In tx.general Mark Cook <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote:

<

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <ES77b.293130$Oz4.81244@rwcrnsc54>,

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <oT37b.393683$o%2.175963@sccrnsc02>,

wrote:

In tx.general Mark Cook <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote:

<

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article

freethemedia2002@yahoo.com (Arther Miller) wrote:

We Must Stop Bush From Stealing the 2004 Election

Hahahahahahahha. Ya couldn't stop him in 2000 when the

DemocRATs

held
all the power, what chance do ya have in 2004 when he is in

control?

Yes, you're right. We couldn't stop him from stealing the

election.

All Bush did was ask for the law to be followed. That hardly

qualifies

as
stealing an election.

On the other hand, Gore had 33 days to follow the law and ask

a full

state wide recount as required by Florida case law (Bedell vs.

Palm

Beach
County Canvassing Commission). A day or two after Gore ask (on
12/9/2000)
for a recount in 4 Democrat friendly counties, his Florida

Campaign

Chair,
Florida AG Butterworth (D), quit his campaign. On the 14th,

Butterworth

warned that a two-tier counting system, ie treating voter

differently

depending on what county they voted in would not stand.

Why didn't Gore file the paperwork required to get a full

Could

it
be that he knew that if all the votes, in all counties were

recounted,

that
he would lose?

Yes, Gore should have ordered a state-wide recount. He didn't.
Fortunately, the Florida Supreme Court *did* order a statewide
recount. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court gave that a "no

Perhaps because it violated Florida law? What's unfortunate about
requiring that the law be followed?

The USSC has absolutely no authorization to rule on Florida law,

Absolutely wrong, try again.

Nice of you to cut the rest of that sentence. Here it is, in case you
have a short memory:

unless it violates a higher law such as the US Constitution.

And that sentence is absolutely, 100% correct. The Florida state
Supreme Court is the *final* word on any Florida law, as long as it's
not claimed that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the FL (or any state, of course) Supreme Court could make
absolutely irrational rulings on any matter, and as long as there was
no conflict with the Constitution or Federal law, then there wouldn't
be a thing that fed courts (including the US Supreme Court) could do
about it. It would be entirely a state matter....

This is second time that you have made my point. Article II, Section 1,
Clause 2 of the US Constitution gives the state legislatures the right

make election law, NOT the courts.

Absolutely. The FL legislature did make the law, and the court is the
appropriate body to interpret and apply that law, which is what they
did. That is, after all, their primary job.

No where in the Florida Election Code is
a Florida court authorized to order a partial recount of ballots. Since

FSC decided to make new law and order a partial recount,

The FSC neither made a "new law" nor ordered a partial recount. I
quoted the actual FSC decision in an earlier posting, where they
clearly ordered a STATE-WIDE recount of ALL counties in which there
were undercounts. Did you miss that?

they violated the
US Constitution. As I pointed out earlier, with this order, the FSC

the SCOTUS to get involved.

Actually, the majority of the SCOTUS didn't have a problem with the
recount. They had a problem with a lack of standards defined for the
manual recount, which required personal judgement calls on vote
interpretation. They felt that would have led to different standards
in different places, and *that* is what they said violated the Equal
Protection Clause (I've explained in another post why I think that's a
bogus argument).

You should really read the court decisions (the FSC and the SCOTUS
decisions). Then you'd understand why several of the things you've
said are just plain wrong (such as the FSC ordering a partial recount
or the SCOTUS ruling because of that --- both of which are simply and
easily demonstrated to be false statements).

--

That's News To Me!

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <oMc7b.195745$2x.56280@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <ES77b.293130$Oz4.81244@rwcrnsc54>,

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <oT37b.393683$o%2.175963@sccrnsc02>,

In tx.general Mark Cook <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote:

<

In tx.general nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote:

In article <1451cd92.0309031721.4125d0fd@posting.google.com>,
freethemedia2002@yahoo.com (Arther Miller) wrote:

We Must Stop Bush From Stealing the 2004 Election

Hahahahahahahha. Ya couldn't stop him in 2000 when the
DemocRATs
held
all the power, what chance do ya have in 2004 when he is in
control?

Yes, you're right. We couldn't stop him from stealing the 2000
election.

All Bush did was ask for the law to be followed. That hardly
qualifies
as
stealing an election.

On the other hand, Gore had 33 days to follow the law and ask for
a
full
state wide recount as required by Florida case law (Bedell vs.
Palm
Beach
County Canvassing Commission). A day or two after Gore ask (on
12/9/2000)
for a recount in 4 Democrat friendly counties, his Florida
Campaign
Chair,
Florida AG Butterworth (D), quit his campaign. On the 14th,
Butterworth
warned that a two-tier counting system, ie treating voter
differently
depending on what county they voted in would not stand.

Why didn't Gore file the paperwork required to get a full recount?
Could
it
be that he knew that if all the votes, in all counties were
recounted,
that
he would lose?

Yes, Gore should have ordered a state-wide recount. He didn't.
Fortunately, the Florida Supreme Court *did* order a statewide
recount. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court gave that a "no go."

Perhaps because it violated Florida law? What's unfortunate about
requiring that the law be followed?

The USSC has absolutely no authorization to rule on Florida law,

Absolutely wrong, try again.

Nice of you to cut the rest of that sentence. Here it is, in case you
have a short memory:

unless it violates a higher law such as the US Constitution.

And that sentence is absolutely, 100% correct. The Florida state
Supreme Court is the *final* word on any Florida law,

Wrong, the USSC is the final authority on anything they say they're the
final authority on.

I really think you need to go back and take a basic civics class.
Really. You couldn't be more wrong on this if you tried.

In case you want to learn something, here's the relevant part of the
U.S. Constitution, which defines precisely the jurisdiction of the
USSC (Article III, Section 2):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall
be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--
between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens
of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming
Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or
the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Read carefully -- there's only jurisdiction on federal and inter-state
matters.