The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participate fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the election, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5.
" do you read the sentence ENDED THE ELECTION. NOT 7 TO 2. BUT 5 TO 4. this is one reason of many these blogs are not useful because people make things up. mark read the decision not your right wing sean hannity bulls---- I agree with one point that is valid tho how can 9 people read the same thing and 5 conservatives appointed by republicans vote one way and four liberals vote completly opposite, it tells me they are not voting truthfully. I have been around a few years and to get a case in front of the supeme court takes years usually but not this time it seems they stepped right in, wonder who asked them too????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Terry the tiger. Who knew.
OK, but...T, he would not have won, by almost any recount. The election was certified. Yes, she was a Republican, that is why local elections are important. He lost fair and square. Wow, do we need some therapy. I admit I do over what the "O" is going to do to my country.
OK, so Mark, truth check here. Who is correct?
O will be great for the country! Show the world, we are on the right path,going in a different path, not WE LEAD you must follow, but rather how can we work together! He has energized the youth of this country, something I have not seen since Bobby Kennedy. He will make some mistakes and I am not looking forward to defending everything for the next four years, but let's agree he is not the DEVIL.
No I do not think he is the devil. I do think he is mostly an empty slate, as Hags has previously noted. The only way to define him is by his associations and actions.
What we know is that he has not run anything, he associates with a terrorists (and no, that is not a proper association for a Presidential candidate), he did not wear a flag on his lapel. He did attend a Muslim school, he attended a anti-American church. He has a very liberal voting record, he is proposing a new welfare. He wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat on the verge of victory. And he has no record!
I find it LOL amazing that Rich thinks his involvement in the Harvard Law Review makes for presidential timer.
What he seems to be good at is wrapping a liberal agenda in a palatable cover and I rue that McCain is such a poor candidate that he cannot expose him and his clearly socialist policies.
Terry maybe you should research things before you accuse someone of making things up. You obviously do not know me very well. I do not say things here unless I have a factual basis for it. So for your education I present you with this tutorial:
In a per curiam decision, by a 7–2 vote, the Court in Bush v. Gore held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three of the concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. elector abstaining).
Terry why do you not have a problem with the fact that the Florida Supreme Court tried to steal the election for Gore? Florida law was clear that once the Secretary of State certifies the election result, the result is official. If you don't like the well established law then put it on a ballot and have it changed. The Supremes were forced to step in because the Democrats were once again trying to get something that they could not win through the voice of "We the People" but instead tried to use the Florida Supreme Court to get what they wanted.
This is a prime example of what Jim means when he says legislating from the bench. There is far more legislating from the bench at the levels below the Supreme Court than there is at the Supreme Court level.
I would argue that the decision in Boumediene v. Bush is a much better example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. This decision is after the legislative branch passed new laws which addressed the Supreme Court's earlier Hamdan decision.
It makes a lot of sense to me that enemy combatants captured during a war should have the same rights and protections of a US citizen. Just like we would get from the enemy combatants if they were to capture one of us.
Post a Comment