1. I already quoted you on this exact point... but I will do it again... look at your quote below and go five lines down and read "appointed" "p" not an "n". 2. as far the rest of what you are claiming you wrote... well that will take some of that leftist revision as to timing and substance. 3. As far as substantive legal arguments... Gore had some of the very best appellate lawyers (Boies was great and I do not say a lawyer was great often) Gore wanted a victory based on hanging chads. He lost based on a recount by the media. There would be no reason to have a new election. no reason to invoke the 20 the amendment. Why would the US Supreme Courts grant unnecessary relief. 4. Alan Dershowitz is smart but he is a leftist. What else would a big leftist from Harvard say. Did he not consult with Gore? As far as the law was concerned. There were a lot of competing interests and the law was less than clear. But, by my recollection Gore was trying to pick and choose recounts and procedures... which would have been unfair. The point was that the Court got the ruling correct.
You are correct, Jem, that is an accurate quote of my comments Re one of Scat's interesting posts on a related topic, viz., the irony of the path the U.S. is taking. I used "anointed" in a subsequent post which was more closely related to the topic I thought you were responding to, viz., the Courts and Bush v Gore. I assumed you were referring to that more relevant post. I should know better by now.
One other thing to keep in mind is that when the lying leftards were running around screaming that every vote had to count and they were attempting to give every hanging chad to the climate fraud, they were at the very same time trying to have every absentee military vote invalidated. Because those were almost certain to go for Bush. And since the entire democratic pol- media complex were involved, you might say there was a conspiracy to steal an election.
in reference to my comment that the 2000 election results would have likely been the same even had the 20th amendment been invoked as a means of allowing time to sort out the Florida election results. Lucrum, not everyone agrees of course, but I come down squarely on the side of those legal scholars that believe Bush v Gore sets a terrible precedent despite the Courts insistence that there decision was limited to the case at hand. Those of us who take this position, and the majority of academic legal scholars are on this side, have various opinions regarding what the Court should have done. In the Piers Morgan interview of Judge Scalia, Scalia responds that the only question was whether the Florida or U.S. Supreme court should decide the election. This is a distortion, and almost cavalier summary of Bush v Gore, which revolved mainly around equal protection arguments with many detours. So much has been written on this case that it is impossible to do more than scratch the surface here. If you are truly interested in this most bizarre Court episode, then there are hundreds of pages of commentary on the internet and several books to consult -- The best known criticism is Dershowitz's "Supreme Injustice", and there are academics equally vehement in admiration of the Courts decision. (see, for example, "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf) It isn't as though there has never before been a disputed election. They happen all the time. There is ample precedent for how to resolve these disputes. Just this past year there was a parallel case on a local level in a city mayoral election in Mississippi (Ware v DuPree). In that case, the State Court was ask to intervene in an election were one candidate received 37 votes more than the other against evidence of gross irregularities and misconduct. The Mississippi Supreme Court appointed a retired judge to hear the complaint. In a bizarre twist, a juror changed their vote between the jury room and the court room resulting in a mistrial. Ultimately the court set a date for a new election to be closely supervised by court appointed monitors. The incumbent, DuPree continued to serve in the meantime. The new election was held under close supervision and another close outcome resulted, but this time the outcome was accepted by both sides. The disadvantage of course of repeating the election was cost. Elections are expensive. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/u...ippi-case-over-mayoral-election.html?hp&_r=1& See also http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/sandra-day-oconnor-shift-on-bush-v-gore.html and this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...sleading_parts_of_bush_v._gore_suggests_exte/ and most importantly this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/12/927296/-Ten-Years-Later-The-Legacy-of-Bush-v-Gore-UPDATED#
CNN's Piers Morgan provided his latest overly simplistic, pro-gun control solution to mass shootings in a series of posts on Twitter on Monday. The British TV host's first policy prescription: "Given the young ages of most mass/random shooters in America, I'd make it illegal for anyone under 25 to buy a gun of any kind." Morgan continued by comparing buying a gun to renting a car: "It's almost impossible to rent a car under the age of 25 in America - why not regulate guns the same way? Just common sense." When someone challenged him on this, the disgraced former Daily Mirror editor attacked the constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms:... Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2rda6t2do
At AP, Kids Stuck Without Health Insurance Is Just a 'Tricky' Situation Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...insurance-just-tricky-situation#ixzz2rdiCySIE
Diane Sawyer did a spot this evening in yet another obvious attempt to vilify gun ownership. The story was on child gun injuries and what an epidemic it is. So I looked at the CDC website. Gun shot wounds didn't even make the list of highlights. On average, 12,175 children 0 to 19 years of age died each year in the United States from an unintentional injury. Males had higher injury death rates than females. The death rate for males was almost two times the rate for females, and males had a higher injury death rate compared to females in all childhood age groups. Injuries due to transportation were the leading cause of death for children. The highest death rates were among occupants of motor vehicles in traffic. There were also a substantial number of pedestrian and pedal cyclist deaths among children. Combining all unintentional injury deaths among those between 0 and 19 years, motor vehicle traffic–related deaths were the leading cause. The leading causes of injury death differed by age group. For children less than 1 year of age, two–thirds of injury deaths were due to suffocation. Drowning was the leading cause injury death for those 1 to 4 years of age. For children 5 to 19 years of age, the most injury deaths were due to being an occupant in a motor vehicle traffic crash. Risk for injury death varied by race. Injury death rates were highest for American Indian and Alaska Natives and were lowest for Asian or Pacific Islanders. Overall death rates for whites and African–Americans were approximately the same. Injury death rates varied by state depending upon the cause of death. Overall, states with the lowest injury death rates were in the northeast. Fire and burn death rates were highest in some of the southern states. Death rates from transportation–related injuries were highest in some southern states and some states of the upper plains, while lowest rates occurred in states in the northeast region. For injury causes with an overall low burden, death rates greatly varied by age. The poisoning death rate for those older than 15 years of age was at least five times the rates of the younger age groups, and the suffocation death rate for infants was over 16 times the rates for all older age groups.
All Three Networks Avoid Fact Checking Obama Speech, But Include Biden Interviews Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...g-obama-speech-tout-biden-inter#ixzz2rugidn9s