Justice Scalia Says Something Stupid

Random said:
There were voting models where Gore would have won not counting the Jews of Palm Beach who had changed their minds about Hitler. But the number of erroneous votes in Palm Beach was such that even if you only assigned a fraction of them to Gore, Gore would have come out ahead under all the voting models. It is virtually undsiputed that more people in Florida went to bed that night thinking that had voted for Gore than Bush. But with no way of confirming what percentage of those votes were supposed to go to Gore, Buchanan got those votes.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that there were voting models awarding Florida to Gore that did not depend on trying to change actual votes in Palm Beach County based on this guesswork. I can't remember precisely. In any case, trying to correct the errors of the bad ballot design in Palm Beach County was a non-starter. That we'd have to live with under any circumstances.
 
hgc said:
I was under the impression that there were voting models awarding Florida to Gore that did not depend on trying to change actual votes in Palm Beach County based on this guesswork. I can't remember precisely. In any case, trying to correct the errors of the bad ballot design in Palm Beach County was a non-starter. That we'd have to live with under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

That's what I said, I think.
 
Brown said:
I have written length about what grotesque actions five members of the Supreme Court took in 2000
Click to expand...

Would I be way, way, way off, if I described what happened as a coup d'etat?

Beerina said:
IIRC, you could NOT get Gore to win no matter how you counted, unless you assume (which is quite reasonable logically) that most of the mistaken Pat Buchanan votes were actually for Gore.
Click to expand...

Although I have zero sympathy for Buchanan, I got to give him credit for coming out and say that he simply couldn't have gotten the votes he got in certain areas in Florida: There were too many blacks, and, as he freely admitted, he simply doesn't get blacks voting for him. The votes had to be for Gore.

A racist bigot he may be, but this time, he did show some integrity.
 
CFLarsen said:
Would I be way, way, way off, if I described what happened as a coup d'etat?
Click to expand...
No.

Although I have zero sympathy for Buchanan, I got to give him credit for coming out and say that he simply couldn't have gotten the votes he got in certain areas in Florida: There were too many blacks, and, as he freely admitted, he simply doesn't get blacks voting for him. The votes had to be for Gore.

A racist bigot he may be, but this time, he did show some integrity.
Click to expand...
It was Jews, not blacks.
 
I am not a lawyer and I believe Brown is so it is certainly more reasonable to assign more credibility to his views than mine, nonetheless I do disagree with at least some of Brown's conclusions on this matter.

The decision that decided that a partial recount was not acceptable was seven to two. I thought from the very beginning that this was the correct decision not only by the federal supreme court but by the state supreme court as well. At least part of this problem was caused when the Florida supreme court made the decision to allow selected recounts to mitigate a problem that was an issue with every county that used the punch card ballots.

The five to four decision is the one that ended the possibility of recounts based on the argument that time had run out. This was a difficult decision and perhaps the biases of the judges came in to play when it was made.

But in fact the justices were correct. There was not time to develop the protocols for a procedure and to execute a procedure that was going to reliably sort out the results of an election for which even an infinite amount of time and money would produce an unambiguous answer. It is part of Democratic mythology that all that was involved was a simple hand count and somehow the evil supreme court stepped in to prevent democracy from being exercised. The reality is that the results of this election will never be known. All that we know with the expenditure of a great deal of time and money after the election is that it is conceivable that either candidate might have won depending on what criteria for a valid ballot had been used.

As an aside, I think it is almost certain that more people meant to voter for Gore than Bush when they cast their ballots in Florida.

And at least in the opinion of this normally Republican voter, I think we know that the country would have been enormously better off if Gore had won instead of Bush.
 
Puppycow said:
But unlike Roe v. Wade, this decision couldn't even be reversed. I don't agree with it (I voted for Gore) but I don't see much point in revisiting it any more.

BTW, do those ballots still exist? Will it ever be possible to do a definitive recount that will give an indisputable answer, even if only for historical understanding, or will we forever be left with that lingering doubt in the back of our national consciousness?
Click to expand...
There is no doubt - the ballots you speak of were only a small part of what was done.:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Ian Osborne said:
Is there a 'correct' way to count them? All of those things are indicative of the voters' intentions, though I could understand an impression on the paper might not be enough to qualify as a vote. Surely ballots with a clean hole and those with a hole with a flap attached are treated the same, though?
Click to expand...
No - that's why the flap over the stupidity of hanging/pregnant chads (the flap) nade Florida a laughington-stock for a few years.:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
davefoc said:
But in fact the justices were correct. There was not time to develop the protocols for a procedure and to execute a procedure that was going to reliably sort out the results of an election for which even an infinite amount of time and money would produce an unambiguous answer.
Click to expand...

No. It was the time to follow the established legal guidelines laid out by Florida law. That is what the SCOTUS prevented with their 5 to 4 ruling.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
No. It was the time to follow the established legal guidelines laid out by Florida law. That is what the SCOTUS prevented with their 5 to 4 ruling.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

How much time was left for the recount if the decision had gone the other way?

Part of my statement, I think you might agree, was absolutely right. Any recount was unlikely to produce a more reliable result as to which candidate had the highest number of legal ballots cast for them.

Did state rules exist for this situation? It seems like some state rules had already been put aside with regard to this situation when the original date for the ending of recounts was moved.

None of this is to say I completely disagree with you. The 5-4 decision was the most questionable from my perspective and perhaps a completely unbiased court would have let the recount go through. Still I think there is another significant argument to be made here which is that the outcome of the election based on the first count was about as reliable as flipping a coin to see who won. And if there was not time or expertise available to provide a more reliable recount than the first counts has modified by the additional counts was it fair to the first winner of the coin flip to allow a second coin flip?
 
davefoc said:
How much time was left for the recount if the decision had gone the other way?
Click to expand...

That is one of the major problems I have with that (s)election. Yes, there is a deadline, but...really: We are talking about probably the most influential election in the world. It isn't just a question of who the 'Mericans get as their President, the outcome has tremendous impact on the rest of the world.

Given that, throw in whatever resources are necessary. Screw the expenses, screw the man-hours. But find the right answer. It's important. OK?

The Defenders of the Free World don't want to spend whatever is necessary to find the elected candidate? You muck about like a boy fumbling with a bra for the first time? Gee...should the rest of the world take the biggest free election in the world as lightly as you guys seemed to take it?

Pardon me for, once again, kicking your collective groins shins, but...do it right. Please. Don't make a mockery of what you believe in.
 
Brown said:
This story from AP and Yahoo reports that some members of the Supreme Court are "defending" their actions in the decisions in Bush vs. Gore. As of this writing, there has never been a coherent defense of the Court's granting of the stay and subsequently awarding the election to Bush. There has never been a formal explanation from the Court or from any of the justices as to why years and years of precedent were simply ignored in order to reach the five members' desired result.

I have written length about what grotesque actions five members of the Supreme Court took in 2000, and I will not repeat them. For those who are interested in details, I recommend The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, by Vincent Bugliosi.

In any event, Justice Scalia "defended" his part in this grotesque saga with the following:This is a really, really stupid thing to say. And coming from him, it is hypocritical in the extreme.

Imagine one felt that one or more Supreme Court decisions stunk to high heaven. The decisions were fundamentally flawed, inconsistent with pre-exiting law, and simply rotten jurisprudence. "Get over it" is the wrong attitude to take.

Certainly those who are result-oriented right-wingers (which arguably include Scalia himself) have not "gotten over" Roe vs. Wade. They haven't "gotten over" several decisions that uphold the Establishment Clause or limit the death penalty or protect freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments a few months ago in abortion-related cases. Suppose Justice Scalia had questioned the constitutional basis for abortion rights during oral argument, and in response, suppose an advocate said, "Justice Scalia, Roe vs. Wade decided that issue. Get over it." Would that be a proper thing to say to a justice?

As a matter of fact, it would be a very rude and foolish thing to say. (It would almost certainly subject any advocate to disciplinary action who said such a thing to any member of the bench.)

I submit that if "Get over it" is a rude and foolish thing for a citizen to say to a justice, it is a rude and foolish thing for a justice to say to a citizen.
Click to expand...

I never realised the situation was so bad. The way you put it, rule of law was basically suspended without explanation, so that a presidential candidate they favoured would win the election. Instead of following legal process, they concocted a judgement, with no explanation or basis in law.

Modern, democratic civil society was created on the basis of openness, accountability and rule of law. To undermine that whenever it is deemed necessary means that the legal system as a whole is compromised. To say 'get over it' means much more than just the election, it means ignoring a fatal compromising of the legal system at it's most important levels of functioning. To laugh at the prospect of that just conjures up images of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.


That is what those who say if the recount of the state was done, Bush would have won anyhow, so it doesn't matter, just don't understand. If Bush did win, according to the rules and laws of holding an election, then that's what happened. But that isn't what happened. Those wanting him to win, ensured his win was proclaimed, by other illegal means.
 
a_unique_person said:
Even activist judges give a reason for their judgement. In this case, there wasn't even that, apparently.
Click to expand...
Go back to oppressing abos, will you please? There was an intelligent conversation going on, at one point. Please don't dilute it.

DR
 
daredelvis said:
No. It was the time to follow the established legal guidelines laid out by Florida law. That is what the SCOTUS prevented with their 5 to 4 ruling.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...


Wasn't that part of the problem though. I seem to recall florida didn't have guidelines for counting questionable votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom