Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Kerry threatens legal "pre-challenge" in Florida

Election 2004 John Kerry 2004

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 04:51 PM

Caitriona, on Mar 16 2004, 03:36 PM, said:

the election itself was decided through the courts.  Dangerous precedent was set, very dangerous.
It's depressing to see these bits of Democrat propaganda work so well on so much of the populace, but it's to be expected from the Republicans' spectacular pattern of never standing up for themselves and truth.

The courts did not pick a winner. What they did was stop an unending stream of illegal and invalid "recounts"  that the Democrats were manipulating to change the results, and which would have merely been the latest number, not the most accurate or valid one. Thus the court's decision was exactly to leave it to the votes and not expose the election to more meddling by officials. The winner was ultimately determine by the voters, not the courts as this utter tripe from the Democrats would have it, because the courts made that possible by ordering everybody to quit interfering.

#22 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 05:01 PM

Delvo, on Mar 16 2004, 01:49 PM, said:

Caitriona, on Mar 16 2004, 03:36 PM, said:

the election itself was decided through the courts.  Dangerous precedent was set, very dangerous.
It's depressing to see these bits of Democrat propaganda work so well on so much of the populace, but it's to be expected from the Republicans' spectacular pattern of never standing up for themselves and truth.

The courts did not pick a winner. What they did was stop an unending stream of illegal and invalid "recounts"  that the Democrats were manipulating to change the results, and which would have merely been the latest number, not the most accurate or valid one. Thus the court's decision was exactly to leave it to the votes and not expose the election to more meddling by officials. The winner was ultimately determine by the voters, not the courts as this utter tripe from the Democrats would have it, because the courts made that possible by ordering everybody to quit interfering.
I'm afraid you missed my point, but I can see I was not entirely clear on it.

The courts did not belong in the process at all.  And regardless of how the election turned out eventually or how it would have turned out without the courts involvement, the precedent was set.  A precedent can be used to push the envelope farther, and farther and farther.  It is the nature of precedents.

This is my concern.  It is NOT about the outcome of any election.  It is the courts involvement in them at all.  It means, in the extreme, that my vote can potentially be interfered with through court action.

I am somewhat offended by the characterization of what works so well on the general population, but will let it go.  You do not know me well enough to know how I think and I was a bit vague in my first comment.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#23 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 05:18 PM

You can't send Self to live with me Cait because my cat is allergic...;)  Delvo you are missing the point.  The point is that courts have no place in determining the outcome of presidential elections.  Period.  I would feel and say the same if Gore had won.  The Supreme Court consists of LIFE TIME APPOINTEES who are not answerable to anyone.  To call it a dangerous precedent is an understatement and I am appalled at the way Kerry is so cavalierly threatening to get the courts involved again.

Lil
Posted Image

#24 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 06:04 PM

Once the legality of something has been challenged, who else is there but the courts to answer the question? Is that not by definition why the courts exist? Who else would have stopped the tinkering?

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 06:22 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 16 2004, 10:16 PM, said:

I am appalled at the way Kerry is so cavalierly threatening to get the courts involved again.

Lil
And yet he is the guy you want to vote for?  The right to an abortion is not going to suddenly go ou tof  existence because Bush gets a second term Lil.  Someone has pointed out  in these threads that Bush has said that the time is not right for such a dramatic a change. So if the right to choose is not going to depart why vote for Kerry?

#26 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 06:24 PM

Delvo, on Mar 16 2004, 06:02 PM, said:

who else is there but the courts to answer the question?
Congress?

The Electoral College?

The American people?

The Illuminati?

I don't know who else there is, either....

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#27 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 07:26 PM

Drew, on Mar 16 2004, 02:00 PM, said:

Banapis, on Mar 16 2004, 02:53 PM, said:

People think this is a bad idea?
You'll have to ask him what injunctions he had in mind.

But wouldn't it be better if he won in Florida because Floridians liked him better? Perhaps the sort of things he should talk about on the stump are the issues that are important to Floridians. Instead, he tells outright lies* to whip up anger against the Republicans.

----

*Perhaps "lies" is too harsh. Perhaps he's just ignorant of facts.
Given some of the questions raised in Florida last time, I'm not sure having Floridians like you better means jack.  :wacko:

And it's certainly not a lie that Bush didn't win the popular election.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#28 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 07:31 PM

And Neither did Bill Clinton in his First Term. Your point is?

#29 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 07:35 PM

From the Federal Election Commision

Quote

2000 Florida Results:

Buchanan: 17,484
Bush:   2,912,790
Gore:   2,912,253
Nader:      97,488
Other:       23,095

Bush got all of Florida's electoral votes by 537 individual ballots.  This is a margin of less than %0.01

Florida's law demands a recount for ANY election where the difference is less than 1 or 2 percent.  The court challenges were issued because the margin was so tight . . . what of the butterfly ballots that were difficult to use especially for elderly voters? (there were a high number of "blank" ballots that couldn't be counted but could've made the difference because arthritic hands couldn't punch the cards properly)

And regarding Kerry's comment that "we had more votes!" . . . depends on which votes you're talking about . . . because nationally, they did:

Quote

Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897
Others:   962,232

Difference:  543,895 or %0.531

The courts decided the election by saying "too bad.  We don't care if the margin was razor thin--what was counted twice is good enough.  no re-vote, no splitting the electoral votes."

-Nick

#30 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 07:43 PM

Nick, on Mar 16 2004, 06:33 PM, said:

What of the butterfly ballots that were difficult to use especially for elderly voters? (there were a high number of "blank" ballots that couldn't be counted but could've made the difference because arthritic hands couldn't punch the cards properly)
You may remember that they wanted to divine intent from blank punch cards by searching for "dimpled chads." (Barring that, they were planning to consult chicken entrails)

I don't know about you, but if I made a mistake on my ballot, I wouldn't want anyone coming along and telling me who I really meant to punch.

Anyway, Kerry's assertion "We had more votes! We won!" either refers to Florida alone or it refers to the general election. And if he meant the latter, then he wouldn't have been bringing up the voting fiasco in Florida. Instead, he would be appealing to get rid of the electoral college. Context is everything, and from the context, it's clear what Kerry was talking about--Florida votes.

That's not to say that he won't deny it tomorrow. :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#31 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:31 PM

Okay... my logic meter is beeping, but I may need to recalibrate it, so help me out here. :p

There are laws which state how elections are to be run. Yes?

When a law (of any sort) is violated, it is a matter for the courts... right?

So, if the laws regarding elections are broken, isn't it the job of the courts to do something about that? Not to decide who should win the election, but to decide whether a law was broken, and what should be done about it. If you see what I mean.

So, when people say the courts shouldn't be involved at all, do they really mean that the courts shouldn't enforce the laws regarding elections? If so, then who should enforce those laws?
Posted Image

#32 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:34 PM

Morrhigan, on Mar 16 2004, 06:29 PM, said:

So, when people say the courts shouldn't be involved at all, do they really mean that the courts shouldn't enforce the laws regarding elections? If so, then who should enforce those laws?
The Executive Branch  :)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#33 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:35 PM

^ Conflict of interest would prevent the Executive Branch from acting in that situation, no?

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#34 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:44 PM

Quote

Nick: Difference: 543,895 or %0.531

The courts decided the election by saying "too bad. We don't care if the margin was razor thin--what was counted twice is good enough. no re-vote, no splitting the electoral votes."

-Nick

... do you think either of those rulings would have been even remotely constitutional?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#35 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:49 PM

Drew, on Mar 16 2004, 07:41 PM, said:

I don't know about you, but if I made a mistake on my ballot, I wouldn't want anyone coming along and telling me who I really meant to punch.

Anyway, Kerry's assertion "We had more votes! We won!" either refers to Florida alone or it refers to the general election. And if he meant the latter, then he wouldn't have been bringing up the voting fiasco in Florida. Instead, he would be appealing to get rid of the electoral college. Context is everything, and from the context, it's clear what Kerry was talking about--Florida votes.
Oh, I wasn't advocating any of that "dimpled chad" nonsense--but you've gotta admit . . . even that margin of error was greater than what actually won Bush the election.

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's comments in context.  In the 2000 Presidential election, Gore won the popular vote of the General election, but lost the electoral votes of Florida by a margin so slim it *easily* could've been swung by equipment problems, confusing ballots, and nitpicky errors on other ballots (didn't use No.2 pencil, absentee ballot didn't use correct postage and didn't arrive in time, etc. etc.)

So I think the comments are pretty valid--and that he wants to challenge problems he foresees in advance to make sure nothing similar happens again.  I don't see anything wrong with his campaign bugging the crap out of Florida elections officials to guaruntee that they don't screw this one up again.

In fact, we're already hearing about problems with the bleeding-edge touch-screen voting terminals and electronic balloting.  These don't exist in Florida, but some other states have started using them.

-Nick

#36 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:54 PM

the'Hawk, on Mar 16 2004, 06:33 PM, said:

^ Conflict of interest would prevent the Executive Branch from acting in that situation, no?

:cool:
Actually, the election laws in the State of Florida should/would have been enforced by the Executive Branch in the State of Florida.  Just as all State laws are enforced by the Executive Branch of State governments.

At the Federal level, the Executive Branch had/has nothing to do with the enforcement of the Election Laws in the State of Florida or any State for that matter.

There is the more complicated issue of State Election laws violating Federal Law, and that WOULD most likely be an issue the Judiciary would settle.  There is also the issue of non-enforcement of existing and constitutional State laws during Federal Elections, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure about a remedy in those kinds of cases.  I'm assuming it is a Judicial issue, but don't quote me on it.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#37 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 10:02 PM

Mostly Kerry wants the state court or lower Federal court to take a activist action and elect him.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#38 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 10:25 PM

StarDust, on Mar 16 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

It's hyperbole.

The Florida situation last time was no doubt a total and complete mess, but it is highly questionable what would have happened if things had run smoothly.  The fact that the electorate seemed confused in their method of voting made it just as difficult in re-counts. 

The system has had a complete overhaul since.
From listening to last week's super tuesday results in Florida from several of those problem counties, they still have major problems figuring out which end of a ballot to punch (or touch screen), and a Republican wasn't even running...


Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#39 psycaz

psycaz
  • Islander
  • 350 posts

Posted 17 March 2004 - 12:00 AM

The real sad thing is that Florida wasn't the only state with voting issues last time. There were at least 3 others states, more I believe that were being looked at for recount. New Mexico and Missouri come to mind quick and I believe Wisconsin as well.  
I think they decided to drop all of the other challenges and just go with Florida's ersult after they saw the mess it was creating. Heck, Bill Clinton might still be in office if they hadn't - with the results would still be being challenged  :alien:

Make me wonder when the last time we had a real election were folks got to vote and have it count too.

#40 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 17 March 2004 - 12:29 AM

Quote

Quote

the election may well be 60-20-20, in favour of a bag of lettuce.

Don't make me beat that bag of lettuce with the Constitution. Only citizens born within the United States are eligible to run for President.

And even then, does that lettuce meet the property ownership requirements? What's that bag of lettuce's war record?
Did it inhale?
What's its father's connection to major corporations?
What's its stance on abortion?
Can we REALLY trust a bag of lettuce with its, er..... leaf on the button?

And did that bag of lettuce have any relations with any interns? ;)

But yeah, at this point, I'll go with the lettuce...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, John Kerry, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users