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

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.

Will California Become the NextFlorida?

Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com
November 23, 2007

To begin the BuzzFlash editor=B9s 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 toelection2000 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 nationalelectionby more than 540,000 votes and would have
lost theFloridarace if all the votes had been counted. Scalia=B9s
original explanation of why the recount inFloridashould 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 ownelection
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 theelection.

And so, after Scalia=B9s 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 state=B9s righ=

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 - let=B9s 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 let=B9s say that the GOP's latest dirty trick (petition signatures ar=

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 presidentialelection=

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 let=B9s say that the Democratic Party or another plaintiff -- th=

Democratic Presidential Candidate -- asks the courts to declare such a
referendum, if passed, as not legally enforceable. And let=B9s assume th=

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 O=B9Connor)
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 can=B9t 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>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Will California Become the NextFlorida?

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 toelection2000 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 nationalelectionby more than 540,000 votes and would have
lost theFloridarace if all the votes had been counted. Scaliaıs
original explanation of why the recount inFloridashould 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 ownelection
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 theelection.

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 presidentialelection, but with wording that it would be

effective for thatelection). 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>
innews:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com