Clinton May Take Delegate Fight To Convention

[kujo]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1537469' date='May 22 2008, 03:51 PM']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! [/quote]

If Hillary Clinton had a "refresher course" and [i]truly listened[/i] to what she was being told, she'd probably change her political views. Crazy thing about actually reading the Constitution instead of "carrying it around in [your] pocket."

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1537474' date='May 22 2008, 01:57 PM']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'.[/quote]
I apologize for being uncharitable toward Justice Scalia.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1537465' date='May 22 2008, 01:48 PM']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.[/quote]I agree with you.

[CatherineM]

I guess I wouldn't have so much trouble with what happened in Florida if it weren't for the appearance of impropriety. We were taught in law school that you should avoid even the remote appearance of impropriety. With George W.'s brother the governor in Florida that might be a bit hard. The person I had the most trouble with at the time was Kathleen Harris. She was in charge of the electoral process, but she also had been co-chair of Bush's re-election campaign. She had a history of campaign finance irregularities when she was in the Florida Senate. After Bush got elected, she was rewarded with a trip to the US house. While in Congress she was mixed up in a bribery scandal, and inappropriate contributions stuff again. When she tried to run for US Senate, even the party abandoned her. She ultimately had more to do with the way the election went than the Supreme Court did. That's too much power in the hands of someone with an obvious conflict of interest.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1537654' date='May 22 2008, 03:59 PM']I guess I wouldn't have so much trouble with what happened in Florida if it weren't for the appearance of impropriety. We were taught in law school that you should avoid even the remote appearance of impropriety. With George W.'s brother the governor in Florida that might be a bit hard. The person I had the most trouble with at the time was Kathleen Harris. She was in charge of the electoral process, but she also had been co-chair of Bush's re-election campaign. She had a history of campaign finance irregularities when she was in the Florida Senate. After Bush got elected, she was rewarded with a trip to the US house. While in Congress she was mixed up in a bribery scandal, and inappropriate contributions stuff again. When she tried to run for US Senate, even the party abandoned her. She ultimately had more to do with the way the election went than the Supreme Court did. That's too much power in the hands of someone with an obvious conflict of interest.[/quote]
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

A similar situation prevailed in OH in 2004.

[Adrestia]

[url="http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/"]http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/[/url]

[img]http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/img/template/recountlogo01.gif[/img]

[Justin86]

Oh boy. Isn't eight years long enough for us to get over it? Wait, we're talking about liberals. Nevermind.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1538511' date='May 23 2008, 08:59 AM']Oh boy. Isn't eight years long enough for us to get over it? Wait, we're talking about liberals. Nevermind.[/quote]
Right. We should just take the subversion of the electoral process that undermines our entire system of government in our stride. Gee, I must be a hysterical liberal. Wait, I'm just someone who cares about free and fair elections.

[Justin86]

In order to accuse Justice Scalia of "voting twice", and calling him a d***, you would [i]have[/i] to be an hysterical liberal. People here have already explained to you how the decision by the Court was necessary, and that being occupied by liberals was clearly not politically motivated at all. You have no arguments to support your side except to repeatedly scream "fair elections" at us.

Sometimes it's best just to bow out from a debate and move on.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1538543' date='May 23 2008, 09:28 AM']In order to accuse Justice Scalia of "voting twice", and calling him a d***, you would [i]have[/i] to be an hysterical liberal. People here have already explained to you how the decision by the Court was necessary, and that being occupied by liberals was clearly not politically motivated at all. You have no arguments to support your side except to repeatedly scream "fair elections" at us.

Sometimes it's best just to bow out from a debate and move on.[/quote]
I apologized for being uncharitable toward Justice Scalia.

Other than that, whatever. You got the result you wanted, so you're good with it. Enjoy.

BTW, you [i]may[/i] have noticed that my original post was about how Hillary, a "liberal," was trying to subvert the electoral process, so as you can see I'm an equal opportunity caller-outer of electoral process subverters.

[Norseman82]

[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]

SHE'S BACK!!!!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537269' date='May 22 2008, 12:18 PM']You're right, Bush didn't steal it. He was handed it by judicial fiat. Talk about "activist judges."
Ohio. Not enough voting machines. In districts likely to vote Democratic. State Registrar also head of Bush's re-election committee in Ohio. Kind of like yer woman in FL in 2000.[/quote]

But were not polling places kept open longer to compensate?

[Justin86]

Hillary isn't "subverting the electoral process" at all--at least not yet. Delegates can and do switch votes. It is a perfectly legal thing for them to do, and for Hillary to encourage as well.

I think you have your own idea of what consists a "fair election" that you expect to be followed regardless of the laws that regulate it. If you don't like how our electoral process is set up then change the law. Until then don't go around accusing people of subverting it when they are acting in full accordance with the law.

[kujo]

Ken, I'd like to point out that you have yet to respond to my post explaining why the 2000 election ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court and why it eventually ruled the way it did. You have also yet to put together anything more than the buzzwords of an passionate person who is not thinking objectively:

[quote]handed it by judicial fiat[/quote]

[quote]simply interested in fairness and truth[/quote]

[quote]win-at-all-costs[/quote]

[quote]the gross affront to our electoral process[/quote]

[quote]the subversion of the electoral process that undermines our entire system of government in our stride[/quote]

Please, explain your views. I'm interested to hear them.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1538665' date='May 23 2008, 10:54 AM']Ken, I'd like to point out that you have yet to respond to my post explaining why the 2000 election ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court and why it eventually ruled the way it did. You have also yet to put together anything more than the buzzwords of an passionate person who is not thinking objectively:
Please, explain your views. I'm interested to hear them.[/quote]
In essence, the SC said that the only fair thing to do would be to recount the results for the entire state, but then said that there wasn't enough time to do so and ordered the recount process stopped.

In addition, other posters have claimed that it was a "liberal" SC who ruled in this case. The five justices who ruled to stop the recount process were Kennedy (appointed by Reagan), O'Connor (appointed by Reagan), Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon), Scalia (appointed by Reagan), and Thomas (appointed by Bush Sr.). As you can see, they were hardly "liberal."

My contention is that the SC should have allowed, indeed, required a full recount. By not doing so, they essentially voted 5-4 for the president of the United States.

Finally, as CatherineM has already noted, there were huge conflicts of interest represented by Katherine Harris being both the Secretary of State for FL as well as the head Bush's campaign in FL, and Jeb Bush being governor of FL. As was said of Caesar's wife, you must not only be pure but be seen to be pure.