Let me get this straight...

A guy wins the Electoral College(12th Ammendment). His win is basically confirmed by the USSC applying a civil rights measure(Equal protection)to a State Electoral issue which by the same Constitution says is none of their damn business. In a case where nobody, party to these cases is claiming fraud existed or anyone's civil rights were violated.

USSC Judges ruled the recount procedures unclear and thus a violation of Equal Protection. Course in doing so they chose to ignore the BASE REALITY that the entire election Nationwide, from state-to-state, follows little uniformity, different ballots, different voter registration rules, different weighting of vote value ladi dada da. This one would think would be like a screaming clue they have no jurisdication as is set forth by the Constitution. Reason we have no uniformity is BECAUSE of the 12th Amendment these 7 have now chosen to simply ignore.

All this from a Political Party running anti-Feds and Pro-State's rights. In an election where the opposition has won the Popular vote, but seemingly lost the Electoral vote in a State run by the guys brother, and an election certified by his girlfriend.

Whole thing is beyond explanation,,,it is surreal.

Equal protection? somebody needs to give Jesse a call he must be confused.

If these seven judges have now basically ruled the States really don't have the say in how they run their Electoral Process, then why don't they also rule to ignore the Electoral College altogether and vote to use the Popular vote? which of course they did here with Florida but did not provide the same Equal Protection to the other 40+Million Gore voters.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Answers

So, what do we all think: Will it be a "crisis that must bring the nation together" (e.g., War in the Middle East)? Or do you think it will be something like oil prices suddenly dropping so we'll all have that "warm-n-fuzzy feeling" to draw our minds away from the "election"?

I mean, you don't actually think any of this is going to be investigated, do you? LOL!!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

"USSC Judges ruled the recount procedures unclear and thus a violation of Equal Protection. Course in doing so they chose to ignore the BASE REALITY that the entire election Nationwide, from state-to-state, follows little uniformity, different ballots, different voter registration rules, different weighting of vote value ladi dada da."

...which would matter IF the president were chosen by popular vote.

The case presented to the USSC involved equal protection problems WITHIN the state of Florida due to the methods used to recount the votes there... which is not to mention the methods for allowing *selective* recounts. I'm not sure this was addressed by the USSC in this decision (haven't read the whole enchilada yet), but it would seem to follow that allowing candidates to cherry pick a few counties for manual recounts is also clearly unconstitutional.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

The USSC did not rule that "the States really don't have a say in how they run their Electoral Process,". They DID rule that a state's judiciary (1) cannot after the fact change election rules laid down by the legislature and (2) if they do, they damned well better not let their political petticoats show so badly as to raise an equal protection issue.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

ENOUGH. When you all have your Law Licenses (or at least 2 Semesters in Constitutional Law), you can discuss the Supreme Court INTELLIGENTLY.

MEANWHILE..........................

Two U.S. Top Court Members Say No Politics in Rulings
December 13, 2000 3:44 pm EST

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas sought to make clear on Wednesday that politics plays no role in the Supreme Court's decision-making, a day after the deeply divided court effectively gave Republican George W. Bush the presidency.

Rehnquist and Thomas, both appointed by Republican presidents, were part of the court's conservative majority in the 5-4 ruling that said recounts of ballots in Florida could not resume. The decision caused Democrat Al Gore to decide to end his fight for the White House, Democratic sources said.

In an appearance on the C-SPAN cable television network, Thomas was asked by high school students how party affiliation influences decision-making at the court. "Zero," he replied. "I've been here nine years. I haven't seen it."

Rehnquist then showed up in the Supreme Court's public affairs room, where reporters watched Thomas on television.

Asked about Thomas' remark and whether it was especially appropriate in view of what just happened in the "Bush v. Gore" case, Rehnquist replied, "Absolutely." He paused and repeated, "absolutely" and then left the room.

The Supreme Court had been at the center of the legal battle surrounding the disputed presidential election in Florida. This month, it issued two rulings in the dispute and twice heard historic oral arguments from lawyers representing the Texas governor and Gore.

The ruling drew impassioned dissents by the court's four liberals, who agreed the recounts could resume. Justice Stephen Breyer said, "We risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."

While the Supreme Court did not permit television cameras in the courtroom for the dramatic arguments, the justices for the first time allowed audiotapes to be released immediately after the 90-minute historic sessions.

REHNQUIST SAYS AUDIOTAPES MAY BE USED AGAIN

Rehnquist told reporters that he was "surprised" at the level of interest in the audiotapes, and said the court in the future might release tapes "in rare instances."

In the late-night ruling on Tuesday, the court split along ideological conservative and liberal lines in deciding that new recounts should not be ordered to remedy the constitutional problem with the earlier Florida vote counting.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering the recounts, holding that the decision violates the U.S. Constitution's protections of due process and equal protection under the law, because there were no uniform rules for counting the ballots.

The court said there was not enough time to conduct the recounts in a way that would pass constitutional muster before the Electoral College meets on Monday to pick the next president.

At the beginning of the C-SPAN session, Thomas said the past few weeks have been "exhausting," but what has happened "shows the strength of our system of government."

He did not directly comment on the decision, but emphasized the justices do not act in their own "self-interest" and seek to fulfill their judicial oaths.

"Don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution," Thomas told the students. Thomas said he never has heard a discussion of "partisan politics within this court."

Besides Breyer, the other dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer and Ginsburg are the only members of the court named by a Democrat -- President Clinton. Souter was named to the court by Bush's father, former President George Bush.

Opposing more recounts were Rehnquist, Thomas and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Thomas also was appointed to the court by Bush's father.

Legal experts questioned how badly the court's reputation had been damaged.

Georgetown University law professor Michael Seidman said, "It is a decision that history will see as further confirmation of the partisan political nature of the Supreme Court."

But A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia said, "I think the court will take a hit in the short term, but in the long term the court's reputation will survive unscathed."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Ahhhh, another spanking. Feels so good daddy.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Carlos, you kill me.

Charlie, is there a "law degree" at the end of YOUR name, too? By your "standards", all *I'm* allowed to discuss is IT consulting and telecom and project management and the like. Yet, oddly enough, I somehow (only God knows how I manage to do this) am able to discuss a variety of subjects quite intelligently -- and without the use of ALL CAPS or BIG FONTS.

Go figure.

Tell you what -- when you hold all the world's knowledge, THEN you can anyone else what they can and cannot discuss.

I'm guessing here, but I doubt that's going to happen in my lifetime.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

grumble.....grumble.....I HATE it when this happens.....

That should read, "...THEN you can tell anyone else..."

[expletive deleted].....It just loses its effectiveness. Back to the ol' drawing board.....

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

(((Patricia)))

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Two semester Con. Law. after the first one, you will have some respect for what the Supreme Court is.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Oh Daddy, don't get so puffed. It isn't a question of respect but rather role.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

OH........my Professor both semesters was MICHAEL O. SAWYER, founder (with Kieran O'Daughterty) of the Conservative Party of N.Y. State.

Sawyer was the only Conservative in the Maxwell School at Syracuse U. He was a great teacher.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Ain't it a bitch when ya keep screwing up?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

So, do you have those little letters after your name or not? Oh, that's right, you qualified it. Nevermind.

I know a good many people who have varying degrees and are quite intelligent on many subjects (even those outside their areas of specialty).

But I know a good many MORE people who have varying degrees who are among the dumbest people I've ever known. This group's members do have a couple of common themes among them, however: Arrogance and post-graduate degrees.

Now why do you suppose that might be?

And please, stop yelling at me. If you can't make your point without shouting, don't even bother. It's just not worth my time -- I would hope it wouldn't be worth yours either.

(((Carlos -- right back atcha)))

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

http:// www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and it's effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

==========================================================

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice- President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

==========================================================

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

His win is basically confirmed by the USSC applying a civil rights measure(Equal protection)to a State Electoral issue which by the same Constitution says is none of their damn business.

That's not so. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the law in every imaginable case. There is a precedent under which the USSC normally won't try to interpret state law ... EXCEPT as it is controlled by federal law, especially the Constitution (federal law ALWAYS trumps state law).

That is definitely the case here, and the majority stated that quite clearly. In the first (unanimous) decision several days ago, the court explained this quite clearly to show why it had jurisdiction.

If the USSC couldn't go in and determine if state election law was in compliance with the Constitution, the states could enact any sort of election law they wanted (ex, requiring that voting machines in black precincts be placed on 100' poles so they'd be "easier to spot from a distance," wink, wink[g]) and say, "go away, Supreme Court, we have exercised our legislative right under Article II." Absurd.

In a case where nobody, party to these cases is claiming fraud existed or anyone's civil rights were violated.

Glad to see you say that. How about spread the word to some of Gore's diehard supporters in the media, who obviously haven't figured this out yet? :)

USSC Judges ruled the recount procedures unclear and thus a violation of Equal Protection. Course in doing so they chose to ignore the BASE REALITY that the entire election Nationwide, from state-to-state, follows little uniformity, different ballots, different voter registration rules, different weighting of vote value ladi dada da.

This is rapidly becoming a mantra among disaffected Gore supporters: "how can the Supreme Court rule that balloting must be standardized when there are dozens of different balloting methods used nationwide? The whole election would therefore be invalid!"

This is marvelous obfuscation. The USSC did *NOT* rule that ballots must be standardized. (The farthest it went was to suggest that "it is likely legislative bodies nation-wide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.")

In this case, the court was specifically talking about hand recounts done on ballots previously counted by a machine, not the ballot designs themselves or the way they were counted initially (or even, in this case, in the automatic recount triggered by Florida statues). The lack of standards for determining the intent of the voter on ballots where a machine failed to do so was the issue here -- a rather specific, and not general, question.

Not only is this made clear in the per curiam, Renquist amplifies on it in the concurring opinion. Read it.

If these seven judges have now basically ruled the States really don't have the say in how they run their Electoral Process ...

In fact, they said the precise opposite. They were defending that right against an activist Florida Supreme Court which tried to usurp it.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

equal protection, right? except for those whose chads did not completely dislodge. What about them? That infamous class referred to those who exhibited "voter error".

Well the majority of the supremes had no "compassion" for these folks- they more or less stated "oh so sorry, you stupid idjits-didn't you read the instructions?".

Go ahead. Read the majority opinion. It is in there. And God forbid if you ever get old and feeble-God forbid you EVER MAKE A MISTAKE AGAIN IN YOUR LIFE-and if you do when voting, you are a fucking idiot for not checking your ballot.

THis is what the supremes did-they basically said tough tittie on the voters who did not check their ballots.

The equal protection smoke-screen is just that-a smoke screen-I agree with the minority that this should never have been heard.

Oh, and by the way, this may come as a novel concept but:

JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SAID SO, DOESNT MEAN THEY CAME TO THE RIGHT DECISION.

And CPR, I HAVE the law credentials, and as such have my opinion based on such, so do not throw out that card here.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

PalmReader Meme won. Bush and co sold the country a pile of do-do. He pissed on the jury system. He pissed on the laws and rules in place as of the election. This Republican pissed on State Sovereignty. He denied AlGore Due Process and Equal Protection by his frivolous lawsuits. Which ultimately did what they were designed to do, make any recount tainted and bore the country wanting the results to death.

The USSC granted anonymous slips of paper "individual" citizen rights. They took laws and statutes not applicable and applied them to issues not even their place to rule upon. They bought a meme and fashioned rulings to fed it.

ALL the arguments to chad etc etc are moot because the Florida legislature had already set the ground rules by leaving these issues up to adult men and women of the canvassing boards...i.e a jury type of decision making progress our nation rests upon(or used to). Just cause you think holding up a punchcard to the light pathetic, does not make it so. Florida law had already set the standard for what a vote was. It has a basis in what is refereed to as "the intent of the voter" decided upon by independent judges. Machines in this close of an election can only take the count to a point where human beings must then actually look and count.

What you think are unstandardized methods ignores the fact the real system applied is the best judgement of a jury.

Bush asked for "daddy to make them stop", and whined his way to the Feds which slapped together some fiction and appointed GW Bush President of the once United States. Now a Federal land where your individual rights now are basically history and open to the winds of a meme.

Gore never even got his 3 manual counts. You may think differently but that is the Meme, he never did get his 3 manual counts. Most of the memes assume the machine counts, THE count, baloney. The machines are used for convenience means, not ultimate say. Using systems as they did in certain parts of Florida, in an election statistically a tie, demanded the old fashioned hand count. The 1200 vote difference between machines runs convinced all three canvassing boards in question to mount manual counts. When this started, so did Bush and the crapola. And understand, to this day 110,000 ballots sit in the undervote/overvote pile still requiring decision which were addressed prior to the election and means laid out to try and resolve these type of ballots. Miami-Dade was but 1% sampled and never even half counted.

You bought the crap ANY count beyond a machine was a "re"count. This was the jump into the abyss which became the 2000 Florida vote.

Recommend you give Stevens comments a full read. I would tend to ignore the others since they all rest upon what I believe to be the PalmReader meme in total and do not apply. These spent the bulk of their argument basically saying Juries are full of it, I disagree. They go on for many pages about chadology.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

FS,

It is even more insane than one "checking their ballots".

As I posted to Poole before and was summarily slapped aside with his condescending happy faces, *I* have used these types of voting systems before when I lived in Cali. Once the card is removed from the "ballot"--machine, nobody cept the guys and gals with the codes knows what one voted for. And I also told him that using such a system you are NEVER sure you actually did ANYTHING beyond stick the stylus fully into a hole, if one even makes sure they do that much. There is no confirmation, not even a sensation or sound you actually made any impact to the punchcard. Looking down the hole to confirm if done is akin to looking thru a door peephole which is a third of that even, in the dark.

Double-voting? undervoting? perfectly believable from my experience. And I can assure you the issue of Chads was NEVER part of any voting I did in California, no notices etc.

If the ballots are anonymous, how can a USSC vote the Equal Protection laws were violated? The state voted and said count the damn votes using the procedures outlined. Geesh no kidding they are vague and rely upon a jury of at least 3 in touchy decisions, but too bad that WAS/IS the law. Law doesn't say a undervote of overvote is void, the machine wrokings did. The law is clear. In cases where the machine tilts, hand count it and determine using your BRAIN, what the vote is(intent of the voter is what they define as a VOTE).

Can say whatever you want about Pat Buchanan and I would agree, but at least the guy is honest. His totals in PB alone indicate to me who stole this election.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000