Text 6722, 106 rader
Skriven 2010-04-07 18:27:40 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 6692 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Question about democ
============================
07 Apr 10 10:06, Ward Dossche wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> WD> What happened in Florida could only happen because these
 RW>> Justices are
 RW>> WD> politically appointed. That is already where it goes wrong, the
 RW>> day
 RW>> WD> they take oath. Whatever party the appointing Prez belongs to.

 RW>> You couldn't be more wrong in that liberally biased statement. The
 RW>> Prez 'hopes' that their appointment will follow his party lines, but
 RW>> that is no guarantee after they take the oath to uphold the
 RW>> Constitution.

 WD> Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens and Kennedy were appointed by
 WD> Republican presidents and in the 5-4 decision (there were several
 WD> other decisions as well) voted in favour of a measure that put Bush
 WD> in the White House.

Wrong. Their decision put a stop to the Florida SC's liberal screwing with
the vote on Gore's behalf. How many times do you have to count ballots
before an election is called? In Gore's case, he would have them count
ballots with hanging 'chads' or just loose 'chads'...

 WD> Scalia himself said (literal quote): " The counting of votes that are
 WD> of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to
 WD> petitioner Bush".

I agree. The Democrat crook Gore would have won by interference of the
Florida SC had Bush not brought suit before a higher court.

 WD> The "questionable legality" is a masterful piece of twisting facts.

His reference was to the 'questionable legality' of the counts, recounts
and re-recounts in Florida.

 WD> The Florida votes were cast either by punched cards or the
 WD> mechanographical reading of sense-documents. Two entirely different
 WD> techniques.

Ancient history.

 WD> The final US Supreme Court decision hinged on the notion that there
 WD> was an Equal Protection Clause violation of the 14th Ammendment of
 WD> the US Constitution.

No, it hinged on the illegallity of the Florida SC's decision to keep on
counting until Gore won.

 WD> In plain words, the appropriate body in Florida should have
 WD> determined a uniform way of recounting the votes and in that process
 WD> to determine what consituted a legally cast vote and which not.

She did...those in Conservative controlled counties kept to the rules
while the Liberally controlled counties went off on a tangent to help
Gore win by any method they could come up with. Which is typical
Democratic Party SOP.

 WD> There is no way this could be done because the counting technologies
 WD> are vastly different and Olson argueing for Bush claimed that a vote
 WD> for Bush cast via one technology might be rejected if cast and
 WD> counted via the other technology.

 WD> Those 5 Republican appointed justices followed that argument and that
 WD> concluded the process as time ran out.

Those 5 'impartial' justices voted according to the law. The other 4 voted
in favor of the crooks.

 WD> Gore could have returned to the Florida Supreme Court and ask for a
 WD> clear guideline of what was a "validly cast vote" and could have
 WD> continued after the "Safe Heaven" date but dropped the case as it was
 WD> obvious the cards in the Supreme Court deck were stacked against him
 WD> whatever action he were to take.

Once the case was brought before by the USSC, Gore couldn't go back to the
FSC because they were overruled. Had the USSC decision included 'go back
to the FSC and tell them to get it right, according to Florida law' - they
might have had a case, but would lose if the re-re-recount were according
to election procedure in Florida law.

 WD> Only a blind, deaf and dumb person who had lived all his or her life
 WD> on an abandoned island with no contact ever to modern civilisation
 WD> would even maybe believe that.

So, what's the name of your island again?

 WD> Thurgood Marshall explicitly stated that he was going to remain in
 WD> the Supreme Court until he died or a Democrat became President,
 WD> whichever came first.

Even USSC justices sometimes say things they regret later.

 WD> Rehnquist said the same about a Republican President.

 WD> What more proof is needed that the US Supreme Court is politically
 WD> biased?

A lot more than what you made up here.


                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)