[Rollin' Rog]

My primary concern with Alito, and Roberts too for that matter -- is that they not turn out to be the "Conservative" hypocrites that Scalia, Rehnquist and others have shown themselves to be when push comes to shove on politically sensitive issues that affect the Bush Administration and its policies.

Certainly the glaring example of this was their philosophical and juridical flip flop in Anointing Bush after a Florida court had validated the state's right to conduct a recount.

This prompted Justice Stevens to respond:

One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Will they be true jurists or just political hacks in black like Scalia?

[bassetman]

What was that book, about the shame of the SC?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Nope--you're an intellecually honest liberal--they do exist!

Funny, your cybertwin GB attacked Rog not too long ago as the "resident Curmudgeon"

I guess it depends on whether you agree with him or not!

BTW Where is GB?

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

My primary concern with Alito, and Roberts too for that matter -- is that they not turn out to be the "Conservative" hypocrites that Scalia, Rehnquist and others have shown themselves to be when push comes to shove on politically sensitive issues that affect the Bush Administration and its policies.

Certainly the glaring example of this was their philosophical and juridical flip flop in Anointing Bush after a Florida court had validated the state's right to conduct a recount.

This prompted Justice Stevens to respond:



Will they be true jurists or just political hacks in black like Scalia?

HA HA! Sorry, but the SC decision to disallow the recount was the legally correct one. The Florida SC oversptepped their bounds in trying to change the law after the election which is illegal and improper. The US SC simply enforced the law as written at the time of the election. And after the recounts, Bush won anyway!! So just zip it, and get over it!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by TooBad

HA HA! Sorry, but the SC decision to disallow the recount was the legally correct one. The Florida SC oversptepped their bounds in trying to change the law after the election which is illegal and improper. The US SC simply enforced the law as written at the time of the election. And after the recounts, Bush won anyway!! So just zip it, and get over it!

The court can't "Change the law" and I don't see anything in here to suipport the "over stepped" claim either.

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[December 12, 2000]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Curiam.
I

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’s determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”

....http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...0-949.ZPC.html

[DiSaidSo]

Where is that Thread Police? Florida's SC has what to do with Alito being nominated for the United States SC? Just wonderin.....

[~Candy~]

What? You expect "THIS" thread to stay on topic? Now THAT would be a first

[DiSaidSo]

I know, I know. Keep your expectations low and you won't get disappointed. I got a wild hair. Don't know what I was thinking.

[~Candy~]

*WHEW* Glad I got you back into reality before you started running around reporting threads

[DiSaidSo]

Oh wow. Can I report entire threads??? That would save a lot of time as opposed to reporting every single post that offends me or is off-topic.

[~Candy~]

I see the wheels turning

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by AcaCandy

I see the wheels turning

They are all getting directed to you Candy!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Funny, your cybertwin GB attacked Rog not too long ago as the "resident Curmudgeon"

I guess it depends on whether you agree with him or not!

BTW Where is GB?

I see your memory is as good as your ability to keep a job. I said linskyjack is our resident curmudgeon. RR is our resident Quaker.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Where is that Thread Police? Florida's SC has what to do with Alito being nominated for the United States SC? Just wonderin.....

Not only that its been 5 years and the liberals STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION! It is amazing--they are like a bunch of blind sheep--one starts "baaaaaahing" in the wrong decision and the rest all follow. I don't know how many times I've explained it now. Bassetman is a perfect example of a blind sheep (actually deaf, dumb, and blind)--he doesn't have a clue as to what happened in Florida--or much of anywhere else.

To repeat--the SC decision stopped the recounts--they couldn't continue. The Florida SC should never have kept them going. As the one poster above correctly pointed out they attempted to create election law in Florida when only a legislature can do that--they simply had no business doing it. The liberals also forget that a Democrat judge at the trial level found in favor of Bush (he knew the recounts were a joke). Then, Democrats on the Florida SC in dissent lambasted the others for their stupid decision and then finally, the SC did it. But they DID NOT appoint Bush the winner of the election which is what about 97% of the liberals still believe.

[plschwartz]

Mulder
since you set yourself up as the great constitutional expert, could you tell us under what part of the constitution did the then SCOTUS give as granting them the power to intervene in the way that they did?
Would you say that it was a ruling from prescident or was it judicial adventuring