercut the credibility
of the presumed winner, George W. Bush.
In short, Scalia halted the right of a state to run its own election
count because the results might make Al Gore the victor and, therefore,
make it harder for Bush to assume the presidency once the Supreme Court
made a decision to rule that the recount was not valid. So Scalia
nullified the votes of American citizens so that he and the other
felonious four could appoint Bush and Cheney before it could be
determined that they had actually lost the election.
And so, after Scaliaıs bizarrely illogical and legally untenable court
order, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the dark of the night
that Gore had lost, but that the ruling would only apply to that
particular case and would not set a precedent. In short, for Bush and
Cheney, "we will make a partisan exception to the role of stateıs rights
in elections and the right of every vote to be counted." [BuzzFlash's
quotation marks]
That brings us to the on-again, off-again, on-again effort (initiated
and originally funded by a Giuliani backer) in California to place a
referendum on the June ballot to proportionally award the electoral
votes of the largest state in the Union. The inevitable result would be
to give the Republican presidential candidate approximately as many
electoral votes from the State of California as letıs say Ohio. Of
course, as it currently stands without the passage of the proposition --
short of some GOP miracle -- California, the largest state in the Union,
will award all its electoral votes to the Democratic nominee, whoever
that might be.
So letıs say that the GOP's latest dirty trick (petition signatures are
currently being collected, with charges that many people are being
deceived about what they are signing) succeeds in getting the electoral
split on the ballot in the California primary (some say that it might
have to wait to be on the ballot until the November presidential
election, but with wording that it would be effective for that
election). And letıs assume that it passes (if it makes it to the
ballot), which is a distinct possibility according to some polling.
Well, using a referendum process to alter the allocation of electoral
votes by a proposition could become a Constitutional question, because
it can be legally argued that such a decision is solely the province of
a state legislature, as one possible challenge would contend.
So then letıs say that the Democratic Party or another plaintiff -- the
Democratic Presidential Candidate -- asks the courts to declare such a
referendum, if passed, as not legally enforceable. And letıs assume that
the lower courts agree with the plaintiffs and award all the California
electoral votes to the Democratic candidate for president.
So we are back to the end of 2000. The Republican candidate makes an
emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case. Nino Scalia or
Roberts, Alito or Thomas accepts the petition. Kennedy, one of the
felonious five, is still on the court.
You got it; now a slightly altered majority (Alito replaced OıConnor)
declare that the referendum process was legal and that the Republican
candidate for president should be given a proportional share of the
California electoral votes and that allocation would potentially
considering the close electoral split between Dems and Republicans -- be
enough to put the GOP candidate in the White House.
Of course, such a ruling would apply to this specific case in California
in 2008, right?
Such things are not implausible. It happened in 2000.
It is what occurs when the Democrats confirm Federalist Society hacks
whose loyalty is to the extreme right wing and the Republican Party, not
to the Constitution.
It is, unfortunately, not a scenario for 2008 that can be easily
dismissed.
Democracy canıt survive when one party controls the umpires.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/010
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in 2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
29 Nov 2007 11:47:12 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
Obviously, if a Supreme Court sees the need to, shall we say, alter the
results of the election due to blatant Democrat corruption, they will do
exactly that.
So you're saying that the Supreme Court was corrupt and altered to
outcome of the eleciton to suit their own wants.
Got it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in 2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
29 Nov 2007 09:45:37 PM |
|
|
Tense, Fisher, tense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
03 Dec 2007 04:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Nov 28, 10:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
The state's electors had already been certified for Bush.
Then why the interference of the Supreme Court?
Because the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to violate
the US Constitution.
They didn't.
Sorry, but I proved that they violated the 14th Amendment. Identically
marked ballots do mean the same thing.
"Proved" is not synonymous with "claimed".
Denying evidence presented in the courts does not make your argument.
11 Judges/Justices in 3 different courts accepted the fact that
identically marked ballots did not mean the same thing. It was only 6
Judges/Justices in 2 courts who did not.
Identically marked ballot do mean the same thing. 7 of 9 members of
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators
and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
US Constitution: Article II Section 1
Correct. Florida Stat 101.5609(8) (2000), passed by the Florida
Legislature, says that ballots are to be scored in a uniform manner.
The Florida Constitution gives the ultimate power to rule on disputes
to the Florida Supreme Court.
The 12th Amendment US Constitution give Congress, not the Florida
Supreme Court, the right to rule on the legality of already appointed
electors.
The US Supreme Court overruled the
Florida court, thuse violating the US Constitution.
False. Again, you are trying to argue that the USSC does not have the
right to up hold the US Constitution. IF the Florida Supreme allow for
a poll tax to but put back into place, your failed argument would say
the USSC does not have the right to up hold the 24th Amendment.
The problem was the FSC endorsed a counting standard that ignored this
law.
In your opinion. But the Florida court's opinion is what counts.
False. Under the US Constitution, it is the opinion of Congress that
counts.
I suggest that you brush up on Presidential election law. You should
start with the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution and then the
Electoral Count Act of 1887.
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
03 Dec 2007 10:58:05 PM |
|
|
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperweasel@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
The state's electors had already been certified for Bush.
Then why the interference of the Supreme Court?
Because the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to violate
the US Constitution.
They didn't.
Sorry, but I proved that they violated the 14th Amendment. Identically
marked ballots do mean the same thing.
"Proved" is not synonymous with "claimed".
Denying evidence presented in the courts does not make your argument.
11 Judges/Justices in 3 different courts accepted the fact that
identically marked ballots did not mean the same thing.
So you claim.
But I don't believe right-wing neocons since they're so often rank liars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
04 Dec 2007 07:41:05 AM |
|
|
On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
The state's electors had already been certified for Bush.
Then why the interference of the Supreme Court?
Because the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to violate
the US Constitution.
They didn't.
Sorry, but I proved that they violated the 14th Amendment. Identically
marked ballots do mean the same thing.
"Proved" is not synonymous with "claimed".
Denying evidence presented in the courts does not make your argument.
11 Judges/Justices in 3 different courts accepted the fact that
identically marked ballots did not mean the same thing.
So you claim.
It wasn't *my* claim, that was the facts accepted by both DEMOCRAT and
Republican appointed Judges/Justices.
But I don't believe right-wing neocons since they're so often rank liars.
Instead of addressing the facts, you have to run and hide behind the
worn out "neocon" boogie man argument.
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
04 Dec 2007 08:37:35 AM |
|
|
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperweasel@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
The state's electors had already been certified for Bush.
Then why the interference of the Supreme Court?
Because the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to violate
the US Constitution.
They didn't.
Sorry, but I proved that they violated the 14th Amendment. Identically
marked ballots do mean the same thing.
"Proved" is not synonymous with "claimed".
Denying evidence presented in the courts does not make your argument.
11 Judges/Justices in 3 different courts accepted the fact that
identically marked ballots did not mean the same thing.
So you claim.
It wasn't *my* claim, that was the facts accepted by both DEMOCRAT and
Republican appointed Judges/Justices.
So you claim.
But I don't believe right-wing neocons since they're so often rank liars.
Instead of addressing the facts, you have to run and hide behind the
Whine, whine, whine.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
04 Dec 2007 09:23:54 AM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 8:37 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:51 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
The state's electors had already been certified for Bush.
Then why the interference of the Supreme Court?
Because the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to violate
the US Constitution.
They didn't.
Sorry, but I proved that they violated the 14th Amendment. Identically
marked ballots do mean the same thing.
"Proved" is not synonymous with "claimed".
Denying evidence presented in the courts does not make your argument.
11 Judges/Justices in 3 different courts accepted the fact that
identically marked ballots did not mean the same thing.
So you claim.
It wasn't *my* claim, that was the facts accepted by both DEMOCRAT and
Republican appointed Judges/Justices.
So you claim.
Proven.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-2431_transcript.pdf
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionsup1.htm
But I don't believe right-wing neocons since they're so often rank liars.
Instead of addressing the facts, you have to run and hide behind the
Whine, whine, whine.
Yes, you are one of the biggest whiners. You are an admitted Stalinist
who doesn't believe in fair elections. Too bad your side got caught
trying to steal an election. But don't let the truth get into your
way.
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
29 Nov 2007 10:47:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 26, 8:02 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Apparently Scalia either slept through that class or just doesn't give a damn.
So you don't believe the USSC has the right to uphold the US
Constitution in a state election?
The US Constitution, which you apparently did not read, says that the
STATE legislature makes the rules for choosing electors. Not the
federal government.
Ah, I see.
So if the STATE legislature requires a poll tax to be paid before
voting to select electors, then the federal government has no say.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Will the Supreme Court Steal the Election for the Republicans in2008? Will California Become the Next Florida? |
29 Nov 2007 10:49:01 AM |
|
|
On Nov 25, 9:29 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
The Weasel <theoneandonlysuperwea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Will the Supreme Court Steal theElectionfor the Republicans in 2008?
No, the court doesn't have such power (12th Amendment, US
Constitution). They can send a slate of electors if they wish, but
Congress is not required to accept them.
The Court doesn't have the power to interfere in how states choose
their electors, either.
So states can pass laws stating that only white people can choose
electors and the Court has no power to do anything about that.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
