Clinton May Take Delegate Fight To Convention

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1537275' date='May 22 2008, 11:29 AM']That "judicial fiat" stuff is bullcrap. The Supreme Court was well within their jurisdiction to rule on the issue at hand which, by the way, was NOT who won the Presidency, but whether or not the excess votes in Florida were to be counted. And, seeing as how a different standard for counting the votes was applied in different counties, thereby disenfranchising some while elevating the power of others, the Supreme Court ruled that the deadline for counting the votes would stand and that the standard must be universal.

As for the Ohio stuff, I think that it is hard to blame bush for the incompetence of the people in Ohio...and Florida, for that matter.

Your liberal nonsense is sad. Put down the Michael Moore DVDs and Bill Maher books, take a look around you, and realize that things are not as insidious as you'd like to believe they are.[/quote]
Things worked out the way you wanted them to, so you can be sanguine about the outcome. Enjoy.

BTW, I'm not a registered member of any party. I'm simply interested in fairness and truth, both of which are in short supply in our political process. I deride the win-at-all-costs approach taken by the Republicans in 2000 and 2004, and by Hillary in the latest Democratic primary process.

[CatherineM]

Sorry, I don't have a citation to cite about the comment on the news. It was CBC which is kind of like CNN in the states. The anchor was taking a report from their guy in Washington, and asked why Hillary was still in it to the tune of $20 million in debt. He said that the rumors were that she was looking for a high level cabinet post or a nomination to the supreme court. Sometimes when people in Washington want to leak something, they use the Canadian media to do it, like when that Nafta thing blew up on Obama.

[kujo]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537320' date='May 22 2008, 02:10 PM']Things worked out the way you wanted them to, so you can be sanguine about the outcome. Enjoy.

BTW, I'm not a registered member of any party. I'm simply interested in fairness and truth, both of which are in short supply in our political process. I deride the win-at-all-costs approach taken by the Republicans in 2000 and 2004, and by Hillary in the latest Democratic primary process.[/quote]

Well, in 2000, I was in 8th grade and had no interest in politics. And yes, in '04, Bush defeated the lameduck candidate of the Democratic party who was a tool and would've harmed this country. Again, a [i]liberal court[/i] ruled that the procedures in Florida was unconstitutional. I could see some validity to your theories if the court was more like it is today; however, as it was not, you are simply grasping at straws. And, as Justice Scalia so eloquently put it a few months ago, you should "get over it."

I like some ambition in my politicians. Apparently the American people do as well because Fred Thompson, who would've made a phenomenal President, was chased from the primaries because he wasn't willing to do the rah-rah cheerleader stuff.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1537366' date='May 22 2008, 12:39 PM']Well, in 2000, I was in 8th grade and had no interest in politics. And yes, in '04, Bush defeated the lameduck candidate of the Democratic party who was a tool and would've harmed this country. Again, a [i]liberal court[/i] ruled that the procedures in Florida was unconstitutional. I could see some validity to your theories if the court was more like it is today; however, as it was not, you are simply grasping at straws. And, as Justice Scalia so eloquently put it a few months ago, you should "get over it."[/quote]
Atonin Scalia is a d***. I find his remark to "get over it" deeply insulting. What should I get over, the gross affront to our electoral process represented by his voting twice?

In any event, we'll have to agree to differ. Again, I suggest that the casualness of your view on the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004 is informed by your agreement with those outcomes, regardless of the flawed manner at which they were arrived.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1536707' date='May 21 2008, 09:05 PM']

(btw, nice use of "quixotic" in the OP-- that word is never used often enough)[/quote]

I like that word. "Quixotic." It's a good word.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537393' date='May 22 2008, 12:55 PM']Atonin Scalia is a d***. I find his remark to "get over it" deeply insulting. What should I get over, the gross affront to our electoral process represented by his voting twice?

In any event, we'll have to agree to differ. Again, I suggest that the casualness of your view on the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004 is informed by your agreement with those outcomes, regardless of the flawed manner at which they were arrived.[/quote]

Antonin Scalia is one of the few good Catholic's in a place of power in the United States. What are we to think of you calling him a d***? That you are doing the same as you as you accuse him of, being deeply insulting, by name calling your being more insulting even more so. Mr. Gore was defeated fair and square and tried to change the rules by suing. Thus it was necessary for the SCOTUS, and therefore Antonin Scalia to rule in the case, no "extra" votes. Gore lost that too. You are being highly illogical and emotional driven.

Edited May 22, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536923' date='May 21 2008, 11:16 PM']I just heard on the news here, a political analyst said that Hillary might be angling for---wait for it--- an appointment to the Supreme Court. Let the screaming begin.[/quote]

Even though she hasn't practiced law in 20 years??

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1537415' date='May 22 2008, 01:06 PM']Antonin Scalia is one of the few good Catholic's in a place of power in the United States. What are we to think of you calling him a d***? That you are doing the same as you as you accuse him of, being deeply insulting, by name calling your being more insulting even more so. Mr. Gore was defeated fair and square and tried to change the rules by suing. Thus it was necessary for the SCOTUS, and therefore Antonin Scalia to rule in the case, no "extra" votes. Gore lost that too. You are being highly illogical and emotional driven.[/quote]
Well, this wasn't what the original post was about, so I won't continue the debate. I'll just say that we'll have to agree to differ, on all points.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537089' date='May 22 2008, 07:26 AM']As for not having a dog in this fight, we should all care about clean elections, whether we support the candidate or not.[/quote]

I'm all for clean elections. I just wanted to see her step on and exploit Obama.

[CatherineM]

MV-most justices haven't practiced law, if at all, in a long time. Most are professors or judges somewhere. Kennedy and Roberts are exceptions. I think the last real politician that got named was Taft after he was president. He was better on the court, or at least more suited. Warren had been governor of California. Thomas was a bureaucrat, so that's kind of like being a politician. There's been a few Senators and Congressmen, but most of those were a century ago. Most have been professors or US attorneys.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537320' date='May 22 2008, 12:10 PM']Things worked out the way you wanted them to, so you can be sanguine about the outcome. Enjoy.

BTW, I'm not a registered member of any party. I'm simply interested in fairness and truth, both of which are in short supply in our political process. I deride the win-at-all-costs approach taken by the Republicans in 2000 and 2004, and by Hillary in the latest Democratic primary process.[/quote]


Okay, so how did Bush steal the second election, which he won by a small landslide? Or do you mean that the second election was stolen b/c he wasn't entitled to the first one anyway?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537393' date='May 22 2008, 12:55 PM']Atonin Scalia is a d***. I find his remark to "get over it" deeply insulting. What should I get over, the gross affront to our electoral process represented by his voting twice?[/quote]


I think it would have been easier for people to "get over it" if Bush had turned out to be a freakin' awesome President. Instead of...what he is.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1537461' date='May 22 2008, 01:45 PM']MV-most justices haven't practiced law, if at all, in a long time. Most are professors or judges somewhere.[/quote]


I didn't know that. I stand corrected.

But Hill hasn't done anything with law for 20 years. She would really need a refresher course of some kind!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537438' date='May 22 2008, 01:31 PM']Well, this wasn't what the original post was about, so I won't continue the debate. I'll just say that we'll have to agree to differ, on all points.[/quote]

Very well, I agree your wrong on all points, especially the uncharitable, rude, uncalled for, and unrepentant comment you made against a pretty descent fellow catholic. You also have a poor understanding how the electoral college or the courts work if you think because of the SCOTUS case in 2000 the man 'voted twice'.

Edited May 22, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[kujo]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537393' date='May 22 2008, 02:55 PM']Atonin Scalia is a d***. I find his remark to "get over it" deeply insulting. What should I get over, the gross affront to our electoral process represented by his voting twice?

In any event, we'll have to agree to differ. Again, I suggest that the casualness of your view on the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004 is informed by your agreement with those outcomes, regardless of the flawed manner at which they were arrived.[/quote]

Ken, you keep referring to the process and reasoning being "flawed," but you have yet to offer anything more than buzzwords. I, however, will offer reasoning:

1. The recount order was to determine the “intent of the voter.” This idea works in the abstract but not as well in reality. To make such a determination, clear rules need to be outlined – something that the Florida Supreme Court failed to do. Moreover, the fact that partial recounts were ordered in some counties – even if done in the interest of time – violates equal protection principles.

2. Federal election law creates a “safe harbor” date of December 12. If a state has a controversy over its votes for presidential electors, but resolves the controversy by the safe harbor date, the votes will be counted, no questions asked. Florida’s legislature chose to take advantage of that safe harbor date. Therefore, any recount that threatens the state’s ability to get its votes in by December 12 is a violation of that safe harbor provision. The types of corrections that would need to be made to the Florida recount order are too significant to be undertaken by the December 12 deadline. Therefore no recount consistent with the Equal Protection Clause can commence.

The first reasoning makes the most sense to me, for it states that the way in which the votes were counted was not consistent from county to county which, in turn, disenfranchises some while elevating the influence and power of the votes of others. That is unconstitutional.

The only caveat could be the opinion of the dissenters on the court (Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg) who believed that the majority's interpretation of the December 12th deadline was overly strict, as if it was a "drop-deadline." Further, there are some who believe that they could've gotten the whole thing done by December 12th [i]anyway[/i]; however, they didn't and, in my view, that's the end of it. We can't have these months and months of recounts like they've got in Zimbabwe because it is embarassing and uncivilized.