🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:101d69nb62rfo89@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:NbuRb.1284$4X6.231@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > The fact the Gore didn't file paperwork to recount the whole state
> > > - does not negate the fact the Bush filed to prevent each and every
> > attempt
> > > at recounting.
> >
> > You want to rail on Bush for defending the constitution? Typical.
>
> Bullshit.  See Bill Shatzer's post on the subject.
>
> I quote a very relevant passage:
> ---------
> It's all the republican's fault for not permitting florida to just count
> all the votes.  The matter could have been definitively resolved by just
> counting all the votes.  If that took an extra week, sobeit.

Apparently Mr. Shatzer is not well versed in Florida Code. Under Florida
Election Code, all election disputes are to be settled by the Safe Harbor
date. Gore screwed around for more than 30 days trying to get a partial
recount of votes. IF Gore REALLY wanted a complete recount, I sure he had
plenty of time to file for one. Of course he was trying to steal the
election by only recounting in a few Democrat majority counties, thus trying
to delute the votes in the rest of the state.

From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000,
all seven members agreed that the safe harbor date was the deadline.

"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only
if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will
compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1)
by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." (reference to footnote 55)

"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C.  � � 1-10 (1994)."

The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.
See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the
safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. � 5 Justice Breyer�s proposed
remedy�remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in
violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an
�appropriate� order authorized by Fla. Stat. �102.168(8) (2000)."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

As I noted, Bush was upholding the Constitution. You have to throw out both
Florida Code and the US Constitution to go past the safe harbor date. 6
Democrats, 1 Independent, and 5 Republicans Judges all agreed that Florida
Code REQUIRED that all election disputes


> The dubya and the republicans were not at all desireous of just counting
> all the votes. And they exerted their best efforts to insure that did not
> occur.  Ultimately they were successful.

Gore never wanted to count all of the votes. He was in court as late as
12/10/2000 telling the judges that he did NOT contest all of votes. Of 6
million ballots cast, the order of the FSC on 12/8/2000 only included 60,000
ballots.

From the transcript of Bush vs. Gore:

JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Mr. Boies, one of the dissenting justices on the Supreme
Court of Florida said that meant 177,000 ballots. Was he correct, in your
view?

MR. BOIES: No, that is a result of adding the so-called undervotes that were
mentioned and the so-called overvotes that were mentioned.

Either an undervote, where no vote registers for president, or an overvote,
where two or more registers for president, are discarded because you can't
vote twice, and if you vote not at all -- under either circumstance, your
vote doesn't get counted.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: So, if you disagree that 177,000 ballots will be
involved in this recount, how many do you think there are?

MR. BOIES: It's approximately 60,000, I think, Your Honor. It turns out to
be less than that because of the recounts that have already been completed.
But I think the total sort of blank ballots for the presidency were about
60,000.

The protest period

JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean
there 110,000 overvotes?

MR. BOIES: That's right.

JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the chief
justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes and
not overvotes?

MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And the
contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a rejection
of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But as a matter of remedy, it's ordered a statewide recount
in counties where the ballots were not contested, and that's where I'm
having some difficulty. And it goes back in part to your answer that you
gave to Justice Stevens -- Justice Scalia about Broward County, and in part
to the answer you're giving to Justice Stevens now.

Why is it that you say on the one hand to Justice Scalia, "Oh, well these
weren't part of the contest", but now all of a sudden we're talking about
statewide that are not -- well, all of which are contested, but we're not
talking about the overvote?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html

In fact, he told the FSC that Judge Sauls had made an ERROR when he told
Gore he was REQUIRED to contest ALL ballots STATEWIDE.

"Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its conclusion
on three errors of law:

"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is no
support for it in this or any other state."

"Second, that under one 168, it's an abuse of the discretion standard.
Again, we don't think there's any case that says, in terms of what a ballot
means, whether a ballot does or does not reflect the voter's intent, that is
something that, in the judicial proceeding of a contest, discretion resides
in the canvassing board."

"And third, that in order to even look at the ballots, which are already
admitted into evidence in the case, you have to show a reasonable
probability that you will change the election, before you even look at the
ballots. And again, we think that is inconsistent, first, with the standard
in 168, which says "or place in doubt," and is inconsistent with the way a
trial goes, which is that you look at the evidence before you reach that
conclusion."

Boies is saying that all the voters need NOT BE HEARD. He says the is no
legal support for a statewide recount. Yet, this was a challenge to the
certification of a statewide vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.htm

> ----------
>
> Further, the SCOTUS jurist that played the critical role in the 2000
> election, Scalia, is now shown to have improper ties to Dick Cheney.

The SCOTUS made the right decision. The court between between the FSC and
the SCOTUS on the equal protection challenge was 10-6. The count between
both courts that the Safe Harbor date was the final deadline was 12-4.