This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The Supreme Court decision that changed the US

#1paulo_yamatoPosted 5/1/2013 6:59:16 AM
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2298973060085224552
There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.

Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to register the perforations. In some cases a piece of the card—a chad—is hanging, say, by two corners. In other cases there is no separation at all, just an indentation.

Give your opinion of the entire decision, 'hanging chads', or anything related to the outcome of this case.

For anyone interested, I lived in FL when this happened. PBC was literally under siege by the media. Thanks for the economic boost!!
---
You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. -Adolf Hitler
#2Nitro378Posted 5/1/2013 7:08:11 AM
The 2000 election was blatantly stolen by Jeb Bush. It was literally rigged.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/SFD/sadchromeo6.png
#3Sniper_BrosefPosted 5/1/2013 7:12:58 AM
Nitro378 posted...
The 2000 election was blatantly stolen by Jeb Bush. It was literally rigged.


Everyone knows that Bender traveled back in time and shot the ballot box. Jeez, read a book or at least watch the animated documentary...
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#4Nitro378Posted 5/1/2013 7:16:24 AM
It had nothing to do with votecounting either way, I don't know if Gore would have won that way, perhaps so, but he definitely would have if the voting rights of tens of thousands of blacks and or democrats weren't criminally taken from them by Jeb Bush and his mob, which somehow wasn't in the news at all.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/SFD/sadchromeo6.png
#5Mr SandbagPosted 5/1/2013 7:36:07 AM
Whoa nelly! Get out your tinfoil hats peeps! Libs just went full derp on the 2000 election, again!
---
got sand?
#6Yawn_Master2Posted 5/1/2013 7:39:18 AM
Mr Sandbag posted...
Whoa nelly! Get out your tinfoil hats peeps! Libs just went full derp on the 2000 election, again!


alright, let me get mine out of the closet.


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg

"Oh Saxon, where have you gone, please come back!"
---
'i disagree with your opinion but i would fight to the death for my right to kill you for it' or something - Nitro738
#7Nitro378Posted 5/1/2013 7:39:43 AM
go get kicked in the sandbags

http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/voter_file/
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/SFD/sadchromeo6.png
#8JIC XPosted 5/1/2013 8:48:36 AM(edited)
The equal protection clause, Antonin Scalia finds, only does two things:

1. Prohibits affirmative action;
2. Stops recounts.

...I can't believe Clarence Thomas signed off on an opinion that says, essentially, that a state breaches the equal protection clause if it doesn't guarantee uniform ballot counting standards. If that was actually the law, the use of different kinds of ballot cards and different kinds of voting machines in different precincts (ubiquitous practice even today) would be unconstitutional.

The decision was one of the more nakedly political ones that Court's ever made.
The real shame is that Gore would (apparently) have lost even if the recount was completed, so, ultimately, the Court shot itself in the foot for no reason.

Also: the Court should not have enjoined the recounts pending appeal. The three-part test for an injunction is one of the first things they teach you in law school. It requires that the party seeking the injunction show that they'd suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction is not granted. How would Bush be irreparably harmed by allowing colourably legal recounts to proceed pending his SCOTUS appeal?

There were two possible results, neither of which would have prejudiced Bush: if he lost his appeal, that result would affirm that the recounts were legal. One cannot be harmed, in the equitable sense, by legal recounts. And if he won, the recounts, to the extent they'd proceeded, would be quashed and set aside. Again, no prejudice.

Since he was fast running out of time before, according to Florida law, the Legislature [which was, at the time, Republican-controlled] could simply pick electors notwithstanding the result of the state popular election, Gore was the one who would suffer irreparable harm if the recounts weren't allowed to proceed in a timely fashion.

Yet the Court relied on lack of time--a problem that the injunction it granted had helped to CAUSE--as one of the reasons for the result.

Absurd.
Just absurd.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#9Heineken14Posted 5/1/2013 8:56:11 AM
But ACORN stole the election for Obama twice! Same thing both sides!
---
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
#10paulo_yamato(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2013 9:56:54 AM
Nitro378 posted...
The 2000 election was blatantly stolen by Jeb Bush. It was literally rigged.

Gore couldn't even win his damn home state.
Tennessee electoral votes: 11

Bush won the state, Gore would have won even if Bush lost Florida and Gore won Tennessee.
---
You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. -Adolf Hitler