(06-30-2015 11:37 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I remember Justice Stevens stating in his dissent that (in so many words) the Supreme Court of Florida had every right to overrule the Florida Legislature on the question of who the electors would be. And I also remember certain media/editorial voices on the Left (Molly Ivins, for example) saying that it would be a "coup" if the Florida Legislature named the pro-Bush slate as Florida's electors. So, given that, I honestly doubt that such a process would have been any more legitimate/acceptable to Gore's supporters than the process which actually occurred.

The Gore supporters were not going to accept anything but a Gore win, which was by then impossible.

I don't think their thing would have gotten as much traction with the American people if it had become known that we have a statute in place to deal with this specific situation, it has been in place for over 100 years, and here's what it says happens.

Of course, I still think that not enough was ever made of the fact that Gore won exactly zero recounts. But even more so, I have to believe that if Bush had picked a running mate with broader political appeal, it would never have come down to this. As Cheney himself said, "I can help him carry Wyoming."

I agree that it was a weak and mealy-mouthed opinion.

(06-30-2015 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Basically, Barbara let her friends know that she was absolutely furious at the way Baker got treated. And rightfully so.

Jim Baker has always been one of those men who walked between the raindrops. A very slippery character and I can't blame anyone for distrusting him. I'll say in his favor, he did a very good job as the spokesman for the Bush/Cheney ticket during the recount/lawsuit phase in November/December 2000. The Gore/Lieberman spokesman was Warren Christopher, who -- simply talking about television-image, here -- seemed much older and out-of-it, by comparison.

Quote:I think we would have had a very different and much better 8 years with more Baker and less Cheney/Rummy. There are those who say Cheney hijacked the administration. I can't really disagree very strongly.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. But if Bush/43's administration was hijacked, it was a hijacking which Bush/43 permitted to take place, and possibly encouraged. So let Barbara Bush be furious at her husband more than Cheney/Rumsfeld. (And who knows, maybe she is!)

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have always been of the view that the Supreme Court has been the true "rogue elephant" of American government. I believed that in 2000 and I believe it now.

America's acquiescence in the judicial domination of our politics and social-life is a sign of a nation that lacks the strength and courage needed to keep a republic. So it's not surprising that we don't have one anymore.

Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have always been of the view that the Supreme Court has been the true "rogue elephant" of American government. I believed that in 2000 and I believe it now.

America's acquiescence in the judicial domination of our politics and social-life is a sign of a nation that lacks the strength and courage needed to keep a republic. So it's not surprising that we don't have one anymore.

Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Because you're convinced that society is declining, and that our republic is unhealthy, and it's always easy to draw a bullseye after you've shot the arrow. You could just as easily have stated that SCOTUS made a handful of controversial rulings and you know what happened? The rulings are being respected and there is no coup, there are no uprisings, and quite frankly we're all here sitting here posting on this messageboard as if much was changed.

Sorry, but our Republic is doing fine in any objective measurement.

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have always been of the view that the Supreme Court has been the true "rogue elephant" of American government. I believed that in 2000 and I believe it now.

America's acquiescence in the judicial domination of our politics and social-life is a sign of a nation that lacks the strength and courage needed to keep a republic. So it's not surprising that we don't have one anymore.

Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Your 'evidence' consists of two conclusory statement. That isn't a real strong position.

The Court only looks at what there best of the government turns out. It has no "power of originality."

(06-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have always been of the view that the Supreme Court has been the true "rogue elephant" of American government. I believed that in 2000 and I believe it now.

America's acquiescence in the judicial domination of our politics and social-life is a sign of a nation that lacks the strength and courage needed to keep a republic. So it's not surprising that we don't have one anymore.

Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Your 'evidence' consists of two conclusory statement. That isn't a real strong position.

The Court only looks at what there best of the government turns out. It has no "power of originality."

It has no power to legislate, yet it did. I suppose they nullified the 10th Amendment as well. The new language is:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States (or federal govenment), are reserved to the States (or federal government) respectively, or to the people.

(06-30-2015 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have always been of the view that the Supreme Court has been the true "rogue elephant" of American government. I believed that in 2000 and I believe it now.

America's acquiescence in the judicial domination of our politics and social-life is a sign of a nation that lacks the strength and courage needed to keep a republic. So it's not surprising that we don't have one anymore.

Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Because you're convinced that society is declining, and that our republic is unhealthy, and it's always easy to draw a bullseye after you've shot the arrow. You could just as easily have stated that SCOTUS made a handful of controversial rulings and you know what happened? The rulings are being respected and there is no coup, there are no uprisings, and quite frankly we're all here sitting here posting on this messageboard as if much was changed.

Sorry, but our Republic is doing fine in any objective measurement.

A very poor precedent was set. There are very specific processes spelled out in the constitution for passing legislation and for amending the constitution. The supreme court decided they had the power to override these processes.

(06-30-2015 11:37 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:The truly sad thing about this is that the whole legislature special session idea was masterminded by James Baker, and Bush turned his back on him in favor of Cheney and Rummy.

Owl I realize this was all a long time ago, but do you have a link to that?

My source is actually Barbara Bush, through conversations with mutual friends, so no, I don't have any hard copy source.

Fair enough.

I remember Justice Stevens stating in his dissent that (in so many words) the Supreme Court of Florida had every right to overrule the Florida Legislature on the question of who the electors would be. And I also remember certain media/editorial voices on the Left (Molly Ivins, for example) saying that it would be a "coup" if the Florida Legislature named the pro-Bush slate as Florida's electors. So, given that, I honestly doubt that such a process would have been any more legitimate/acceptable to Gore's supporters than the process which actually occurred.

To me, the Bush v. Gore was an example of the Court making the correct decision, but undermining that decision with a written Opinion that was weak and watery. Neither the first nor last time that has happened, of course.

It doesn't matter if someone thought it would be a coup.

The method for determining electors is up to each state legislature. All state legislatures have chosen direct voting as their method. They could just have easily chosen a coin flip or game of Horse.

The proper ruling was for the court to tell the Florida Legislature that their method had failed and told them to determine their electors.

What people would think of it doesn't matter. If the people didnt like it tgey have the avenue of a Constitutional amendment to change it.

(06-30-2015 12:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh shut up.

I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Your 'evidence' consists of two conclusory statement. That isn't a real strong position.

The Court only looks at what there best of the government turns out. It has no "power of originality."

It has no power to legislate, yet it did. I suppose they nullified the 10th Amendment as well. The new language is:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States (or federal govenment), are reserved to the States (or federal government) respectively, or to the people.

That's another conclusory statement.

I agree with your opinion on their ruling but I do not agree with your overall conclusion.

The Court doesn't operate like other parts of our government and everything is always up for reexamination.

(06-30-2015 12:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not really applicable, but that's ok, no one really takes you seriously anyway EverRespect.

It is very applicable. They redifined the word "state" in a piece of legislation that is a few years old and we all damn well know the intent. That word appears all over the constitution. Every other supreme court in history would have sent it back to congress with the changes to vote on.

(06-30-2015 12:34 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not really applicable, but that's ok, no one really takes you seriously anyway EverRespect.

It is very applicable. They redifined the word "state" in a piece of legislation that is a few years old and we all damn well know the intent. That word appears all over the constitution. Every other supreme court in history would have sent it back to congress with the changes to vote on.

Every other supreme court also didn't have the precedent that this court does.

(06-30-2015 12:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with UCF, what a crock of total ignorant bull****.

Bless his heart

How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Your 'evidence' consists of two conclusory statement. That isn't a real strong position.

The Court only looks at what there best of the government turns out. It has no "power of originality."

It has no power to legislate, yet it did. I suppose they nullified the 10th Amendment as well. The new language is:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States (or federal govenment), are reserved to the States (or federal government) respectively, or to the people.

That's another conclusory statement.

I agree with your opinion on their ruling but I do not agree with your overall conclusion.

The Court doesn't operate like other parts of our government and everything is always up for reexamination.

Only because the court made it so and there are no checks on their power. Their job is to check the legislature and the states against the constitution as written. If the constitution is a living document that changes with the times, there is no reason for a supreme court. The societal changes are reflected in the legislation. What the court has done is not part of the social contract the founnding fathers set up.

(06-30-2015 12:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:34 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not really applicable, but that's ok, no one really takes you seriously anyway EverRespect.

It is very applicable. They redifined the word "state" in a piece of legislation that is a few years old and we all damn well know the intent. That word appears all over the constitution. Every other supreme court in history would have sent it back to congress with the changes to vote on.

Every other supreme court also didn't have the precedent that this court does.

And you finally get it. This isn't about Obamacare or gay marriage. It is about the precedent of a 2 lawless branches of government practicing rule by edict and judicial tyranny, both undermining the federal system that was set up to handle legislation.

(06-30-2015 01:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  How is that bullschit?

In the last week, the supreme court has:

1. Rewritten a piece of legislation for congress so that it threads the constitutional muster.

2. Amended the constitution through an opinion based on emotion, not law, thus nullifying Article V.

In the last year, the executive branch has proven it can rule by edict with no legal reprecussions.

Meanwhile, to the unwashed masses, the ends justify the means.

Doesn't sound like a healthy republic to me.

Your 'evidence' consists of two conclusory statement. That isn't a real strong position.

The Court only looks at what there best of the government turns out. It has no "power of originality."

It has no power to legislate, yet it did. I suppose they nullified the 10th Amendment as well. The new language is:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States (or federal govenment), are reserved to the States (or federal government) respectively, or to the people.

That's another conclusory statement.

I agree with your opinion on their ruling but I do not agree with your overall conclusion.

The Court doesn't operate like other parts of our government and everything is always up for reexamination.

Only because the court made it so and there are no checks on their power. Their job is to check the legislature and the states against the constitution as written. If the constitution is a living document that changes with the times, there is no reason for a supreme court. The societal changes are reflected in the legislation. What the court has done is not part of the social contract the founnding fathers set up.

The checks on their power occur before their action, not after. The checks are their jurisdictions and how the practice of law itself operates.

There job is more complex than merely checking a law against the Constitution. It's always been understood to be more than that.

While I do not agree with their ruling, which was not a well reasoned legal analysis by any stretch, I have to say that we waived bye bye to what the founding fathers intended in our government long ago.

If anything, the Court is the only institution left that operates as intended.

Both sides do similar pouting when they don't get their way.